The Effect of Organic Label Pricing on Consumers’
Self-Esteem and Self-Concept
Alexandra Pavlick
Faculty of Economics and Business
Master Thesis
Completion Date: June 10 2014
Address: Kleine Bergstraat 30A, Groningen, 9717 NC Email: a.pavlick@student.rug.nl
The Effect of Organic Label Pricing on Consumers’
Self-Esteem and Self-Concept
Alexandra Pavlick
S2287447
Management Summary
This research investigated the extent to which one’s self-concept (individual attitudes and values) moderates the relationship between choosing a higher priced product with an organic label and one’s self-esteem. If a consumer is high in biospheric values and behaves consistently with these values, self-esteem may be enhanced through reinforcement of the self-concept. Hypothesis 1 predicted that participants’ self-esteem will be positively influenced by the purchase of an organic coffee than the conventionally produced coffee, and the extent to which consumers will experience high self-esteem will be moderated by the individual importance of biospheric values. It has been suggested that engaging in pro-social, altruistic behaviors that incur personal costs will result in more self-concept enhancement than a non-costly behavior would. Hypothesis 2 predicted that if biospheric values are high, a higher priced organic coffee relative to the conventionally produced coffee will produce higher self-esteem than if both types of coffee are priced the same.
The design used was a 2 (organic coffee x conventional coffee) by 2 (high organic price x same price) between subjects design. Participants completed the experiment online, where they saw identical packages of coffee that were either the same price or that showed the organic coffee being more expensive and they had to choose which one they would pick in a supermarket situation. Participants then filled in a survey, which measured their biospheric values, frequency of environmentally friendly behaviors, willingness to sacrifice (for the benefit of the environment) and self-esteem.
In the condition where the organic coffee was priced higher, 34% of participants chose the organic coffee, and 66% of participants chose the conventionally produced coffee. In the condition where both types of coffee are priced the same, 76% of participants chose the organic coffee, and 24% of participants chose the conventionally produced coffee. Price had an effect on which coffee type chosen by participants. Pearson correlation showed a significant positive correlation between coffee choice and biospheric values and willingness to sacrifice, which indicates that the higher the participant’s biospheric values, the higher the likelihood of choosing an organic coffee.
being an environmentally friendly person. When participants chose the conventionally produced coffee, biospheric values explain much less variability in response data, perhaps because biospheric values are not as influential in the consumer’s self-concept, and therefore have a much smaller impact on self-esteem. These results were also found with the frequency of environmentally friendly behavior scale and willingness to pay. These results support Hypothesis 2, because when participants chose the higher priced organic coffee relative to the conventionally produced coffee, their self-esteem was positively influenced. Because the interaction effects between biospheric values and coffee price condition on self-esteem were insignificant in the organic coffee choice condition, Hypothesis 1 and 2 remain partially supported.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction………..5
Product attributes and consumer behavior……….5
The self-concept and consumer behavior………..6
Literature Review………..7
Habits and heuristics………....7
The self-concept………...8
The self-concept and individual values………...8
The self-concept and self esteem………....9
Conceptual Model………...12
Method…..………...….12
Research design……….……...12
Materials………..13
Plan of analysis………...………..14
Results………...15
Pearson Correlation……….………..15
Linear Regression……….………...16
Discussion………...23
Implications of study………..26
Limitations and directions for future research………...29
References………...31
Appendix………..36
A.1: Survey………...36
A.2: Statistical outputs………..41
Introduction
It is very likely that you have experienced the following scenario: while walking through the grocery store, you notice a wide selection of what appear to be the same product, but with different labels. Some shoppers walk down the aisle putting various products into their cart, almost mindlessly, while some are standing in front of the shelf reading the package labels intently. Do you select what you usually choose, perhaps out of habit? Do you take the time to read the various product labels to try and understand their various attributes? Why does one consumer opt for a product with an organic or fair trade label, while another decides to purchase a conventionally produced national brand? What is the driving force behind these seemingly unimportant, common purchasing decisions?
Product attributes and consumer behavior
Attributes of food products including nutritional value, product ingredients, the production process of the item and its effect on the environment are becoming increasingly important to many consumers (Torjusen, Lieblein, Wandel & Francis 2001). As it can be difficult to determine the quality of some products simply by looking at them, consumers may rely on heuristics such as label descriptions or the cost of the item in order to determine the quality of the product. Another important factor that can influence the perceptions of consumers regarding product value is the product’s price. Consumers often consider price as a reflection of quality, and sometimes view price discounts as a signal that the product is of inferior quality (Huber & McCann 1982). A large proportion of consumers believe that a generic, store bought brand label indicates lower quality due to its lower price point (Huber & McCann 1982). These product characteristics can influence how consumers evaluate a product as well as how much they consume, especially packaging attributes like labels (Bublitz, Peracchio & Block 2010). Many aspects of product labels act as a symbol, which may or may not be an accurate representation of the product. For example, an ethical label has been shown to make a product be perceived as being more flavorful (Lotz, Christandl, Fetchenhauer 2013), lower in calories, higher in nutritional value and can result in a higher willingness to pay (Lee, Shimizu, Kniffin & Wansink 2013). These symbols can have a large impact on consumer decision-making.
mental conception of who we are (Escalas & Bettman 2005; Thomson, MacInnis & Park 2005). Most people desire a positive self-concept, and are motivated to maintain consistency between their behavior and their self-concept to avoid negative affect (Bolderdijk, Steg, Geller, Lehman & Postmes 2012). With regard to buying behavior, social identify theory states that we select various products and brands based on how consistent they are with our identities and self-concept (Tajfel & Turner 1986). This shows that consumers are often irrational and their consumer behavior is often not explained using a financial cost-benefit analysis, but rather through motivations fueled by the maintenance of a positive self-concept. If a consumer considers himself environmentally conscious, for example, he may purchase products with organic labels to reinforce his self-concept to maintain this consistency and experience positive affect.
The self-concept and consumer behavior
are behaving altruistically for the benefit of the greater good. But to what extent do these individual attitudes influence purchase decisions, and what is the impact of these purchases on an individual’s self-concept?
This study is investigating the extent to which one’s self-concept (individual attitudes and values) moderates the relationship between choosing a higher priced product with an organic label and one’s self-esteem. In order to investigate this question thoroughly, the following questions need to be answered: if a consumer scores high on biospheric values, frequency of environmentally friendly behaviors and/or willingness to sacrifice, will he choose the organic coffee regardless if he has to incur higher costs to do so? Will paying a higher price for the organic product lead to higher self-esteem even among those who score low in these values? How much higher will the self-esteem be among participants who choose to incur costs to pay for the organic coffee than those in the same price condition?
