Printer Friendly

Is green product purchasing an innovative or conspicuous behavior?

Firms are increasingly providing eco-friendly products and/or adding eco-friendly features to existing products (Olson, 2013). However, despite these firms' efforts, consumers are still reluctant to buy eco-friendly products (Majid & Russell, 2015), and the green product market is growing at a slow rate (Borin, Cerf, & Krishnan, 2011). This inconsistency can be attributed to consumer perception of green products as less valuable but more expensive than nongreen commodities (Griskevicius, Tybur, & Van den Bergh, 2010; Majid & Russell, 2015). The green product market is unusual in that although consumers have not exhibited a clear preference for such commodities, firms have still tended to increase production.

These observations have driven researchers in psychology and marketing to examine consumer motivations for buying green products and paying premium prices. With regard to purchasing-related behaviors, scholars have found that perceived benefits, consumer knowledge about green products, and environmental concerns tend to positively influence green product consumption (e.g., Hartmann & Apaolaza-Ibanez, 2012; Rashid, 2009). Other scholars have indicated that environmental concerns, involvement in (perceived personal interests toward) green products, and the presence of eco-friendly labels on products, positively affect the intention to pay premium prices for such merchandise (e.g., Husted, Russo, Meza, & Tilleman, 2013; Vlosky, Ozanne, & Fontenot, 1999). However, equivocal patterns of results have been reported; for example, Chan (2001) and Rashid (2009) found that knowledge about the environment did not significantly influence purchasing intentions, whereas Griskevicius et al. (2010) reported that consumers' intention to buy green products increased only when they were aware of being watched as they purchase. Without such motivations (e.g., in online transactions), consumers were found to prefer to buy inexpensive nongreen products. Some of the reasons for this ambiguity in results may be that the motivation to buy green products differs across consumers and that personality may influence purchasing decision. However, few researchers have focused on the effects of consumer personality and/or characteristics on green product purchasing behaviors.

To expand understanding of eco-friendly product consumption, we investigated the relationship between personal traits and product consumption. Inter alia, we focused on the role of consumer innovativeness and public self-consciousness in decisions to purchase, and pay premium prices for, green products. This research direction is motivated by firms' tendency to market green products (e.g., eco-friendly cars and household electronic appliances) as being new and different, and the tendency of innovative consumers to purchase such products earlier than other consumers do (Lee & Mano, 2014). In addition, consumers consider how other people view them when they decide to purchase products/ services (Griskevicius et al., 2010). This consideration manifests itself as public self-consciousness. To examine the influence of innovativeness and self-consciousness, we conducted two experiments with two products--a car and mineral water--in both experiments, in South Korea.

Literature Review and Hypotheses Development

Green Product Purchasing Decision Making

Consumer innovativeness (i.e., innate innovativeness) refers to a "willingness to try new things" (Goldsmith & Hofacker, 1991, p. 209). Although consumer innovativeness is widely recognized as a trait that can affect innovative behaviors (e.g., early adoption of new products; Lee & Mano, 2014; Roehrich, 2004), this attribute has not been explored vis-a-vis green product consumption in the contemporary literature. We find this gap to be especially interesting considering that firms promote green products as a derivative of innovation (e.g., fuel-efficient vehicles, pencils made from recycled plastics, detergents made of eco-friendly chemicals). That is, as green products are newer and more innovative than nongreen products, consumers' decision to purchase may be motivated by consumer innovativeness. On the basis of the above, we proposed the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 1: Consumer innovativeness will have a positive influence on green product purchasing.

According to costly signaling theory, individuals engage in altruistic behaviors to send a signal about themselves to others (Gintis, Bowles, Boyd, & Fehr, 2003), such that altruistic behaviors tend to increase when individuals wish to project a high social status (Gintis et al., 2003). With regard to green product consumption, previous researchers indicated that numerous consumers bought a Toyota Prius (which consumes less fuel and helps preserve the environment) because a car makes a statement about their proenvironmental tendencies (Griskevicius et al., 2010). Additionally, consumers are more likely to buy green products when they are shopping in a physical store than in online shops because they are concerned about how they are perceived by others (Griskevicius et al., 2010). These findings indicate that the consumption of green products can relate to consumers' inclination to display their status; they also suggest that if consumers have different levels of inclination to demonstrate social status, then such traits may influence green product purchasing behaviors. A concept that can capture the aforementioned consumer characteristic is public self-consciousness, which is defined as an individual's inclination to be aware of the self as he/she is viewed by a third party (Simon, 2008). Consumers with high levels of public self-consciousness are more likely to be concerned about how they are viewed and evaluated by others (Fenigstein, Scheier, & Buss, 1975). As green product consumption is an altruistic behavior that can provide a positive, proenvironmental signal to others and/or show the social status of consumers (Griskevicius et al., 2010), we expected individuals with high levels of public self-consciousness to be more inclined to buy green products. Thus, we formed the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 2: Public self-consciousness will have a positive influence on green product purchasing.

As has been documented in the media (Darlin, 2010), a long line of consumers waits to buy the iPhone earlier than other people. Some of them appear to be delighted about obtaining the product and promote this achievement to the public through interviews with the media. Similar to this context, several scholars have indicated that innovators tend to focus more on their self-image than late adopters do, in order to maintain their perceived status as innovators (Goldsmith, Moore, & Beaudoin, 1999; Hellstrom, Hellstrom, & Berglund, 2002). In other words, compared with consumers who are highly innovative or highly publicly self-conscious, those who exhibit high levels of both innovation and public self-consciousness are more likely to buy green products because in doing so, they can fulfill their innate need to be innovative and project themselves as an innovator to others. We, thus, proposed the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 3: The interaction between public self-consciousness and consumer innovativeness will have a positive influence on green product purchasing.

Decision to a Pay Premium Price

On the basis of the above reasoning, public self-consciousness can affect green product purchasing decisions. That is, consumers tend to consider how others perceive them when they decide to buy green products (cf. Griskevicius et al., 2010). An important issue in relation to such considerations may be how clear the branding elements of a product are (e.g., logo, label, trademark) to people, particularly third-party individuals, to allow for recognition of a product as being green. Without these branding elements, consumers are not able to signal altruistic buying behaviors and exhibit their status as conscientious consumers. In addition, according to PR Newswire (2015), consumers perceive that green products are more expensive than nongreen products. Such premium pricing strategies seem to be successful, given that people evaluate and place others in a social context to a significant degree on the basis of the products that they consume, and because consumers are likely to pay premium prices for conspicuous consumption (Aaker, 2002) in the context of green product purchasing (Griskevicius et al., 2010). As previously stated, green products should act as signaling elements for consumers to be able to convey a message about prosocial behaviors, to gain extra psychological benefits from such appreciation, and to pay premium prices for the appreciation.

On the basis of this rationale, we expected that without a label that clearly conveys information about green products, the influence of public self-consciousness on green product purchasing decisions may not be statistically significant. Additionally, without the label, the influence of public self-consciousness on the decision to pay premium prices may not be significant if the quality and features of green and nongreen products are similar. Thus, we formed the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 