Literature Review Habits and heuristics
Consumers often use heuristics and habits to make decision processes easier when confronted with an overwhelming amount of options. A habit is an effortless type of consumer decision-making characterized by little to no information seeking and little or no evaluation of alternatives (Khare & Inman 2006). Habits often involve repetitive behavior and regular purchase of low-involvement products. Because the consumer knows the product has performed satisfactorily in the past, this reduces the risk of making a wrong choice, and therefore customer motivation and involvement in the decision-making process decrease (Roselius 1971).
Marketers can use these habitual purchasing decisions to their advantage: familiarity has been
found to increase a consumer’s confidence toward a product, which increases the intention to purchase (and re-purchase) a familiar product or brand (Laroche et al 1996). It has been shown that up to 50% of all shopping decisions are the result of habits: these types of decisions are made unconsciously while consumers are in the store (Lindstrom 2008), and therefore can lead to relatively stable and predictable purchasing behavior (Bargh 2002).
the past) (Deshpande, Hoyer & Jeffries 1982; Kahn et al 1997). Consumers may rely on these types of heuristics in order to determine the quality of the product and ultimately make a purchasing decision.
The self-concept
The self-concept is defined as the mental perception of who we are. The positive self-concept motive (to enhance, protect or repair self-esteem) is a strong underlying driver of social behavior (Cialdini and Goldstein 2004), and the desire to maintain a positive self-concept can motivate people to conduct themselves in a moral fashion and to engage in pro-social behaviors. Because people strive to maintain consistency between their behavior and their self-concept (Bolderdijk et al 2012), the self-concept can also influence many consumer behaviors: according to social identity theory, we evaluate brands in terms of their consistency with our individual identities (Sirgy 1982). This theory states that the self-concept is defined in terms of actual identity schemas as well as ideal identity schemas, or a set of ideas about the identity we seek (Sirgy 1982). An actual identity schema could include seeing oneself as being friendly, environmentally conscious, or negative schemas such as overweight and lazy. Ideal identity schemas are identities we strive to achieve; common ideals include being popular, wealthy and successful. These two types of identity schemas can influence which products we use and the types of consumption behaviors we decide to engage in.
Products can help consumers achieve their ideal identities: organic and environmentally friendly products can help us achieve an eco-friendly identity. Products, as well as consumption behaviors, can help maintain our self-concept by demonstrating to others attributes that are important to our self-concept; for example, buying an organic product can signal to others that we are environmentally conscious consumers (Escalas & Bettman 2005; Thomson, MacInnis & Park 2005). In this way, individual values and ideal identities can influence purchasing behavior by reinforcing the self-concept.
The self-concept and individual values
reinforcement of a positive self-concept. Values are defined as desirable trans-situational goals varying in importance, which serve as a guiding principle in a person’s life (Schwartz 1992). Different types of values may influence various aspects of behavior, beliefs and preferences (Rohan, 2000). It is important to study values because they play a significant role in explaining specific attitudes, and can therefore be used as a predictor for various behavioral intentions (Stern 2000). Individual values have been shown to remain fairly consistent over time (Stern 2000) and are therefore a particularly reliable and relevant attribute to measure. Values influence what knowledge becomes cognitively accessible, how people evaluate aspects of a situation, what alternatives are being considered, and the importance given to different consequences of actions (Steg, Perlaviciute, van der Werff & Lurvink 2014). Values therefore play a large role in what people find important, the behaviors they engage in, and how people perceive themselves. Steg et al (2014) suggest that egoistic, altruistic, hedonic and biospheric values are most important when understanding environmental related beliefs that relate to the self-concept. People with an egoistic value orientation will behave in an environmentally friendly manner only when the perceived benefits exceed the perceived costs for them personally (De Groot & Steg 2008). In contrast, those with an altruistic value orientation will behave pro-environmentally based on the perceived benefits and costs for other people. Hedonic values emphasize improving one’s feelings while reducing effort. Biospheric values reflect a concern for the quality of the environment itself, without any reference to the welfare of human beings, and are positively related to pro-environmental beliefs, attitudes and behaviors (Steg et al 2014). Some consumers may purchase organic products because they have high biospheric values and/or they value their health, whereas others prefer to buy conventionally produced products due to high egoistic values, financial restraints or lack of concern for the potential consequences of doing so. In society we see how these basic individual values can play a large role in whether people engage in behaviors that are environmentally friendly or irresponsible (Crompton & Kasser 2009; Maio 2010). When a consumer high in biospheric values purchases environmentally friendly products, it may be to maintain this value-behavioral consistency. The self-concept and self-esteem
with these values, esteem may therefore be enhanced through reinforcement of the self-concept. With regard to environmentally friendly purchasing behavior, the extent to which consumers will experience improved self-esteem will be dependent on whether or not they feel good about behaving in an environmentally friendly manner (Lotz et al 2013). If the consumer does not believe they are providing any benefit for the environment they likely will not experience improved self-esteem by purchasing a product that claims it does so. This is why self-esteem is chosen as the dependent variable in this experiment. These arguments provide a foundation for Hypothesis 1A:
H1A: Participants’ self-esteem will be positively influenced by the purchase of an organic coffee relative to the conventionally produced coffee, and the extent to which consumers will experience high self-esteem will be moderated by the individual importance of biospheric values.
Despite having to incur higher personal costs, many people act in environmentally friendly ways, for example by recycling, reducing their energy consumption, paying higher prices for organic produce, and using public transport (Steg et al 2014). Bolderdijk et al (2012) showed that biospheric (environmental) motivators can be significantly more effective than economic motivators with regard to consumer behavior. This is likely due to the fact that people are highly motivated to maintain a positive self-concept, for example perceiving themselves as trustworthy, moral, or environmentally responsible. Similarly, people avoid behaviors that may compromise this positive self-concept: Gneezy et al (2012) found that consumers would rather not consume a product than pay a too low price and appear cheap, a negative attribute that may contradict one’s perception of a positive self-concept. Self-esteem can be positively influenced through these
types of behaviors that incur personal costs (Steg et al 2014). According to Stern et al (1999),
the frequency with which one engages in environmentally friendly behaviors will have a similar positive impact on self-esteem through the reinforcement of their self-concept. A similar effect can be seen when consumers are willing to sacrifice and incur costs through increased time and/or resources to behave in a manner that is consistent with their personal values and beliefs. These arguments provide a foundation for Hypothesis 1B and 1C:
experience high self-esteem will be moderated by the frequency of environmentally friendly behaviors.
H1C: Participants’ self-esteem will be positively influenced by the purchase of an organic coffee relative to the conventionally produced coffee, and the extent to which consumers will experience high self-esteem will be moderated by the willingness to sacrifice of the individual. Symbolic needs like status and reputation can enhance people’s self-concept by demonstrating positive attributes about the self to others, thereby reducing the risk of not being liked or accepted by others, which can negatively impact self-esteem.
Because environmentally friendly products are often relatively more expensive, this behavior may make the pro-social nature of the behavior more salient. A higher price for environmentally responsible products may actually stimulate consumers to behave sustainably: it demonstrates that the consumer is willing to incur higher costs for the benefit of the environment (Griskevicius et al 2010). According to a costly signaling perspective, these altruistic acts serve as a signal to others that one is a pro-social person who is able to incur costs through sufficient time and resources (Miller 2000; Griskevicius et al 2007). This suggests that engaging in pro-social, altruistic behaviors that incur personal costs will result in more self-concept enhancement than a non-costly behavior would, and these arguments lead to the formation of Hypothesis 2: H2: A higher priced organic coffee choice relative to the conventionally produced coffee will produce higher self-esteem than if both types of coffee are priced the same, and this effect will be moderated by the individual importance of biospheric values, frequency of environmentally friendly behaviors and willingness to sacrifice.
Conceptual model:
+
+
Method ParticipantsData was collected using online questionnaires distributed via email. The sample was collected using a ‘snowball’ chain sampling method (Malhotra 2009) to participants in Northern Holland and Western Canada. There were 117 valid participants (50 males, 67 females). 11 participants were excluded due to the survey being incomplete or a failed manipulation check. The average age of participants who completed the survey was 18 to 25 years of age (58.1%). 16.2% of participants were between 26 and 39 years of age; 20.5% of participants were 40 to 59 years of age; 5.1% of participants were over 60 years of age.
Research Design and Procedure
The design used was a 2 (organic coffee x conventional coffee) by 2 (high organic price x same price) between subjects design. The participants were divided randomly into two groups: control group (same price) and experimental group (high organic price). The participants themselves chose whether they were in the organic coffee choice condition or in the conventionally produced coffee condition in the first question of the survey. The participants in the
Higher Price Organic Choice Relative to
Regular Label
Self-Concept
(biospheric values, frequency of environmentally friendly behaviors,
willingness to sacrifice)
experimental group read a scenario describing the condition where the organic coffee is set at a 30% higher price of $5.20 (compared to $4.00 price of the conventionally produced coffee). A picture of two generic coffee packages were shown, identical but for the organic symbol and label on the organic coffee package. The control group read a scenario where the organically produced coffee and the conventionally produced coffee are priced the same ($4.00). Participants were asked which coffee they would choose in a supermarket style situation. A pre-study was conducted where fifteen people were asked if they would be willing to pay 30% more for an organic label coffee than a regular label coffee. This was done to ensure that this price difference is in fact noticeable to consumers and that consumers would be willing to pay this difference. After choosing which coffee they would choose in a supermarket style situation, participants then completed basic value surveys developed by Stern, Dietz, Abel, Guagnano and Kalof (1999) to measure frequency of environmentally friendly behaviors and willingness to sacrifice. Another value survey by De Groot and Steg (2014) was used to measure participant’s biospheric values. The experiment ended with participants being asked the above mentioned control variables, dependent variables and manipulation check questions.
Materials
seven-point scale (Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Somewhat Disagree, Neither Agree nor Disagree, Somewhat Agree, Agree, Strongly Agree). This scale was also developed by Stern et al (1999). Biospheric values had an α= 0.89 and included four items: it is important to respect the earth (M=7.62, SD=1.47), have unity with nature (M=6.74, SD=1.77), protect the environment (M=7.66, SD=1.35), and prevent pollution (M=7.53, SD=1.37). The items were measured using an eight point scale that ranged from -1 (Opposed to my principles), 0 (Not important) to 7 (Very important). This scale was developed by de Groot and Steg (2014). The dependent value scale of self-esteem had an α= 0.81 and included three items. The first item measured confidence in decision (M=1.93, SD=0.80), and was measured on a five point scale (Very confident, Confident, Neutral, Unsure, Very Unsure). The second item measured likelihood of making a different decision next time (M=1.94, SD=0.96), and was measured on a five point scale (Very Likely, Likely, Unsure, Unlikely, Very Unlikely). The third item asked ‘When thinking of your choice (organic or conventional label), how do you feel about yourself?’ (M=2.23, SD=0.94) and was measured on a five point scale (Very Positive, Positive, Neutral, Negative, Very Negative). These questions were written by the researcher in order to measure self-esteem regarding the coffee choice itself and not self-esteem in general.
The controls used in the survey include level of education completed, age, gender, geographic
background and gross yearly household income. There were two manipulation check questions
that asked participants which type of coffee they chose and whether their choice was more expensive, less expensive or the same price as the other option. This was asked to ensure that the participants were aware of which coffee they chose and the relative prices of each type of coffee
to ensure that the manipulation was successful. A copy of the exact survey and questions used
can be found in Appendix 1A.
Plan of Analysis
and the following self-esteem measure, that is, whether the higher priced organic coffee would in fact correlate with higher self-esteem. The results of the survey were analyzed using linear regression to test the interaction between price, coffee type choice and biospheric values (as well as frequency of environmentally friendly behaviors and willingness to sacrifice) with self-esteem. These three variables were regressed individually onto self-esteem, along with the experimental price condition. This was done to describe how much of the variance in the self-esteem measure can be explained by the three explanatory variables. This was done twice, once for an organic coffee choice data set and once for a conventional coffee choice data set. The regression was performed separately per coffee choice condition in order test the effect of an organic choice on self-esteem under different price levels and different levels of biospheric values. This would more clearly test how the interaction between biospheric values and/or coffee choice would influence self-esteem.
Results
Pearson Correlations
frequency of environmentally friendly behaviors (r=-0.398, p = 0.000). This indicates that the frequency with which participants perform environmentally behaviors was significantly related to their coffee type choice: the higher the frequency of environmentally friendly behaviors, the lower the occurrence of an organic coffee choice. This was an unexpected finding because environmentally friendly attitudes and behaviors (an organic coffee choice) were expected to occur synergistically. This result will be elaborated upon in the discussion section. There is a significant positive correlation between coffee choice and willingness to sacrifice (r=0.365, p = 0.000). This shows that willingness to sacrifice in order to benefit the environment has a significant positive relationship with coffee type choice. This indicates that willingness to sacrifice has a significant positive relationship with coffee type choice. There is no significant correlation between coffee price and self-esteem (r=0.075, p = 0.425). This shows that without biospheric values taken into account, product price alone is not related to self-esteem, supporting costly signaling theory.
Table 1 below gives a summary of the results of the average scores of the dependent variable of self-esteem and three predictor variable scores, per condition.
Condition N Average Self- Esteem (1=very high, 5=very low) Average Biospheric Values (10=very high, - 1=very low) Average Frequency of Env. Friendly Behaviors (1=very
low, 4=very high)
Average Willingness to Sacrifice (1=very low, 4=very high) Higher Organic Price x
Organic Choice 18 1.14 8.10 2.35 5.53
Higher Organic Price x
Conventional Choice 37 2.36 7.17 3.23 4.07
Same price x Organic
Choice 52 1.99 7.50 2.73 4.74
Same Price x
Conventional Choice 19 2.33 6.75 3.25 3.78
Table 1: Condition, dependent variable, predictor variable results Linear Regression
the dependent variable, we find that the interaction between biospheric values and coffee choice positively influences self-esteem (B=-3.021, t=-5.355, p=0.000), as does coffee choice condition (B=2.056, t=4.500, p=0.000) and biospheric values (B=1.226, t=4.725, p=0.000). These results are shown in Graph 1 and provide support for Hypothesis 1A (participants’ self-esteem will be positively influenced after the purchase of an organic coffee than the conventionally produced coffee, and this positive relationship will be moderated by the individual importance of biospheric values) because higher biospheric values positively influence self-esteem, and an organic coffee choice has a positive relationship with self-esteem if biospheric values are high.
Graph 1:The effect of coffee choice on self-esteem using biospheric values as a predictor variable.
higher the frequency of environmentally friendly behaviors, the higher the participant’s self-esteem measure after choosing the organic coffee. This is supported by the literature regarding the self-concept, which states if one is performing behaviors that are environmentally friendly because they consider themselves conscious of the environment, performing behaviors consistent with this self-concept will reinforce it and result in an increase in self-esteem. These results are shown below in Table 1.
Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients 95,0% Confidence Interval for B Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig. Lower Bound Upper Bound (Constant) 16,756 3,982 4,208 ,000 8,867 24,646 CoffeeChoice -7,473 2,116 -1,614 -3,532 ,001 -11,666 -3,281 FreqBehavior -,676 ,308 -,882 -2,195 ,030 -1,287 -,066 1 FreqBehavxChoice ,507 ,167 1,436 3,033 ,003 ,176 ,838
a. Dependent Variable: DVSelfEsteem
Table 2: The interaction of frequency of environmentally friendly behaviors and coffee choice regressed onto self-esteem.
Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients 95,0% Confidence Interval for B Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig. Lower Bound Upper Bound (Constant) ,965 2,259 ,427 ,670 -3,510 5,441 CoffeeChoice 4,424 1,405 ,960 3,149 ,002 1,640 7,209 WillingSacrifice ,878 ,265 1,004 3,315 ,001 ,353 1,403 1 WillSacrificexChoice -,662 ,156 -2,077 -4,250 ,000 -,971 -,353
a. Dependent Variable: DVSelfEsteem
Table 3: The interaction of willingness to sacrifice and coffee choice regressed onto self-esteem. Choice: Organic coffee
In order to test whether biospheric values and coffee price condition would affect self-esteem, a regression analysis was performed with biospheric values and coffee price condition regressed onto self-esteem. The regression analysis was significant (R²=0.438, F=24.923, p=0.000). This indicates that biospheric values influences self-esteem (B=-0.406, t=-4.228, p=0.000), as does coffee price coffee price condition (B=0.440, t=4.572, p=0.00) when participants chose the organic coffee. These findings provide support for Hypothesis 1A: participants’ self-esteem was positively influenced by the organic coffee choice as well as the individual importance of biospheric values (R²=0.438). This relationship also provides support for Hypothesis 2 (when biospheric values are high, a higher priced organic coffee relative to the conventionally produced coffee will result in higher self-esteem than if both types of coffee are priced the same) because coffee price condition influences self-esteem. That is, when participants chose the higher priced organic coffee relative to the conventionally produced coffee, their self-esteem was positively influenced.
is not significant, however there is a relationship between biospheric values and coffee choice condition influence self-esteem. Hypothesis 2 is not supported, as the interaction effect was insignificant. However, there is a relationship between a higher priced organic coffee and a higher self-esteem when biospheric values are high.
In order to test whether frequency of environmentally friendly behavior and coffee price condition would affect self-esteem, a regression analysis was performed with frequency of environmentally friendly behavior and coffee price condition regressed onto self-esteem. The regression analysis was significant (R²=0.456, F=26.874, p=0.000). This indicates that frequency of environmentally friendly behavior influences self-esteem (B=0.428, t-4.548, p=0.000) as does coffee price condition (B=0.442, t=4.699, p=0.000) when participants chose the organic coffee. Participants’ self-esteem was positively influenced by the organic coffee choice as well as by the frequency of environmentally friendly behaviors, in support of Hypothesis 1B.
A regression analysis was performed with frequency of environmentally friendly behavior, coffee price and their interaction variable regressed onto self-esteem to further test these results. The regression analysis was significant (R²=0.464, F=18.146, p=0.000). The interaction effect between frequency of environmentally friendly behavior and coffee price condition does not significantly influence self-esteem (B=0.549, t=0.912, p=0.365), nor does frequency of environmentally friendly behavior (B=0.026, t=0.057, p=0.955) or coffee price condition (B=0.151, t=0.455, p=0.651) when participants chose the organic coffee. These results lend no support to Hypothesis 1B as the predictor variables do not predict self-esteem, though there is a relationship between these variables and participant’s self-esteem.
In order to test whether the interaction between willingness to sacrifice (for the benefit of the environment) and coffee price condition would affect self-esteem, a regression analysis was performed with willingness to sacrifice, coffee price and their interaction variable regressed onto self-esteem. The regression analysis was significant (R²=0.443, F=16.466, p=0.000). The interaction between willingness to sacrifice and coffee price condition does not significantly influence self-esteem 0.326, t=-0.499, p=0.619), nor does willingness to sacrifice (B=-0.165, t=-0.303, p=0.763), or coffee price condition (B=0.667, t=1.239, p=0.220) when participants chose the organic coffee. Hypothesis 1C is not supported, because willingness to sacrifice does not moderate the relationship between organic coffee price condition and the participant’s self-esteem.
Choice: Conventionally produced coffee
produced coffee. These results provide support for Hypothesis 1A, because biospheric values explain much less variability in response data (R²=0.180) in this conventionally produced coffee choice condition in comparison to the organic choice condition (R²=0.459). This indicates that biospheric values and coffee price condition do not effect self-esteem significantly after choosing conventionally produced coffee because it is a product that does not allow the consumer to reinforce his environmentally friendly self-concept.
To further test these main results, a regression analysis was performed with frequency of environmentally friendly behavior and coffee price condition regressed onto self-esteem. The regression analysis was not significant (R²=0.024, F=0.543, p=0.585). This indicates that the frequency of environmentally friendly behaviors does not significantly influence self-esteem (B=-0.15, t=-1.018, p=0.314), and neither does coffee price condition (B=-0.034, t=-0.232, p=0.818) when participants chose the conventionally produced coffee. In order to test whether the interaction between frequency of environmentally friendly behavior and coffee price condition would affect self-esteem, a regression analysis was performed with frequency of environmentally friendly behavior, coffee price and their interaction variable regressed onto self-esteem. The regression analysis was not significant (R²=0.025, F=0.375, p=0.771). This indicates that the interaction between the frequency of environmentally friendly behaviors and coffee price condition does not significantly influence self-esteem (B=0.274, t=0.251, p=0.803), nor does frequency of environmentally friendly behaviors (B=-0.256, t=-0.573, p=0.570), and neither does coffee price condition (B=-0.286, t=-0.283, p=0.779) when participants chose the conventionally produced coffee. These findings support Hypothesis 1B, because frequency of environmentally friendly behaviors does not moderate the relationship between conventional coffee choice and subsequent self-esteem, as these behaviors do not support the self-concept of those who chose a conventionally produced coffee.
coffee price condition would affect self-esteem, a regression analysis was performed with willingness to sacrifice, coffee price and their interaction variable regressed onto self-esteem. The regression analysis was not significant (R²=0.065, F=1.012, p=0.397). Therefore, the interaction between willingness to sacrifice and coffee price condition does not strongly influence self-esteem (B=0.477, t=0.774, p=0.443), nor does willingness to sacrifice (B=-0.096, t=-0.217, p=0.829), or coffee price condition (B=-0.379, t=-0.751, p=0.456) when participants chose the conventionally produced coffee. These results provide support for Hypothesis 1C, because willingness to sacrifice does not moderate the relationship between conventional coffee choice and subsequent self-esteem, as willingness to sacrifice on behalf of the environment does not support the self-concept of those who chose a conventionally produced coffee.
Discussion
This study investigated the extent to which one’s self-concept (individual attitudes and values) moderates the relationship between purchasing products with organic labels and one’s self-esteem. If a consumer considers himself an environmentally responsible consumer, will he experience higher increases in self-esteem after the purchase of an organic product compared to a consumer who does not incorporate this value into his self-concept? If the organic product is more expensive than the conventionally produced product, would this lead to a more positive effect on the self-esteem of a consumer who is high in biospheric values?
A significant positive correlation between coffee choice and biospheric values/willingness to sacrifice was found, supporting the statement that biospheric values/willingness to sacrifice and coffee type choice have a significant relationship. The higher an individual’s biospheric values and willingness to sacrifice, the higher the likelihood of choosing an organic coffee. This was an expected finding and fits with the conceptual model.
positive main effect of coffee choice on self-esteem. These results provide support for Hypothesis 1A because when biospheric values are high, an organic coffee choice has a positive relationship with esteem because this decision positively reinforces the individual’s self-concept of being an environmentally friendly person. This is consistent with prior research that shows that self-esteem can be enhanced when people behave in a way that demonstrates positive attributes about themselves, which thereby reinforces their self-concept (Hoyer et al 2013). The hypothesis is only partially supported, as the interaction effect of coffee price condition and biospheric values in the organic coffee choice condition was insignificant. Hypothesis 1A is supported in the conventionally produced coffee choice condition: when participants chose the conventionally produced coffee, biospheric values explain much less variability in response data, especially in comparison to the organic choice condition. These results provide support for the model, because biospheric value levels are more important for predicting self-esteem in the organic coffee choice condition, whereas in the conventionally produced coffee choice condition, it appears that biospheric values are not as influential in the consumer’s decision, and therefore have a much smaller impact on self-esteem because these values cannot be expressed when choosing a conventionally produced coffee. This also likely explains why the interaction effect between coffee price condition and biospheric values in the conventionally produced coffee choice condition was insignificant.
self-esteem in the conventionally produced coffee choice. According to the conceptual model, this result is observed due to a lack of self-concept reinforcement, as environmentally friendly behaviors are likely not as important to the participant. This result may have also occurred because of the item scales: avoiding purchasing from companies who may be harming the environment and recycling often are not as conspicuous as purchasing organic products from the grocery store. Because people may believe that others are not acknowledging their environmentally friendly behaviors, this may be a reason why this scale did not result in an increase in self-esteem.
interaction effect between coffee price condition and biospheric values in the organic price condition was insignificant, there is a relationship between a higher priced organic coffee and a higher self-esteem when biospheric values are high, shown by a significant result when biospheric values and coffee price condition were regressed onto self-esteem. When participants chose the higher priced organic coffee relative to the conventionally produced coffee, their self-esteem was positively influenced.
There was no significant correlation found between coffee price and self-esteem, which lends support to the statement that without biospheric values taken into account, product price alone is not related to self-esteem. The individual must include being environmentally conscious into their self-concept or price does not have an influence on subsequent self-esteem after the purchase of a more expensive organic product. This finding is consistent with prior research of costly signaling theory, which suggests that altruistic acts serve as a reinforcement of the self-concept as well as a public signal that one is a pro-social person and that they have the willingness, time and resources to be able to incur costs for the benefit of others (Miller 2000; Griskevicius et al 2007).
Implications of study
by others are more likely to maintain a positive self-concept than not following norms, which may lead to social punishment or isolation. An example of how marketers can use norms to influence environment related behavior is shown in a study by Goldstein, Cialdini and Griskevicius (2008): hotels that displayed signs that included normative appeals like “The majority of guests in this room reuse their towels,” were most effective in encouraging environmentally friendly behavior. In this way, marketers can use social norms to increase consumers’ environmentally friendly behavior. In the case of organic products, the packaging could clearly state that most people believe it is important to protect the environment and consumers can support the cause through the purchase of organic products.
An important factor that is in marketers’ control concerns product labels and the amount of product information initially given to consumers. While it is important to emphasize the environmentally friendly nature of the product, there have been conflicting results in the research regarding the amount of product information that should be provided (Johnson & Russo
1984). Some researchers have found that providing substantial amounts of package information
extremely vigilant when deciding upon the type and amount of information that is provided to consumers regarding organic products. Marketers can inform consumers of how their eco-friendly purchase will help the environment, this may increase organic sales, as it has been shown that environmentally conscious behaviors are most likely to occur when consumers perceive that their actions will make a difference, a phenomenon called perceived consumer effectiveness (Ellen, Wiener & Cobb-Walgren 1991). For example, the packaging could state how much less pollution would be emitted if a person/population of people were to switch to consuming environmentally friendly, organic products.
hypothesis is contradictory of the costly signaling theory, which states that the organic product should be more expensive to highlight the fact that consumers are acting pro-socially for the greater good, which should have a positive influence on self-esteem. Different types of consumers could be targeted depending on their biospheric values: those with strong biospheric values should be exposed to expensive organic products, which will reinforce their self-concept and increase their self-esteem. The low cost hypothesis suggests that to encourage consumers low in biospheric values to choose organic products, the personal cost of the shopper should be minimized, and therefore the price should be the same as a conventionally produced product. Another way to reduce personal costs is to provide consumers with incentives to conserve with tax credits instead of higher taxes. The lower the pressure of costs associated with the association, the more likely it will be that these types of consumers will cooperate and transform their prior attitudes and behaviors. This segmentation could be achieved in different types of shops; an organic foods market should keep their prices high, while a budget supermarket should try and keep the cost between an organic product and a conventionally produced product as similar as possible. These suggestions provide powerful suggestions and implications to marketers of environmentally friendly products and services
Limitations and directions for further research
was distributed online, participants cannot be monitored and it can never be assumed that participants are being genuine or attentive to the survey questions.
There was a significant negative correlation between coffee choice and frequency of environmentally friendly behaviors, which indicates that the higher the frequency with which participants perform environmentally behaviors, the less likely they will choose an organic coffee type. This unexpected result is perhaps due to the items that the scale was measuring. These items were asking the frequency with which participants recycled, bought cleaning products that were environmentally friendly, and avoided purchasing products from companies who may be harming the environment. There was only one item that mentioned organic food products. Perhaps the scale measured a different aspect of environmentally friendly behavior that more accurately measured participants’ attitudes toward recycling and purchasing environmentally damaging products, instead of their motivations regarding consuming organic and healthy food products.
would test whether the costly signaling hypothesis would be confirmed in the organic market, where shoppers are likely high in biospheric values and would experience a reinforcement of their self-concept after incurring the cost of a higher grocery bill. This situation would also test the low cost hypothesis in the budget supermarket where consumer’s biospheric values are likely lower than those shopping in an organic supermarket, and would be more likely to choose organic products if personal costs are low to none.
References:
Aknin, L. B., Barrington-Leigh, C. P., Dunn, E. W., Helliwell, J. F., Burns, J., Biswas-Diener, R., Kemeza, I., Nyende, P., Ashton-James, C. E., & Norton, M. I. (2013). Prosocial Spending and Well-being: Cross-cultural Evidence for a Psychological Universal. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104, 4, 635-652.
Asch, S.E. (1955). Opinions and Social Pressure. Scientific American, 193, 31-35.
Bargh, J. (2002). Losing Consciousness: Automatic Influences on Consumer Judgment, Behavior, and Motivation. Journal of Consumer Research, 29, 280-285.
Bolderdijk, J.W., Steg, L., Geller, E.S., Lehman, P.K. & Postmes, T. (2012). Comparing the Effectiveness of Monetary Versus Moral Motives in Environmental Campaigning. Nature Climate Change, December 9.
Bublitz, M.G., Peracchio, L.A., & Block, L.G. (2010). Why Did I eat That? Perspectives on Food Decision-making and Dietary Restraint. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 20, 239-258. Cialdini, R.B., & Goldstein, N.J. (2004). Social influence: Compliance and Conformity. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 591-621.
Crompton, T., & Kasser, T. (2009). Meeting Environmental Challenges: The Role of Human
Identity. Goldaming, UK: WWK-UK.
De Groot, J. I. M., & Steg, L. (2007). Value Orientations and Environmental Beliefs in Five Countries: Validity of an Instrument to Measure Egoistic, Altruistic and Biospheric Value Orientations. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 38, 318-332.
Deshpande, Hoyer, & Jeffries. (1982). Low Involvement Decision Processes: The Importance of Choice Tactics. Marketing Theory: Philosophy of Science Perspectives. Chicago: American Marketing Association.
Diekmann, A., & Preisendorfer, P. (2003). Green and Greenback: The Behavioral Effects of Environmental Attitudes in Low-cost and High-cost Situations. Rationality and Society, 15, 441-472.
Diener, R., Kemeza, I., Nyende, P., Ashton-James, C., & Norton, M.I. (2013). Prosocial Spending and Well-Being: Cross-Cultural Evidence for a Psychological Universal. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104, 4, 635–652.
Ellen, P.S., Wiener, J.L., & Cobb-Walgren, C. (1991). The Role of Perceived Consumer Effectiveness in Motivating Environmentally Conscious Behaviors. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing: Fall, 102-117.
Fazio, R.H., Powell, M.C. & Williams, C.J. (1989). The Role of Attitude Accessibility in the Attitude-to-Behavior Process. Journal of Consumer Research, December, 280- 288.
Gneezy, A., Imas, A., Brown, A., Nelson, L.D., & Norton, M.I. (2012). Paying to be Nice: Consistency and Costly Prosocial Behavior. Management Science, 58, 1, 179-187.
Goldstein, N.J., Cialdini, R.B., & Griskevicius, V. (2008). A room with a Viewpoint: Using Social Norms to Motivate Environmental Conservation in Hotels. Journal of Consumer Research, October, 472-482.
Griskevicius, V., Tybur, J. M., Sundie, J. M., Cialdini, R. B., Miller, G. F., & Kenrick, D. T. (2007). Blatant Benevolence and Conspicuous Consumption: When Romantic Motives Elicit Strategic Costly Signals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 85–102.
Griskevicius, V., Tyber J.M., & Van den Bergh, B. (2010). Going Green to Be Seen: Status, Reputation and Conspicuous Conservation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 3, 392-404.
Hoyer, W.D., MacInnis, D.J., & Pieters, R. Consumer Behavior (2013). 6th edition. Mason, Ohio: South-Western Cengage Learning.
Huber, J. & McCann, J. (1982). The Impact of Inferential Beliefs on Product Evaluations. Journal of Marketing Research, 19, 324-33.
Jacoby, J., Speller, D.E., & Berning, C.K. (1974). Brand Choice Behavior as a Function of Information Load: Replication and Extension. Journal of Consumer Research, 1, 33-42. Johnson, E.J. & Russo, E. J. (1984). Product Familiarity and Learning New Information. Journal of Consumer Research, 11, 542-550.
Kahn, B. E., Greenleaf, E., Irwin, J.R., Isen, A.M., Levin, I.P., & Luce M.F. (1997). Examining Medical Decision Making from a Marketing Perspective. Marketing Letters, 8, 361–75.
Keller, K.L. & Staelin, R. (1987). Effects of Quality and Quantity of Information on Decision Effectiveness. Journal of Consumer Research, 14, 200-13.
Khare, A & Inman, J.J. (2006). Habitual Behavior in American Eating Patterns: The Role of Meal Occasions. Journal of Consumer Research 32, 4, 567- 575.
Laroche, M., Kim, C., & Zhou, L. (1996). Brand Familiarity and Confidence as Determinants of Purchase Intention: An Empirical Test in a Multiple Brand Context. Journal of Business Research, 37, 115-20.
Lotz, S., Christandl, F., & Fetchenhauer, D. (2013). What is Fair is Good: Evidence of Consumers’ Taste for Fairness. Food Quality and Preference, 30, 2, 139-144.
Luchs, M.G., Naylor, R.W., Irwin, J.R., & Raghunathan, R. (2010). The Sustainability Liability: Potential Negative Effects of Ethicality on Product Preference. Journal of Marketing, 74, 18-31. Maimaran, M. & Wheeler, C.M. (2008). Circles, Squares, and Choice: The Effect of Shape Arrays on Uniqueness and Variety Seeking. Journal of Marketing Research, December, 731-740.
Maio, G. R. (2010). Mental Representations of Social Values. Advances in Experimental Social
Psychology, 42, 1-43.
Malhotra, N.K. (1982). Information Load and Consumer Decision Making. Journal of Consumer Research, 8, 419-430.
Lindstrom, M. (2008). Buyology: Truth aud Lies About Why We Buy. New York: Doubleday. Miller, G. F. (2000). The Mating mind: How Sexual Choice Shaped the Evolution of Human
Nature. New York: Doubleday.
Petty, R.E., Cacioppo, J.T. & Schumann, D.W. (1983). Central and Peripheral Routes to Advertising Persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research, September, 134-148
Rohan, M. J. (2000). A Rose by Any Name? The Values Construct. Personality and Social
Psychology Review, 4, 255-277.
Roselius, T. (1971). Consumer Rankings of Risk Reduction Methods. Journal of Marketing, January, 56- 61.
Schultz, P.W., Nolan, J.M., Cialdini, R.B., Goldstein, N.J., & Griskevicius, V. (2007). The Constructive, Destructive, and Reconstructive Power of Social Norms. Psychological Science, 18, 5, 429-434.
Schwartz, S.H. (1992). Universals in the Content and Structure of Values: Theoretical Advances and Empirical Tests in 20 Countries. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 1-65. Shiv, B., Carmon, Z., & Ariely, D. (2005). Placebo Effects of Marketing Actions: Consumers May Get What They Pay For. Journal of Marketing Research, 42, 4, 383-393.
Sirgy, J.M. (1982). Self-Concept and Consumer Behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, December, 287.
Steg, L., Perlaviciute, G., van der Werff, E., & Lurvink, J. (2014). The Significance of Hedonic Values for Environmentally Relevant Attitudes, Preferences and Actions. Environment and Behavior, 46, 2, 163-192.
Stern, P. C. (2000). Toward a Coherent Theory of Environmentally Significant Behavior.
Journal of Social Issues, 56, 407-424.
Stern, P.C., Dietz, T., Abel, T., Guagnano, G.A., & Kalof, L. (1999). A Value-Belief-Norm Theory of Support for Social Movements: The Case of Environmentalism. Human Ecology
Review, 6, 2, 81-97.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The Social Identity Theory of Intergroup Behavior: Psychology of Intergroup Relations, 7–24. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Thomson, M., MacInnis, D.J. & Park, C.W. (2005). The Ties That Bind: Measuring the Strength of Consumers’ Emotional Attachments to Brands. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 15, 1, 77-91.
Torjusen, H., Lieblein, G., Wandel, M., & Francis C.A. (2001). Food System Orientation and Quality Perception Among Consumers and Producers of Organic Food in Hedmark County, Norway. Food Quality and Preference, 12, 3, 207-216.
Intro
Please complete the following survey, answering the questions as honestly as possible. If at any point you do not want to answer a question, feel free not to do so. The survey takes approximately five minutes.
Experimental condition
Imagine that you are in a supermarket and you are looking to purchase a package of coffee. You decide to purchase the store brand, and notice that there is a conventionally produced package and a package with an organic label. The package with the organic label is 30% more expensive ($5.20) than the conventionally produced package ($4.00). Which type of coffee do you decide to buy?
Control condition
Questions taken from Stern, Dietz, Abel, Guagnano and Kalof 1999
Questions taken from De Groot & Steg 2014
Please circle the answer that applies to you.
What is the highest level of formal education you have completed? High School MBO, Trades Bachelor Degree Master Degree PhD
Please note your current age: 18-‐25 26-‐39 40-‐59 60+ Are you: Male Female
What country were you born in?
___________________________________________________________________________________
What country do you currently reside in?
___________________________________________________________________________________
At the beginning of the survey, did you choose the organic coffee or the conventionally produced coffee?
The organic coffee
The conventionally produced coffee
Was the coffee you chose more expensive, less expensive or the same price as the other type of coffee?
More expensive Less expensive
They were the same price
How confident do you feel that you made the right choice? Very confident Confident Neutral Unsure Very unsure
If given the opportunity to make a different decision, what is the likelihood that you would make the same decision?
Very likely Likely Unsure Unlikely Very unlikely
When thinking of your choice, (organic or conventional label), how do you feel about yourself? Very positive Positive Neutral Negative Very negative
A.2: Statistical Outputs
Age
Are you:
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Male 50 42,7 42,7 42,7 Female 67 57,3 57,3 100,0 Valid Total 117 100,0 100,0 Gender
Please note your current age:
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent 18-25 68 58,1 58,1 58,1 26-39 19 16,2 16,2 74,4 40-59 24 20,5 20,5 94,9 60+ 6 5,1 5,1 100,0 Valid Total 117 100,0 100,0 Reliability Statistics
Biospheric values (de Groot & Steg 2014)
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Alpha Cronbach's Alpha Based on
Item-Total Statistics Scale Mean if Item Deleted Scale Variance if Item Deleted Corrected Item-Total Correlation Squared Multiple Correlation Cronbach's Alpha if Item Deleted Biospheric1 21,93 15,530 ,810 ,692 ,841 Biospheric2 22,81 14,499 ,704 ,509 ,893 Biospheric3 21,90 16,524 ,800 ,700 ,848 Biospheric4 22,03 16,629 ,765 ,602 ,859
Frequency of environmentally friendly behavior: Stern, Dietz, Abel, Guagnano and Kalof 1999
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Alpha Cronbach's Alpha Based on
Willingness to sacrifice: Stern, Dietz, Abel, Guagnano and Kalof 1999
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Alpha Cronbach's Alpha Based on
Standardized Items N of Items ,731 ,735 2 Item Statistics Mean Std. Deviation N WillingCutStndrdsLife 4,95 1,363 116 WillPayProtEnv 4,09 1,555 116 Item-Total Statistics Scale Mean if Item Deleted Scale Variance if Item Deleted Corrected Item-Total Correlation Squared Multiple Correlation Cronbach's Alpha if Item Deleted WillingCutStndrdsLife 4,09 2,417 ,581 ,337 . WillPayProtEnv 4,95 1,858 ,581 ,337 .
Self-esteem: made by researcher
Reliability Statistics
Pearson Correlations
Correlation between condition and coffee choice
Correlations Condition CoffeeChoice Pearson Correlation 1 ,422** Sig. (2-tailed) ,000 Condition N 117 117 Pearson Correlation ,422** 1 Sig. (2-tailed) ,000 CoffeeChoice N 117 117
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Correlation between coffee choice and income
Correlations
CoffeeChoice Please estimate your yearly gross income: Pearson Correlation 1 ,138 Sig. (2-tailed) ,149 CoffeeChoice N 117 111 Pearson Correlation ,138 1 Sig. (2-tailed) ,149 Income N 111 111
Coffee choice and Biospheric values
Correlations CoffeeChoice BiosphericValue s Pearson Correlation 1 ,235* Sig. (2-tailed) ,011 CoffeeChoice N 117 117 Pearson Correlation ,235* 1 Sig. (2-tailed) ,011 BiosphericValues N 117 117
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
Coffee choice and frequency of environmentally behaviors Correlations CoffeeChoice FreqBehavior Pearson Correlation 1 -,398** Sig. (2-tailed) ,000 CoffeeChoice N 117 117 Pearson Correlation -,398** 1 Sig. (2-tailed) ,000 FreqBehavior N 117 117
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Coffee choice and willingness to sacrifice
Correlations CoffeeChoice WillingSacrifice Pearson Correlation 1 ,365** Sig. (2-tailed) ,000 CoffeeChoice N 117 116 Pearson Correlation ,365** 1 Sig. (2-tailed) ,000 WillingSacrifice N 116 116
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Correlation between coffee price and self-esteem
Linear Regression
Linear regression using full data set
Coffee choice, biospheric values, biovalues*choice regressed on self esteem:
Model Summaryb
Model R R Square Adjusted R
Square
Std. Error of the Estimate
1 ,569a ,323 ,305 1,913
a. Predictors: (Constant), BioValxChoice, BiosphericValues, CoffeeChoice b. Dependent Variable: DVSelfEsteem
ANOVAa
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Regression 193,926 3 64,642 17,672 ,000b
Residual 406,021 111 3,658
1
Total 599,948 114
a. Dependent Variable: DVSelfEsteem
b. Predictors: (Constant), BioValxChoice, BiosphericValues, CoffeeChoice Coefficientsa Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients 95,0% Confidence Interval for B Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig. Lower Bound Upper Bound (Constant) -7,008 3,349 -2,092 ,039 -13,645 -,371 BiosphericValues ,543 ,115 1,226 4,725 ,000 ,315 ,770 CoffeeChoice 9,525 2,116 2,056 4,500 ,000 5,331 13,719 1 BioValxChoice -,380 ,071 -3,021 -5,355 ,000 -,521 -,240
a. Dependent Variable: DVSelfEsteem
Coffee choice, frequency of behavior, freqbehav*choice regressed on self esteem
Model Summaryb
Model R R Square Adjusted R
Square
Std. Error of the Estimate
1 ,529a ,280 ,260 1,973
a. Predictors: (Constant), FreqBehavxChoice, FreqBehavior, CoffeeChoice b. Dependent Variable: DVSelfEsteem
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Regression 167,766 3 55,922 14,363 ,000b
Residual 432,182 111 3,894
1
Total 599,948 114
a. Dependent Variable: DVSelfEsteem
b. Predictors: (Constant), FreqBehavxChoice, FreqBehavior, CoffeeChoice Coefficientsa Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients 95,0% Confidence Interval for B Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig. Lower Bound Upper Bound (Constant) 16,756 3,982 4,208 ,000 8,867 24,646 CoffeeChoice -7,473 2,116 -1,614 -3,532 ,001 -11,666 -3,281 FreqBehavior -,676 ,308 -,882 -2,195 ,030 -1,287 -,066 1 FreqBehavxChoice ,507 ,167 1,436 3,033 ,003 ,176 ,838
a. Dependent Variable: DVSelfEsteem
Coffee choice, willingness to sacrifice, willsacrifice*choice regressed on self esteem
Model Summaryb
Model R R Square Adjusted R
Square
Std. Error of the Estimate
1 ,545a ,297 ,277 1,943
a. Predictors: (Constant), WillSacrificexChoice, WillingSacrifice, CoffeeChoice
b. Dependent Variable: DVSelfEsteem ANOVAa
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Regression 175,066 3 58,355 15,460 ,000b
Residual 415,215 110 3,775
1
Total 590,281 113
a. Dependent Variable: DVSelfEsteem
Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients 95,0% Confidence Interval for B Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig. Lower Bound Upper Bound (Constant) ,965 2,259 ,427 ,670 -3,510 5,441 CoffeeChoice 4,424 1,405 ,960 3,149 ,002 1,640 7,209 WillingSacrifice ,878 ,265 1,004 3,315 ,001 ,353 1,403 1 WillSacrificexChoice -,662 ,156 -2,077 -4,250 ,000 -,971 -,353
a. Dependent Variable: DVSelfEsteem
Coffee choice: Organic coffee Biospheric values
Model Summaryb
Model R R Square Adjusted R
Square
Std. Error of the Estimate
1 ,662a ,438 ,420 1,606
a. Predictors: (Constant), Condition, BiosphericValues b. Dependent Variable: DVSelfEsteem
ANOVAa
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Regression 128,579 2 64,290 24,923 ,000b
Residual 165,092 64 2,580
1
Total 293,672 66
a. Dependent Variable: DVSelfEsteem
b. Predictors: (Constant), Condition, BiosphericValues Coefficientsa Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients 95,0% Confidence Interval for B Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig. Lower Bound Upper Bound (Constant) 7,057 1,663 4,245 ,000 3,735 10,378 BiosphericValues -,176 ,042 -,406 -4,228 ,000 -,259 -,093 1 Condition 2,115 ,462 ,440 4,572 ,000 1,191 3,039
a. Dependent Variable: DVSelfEsteem
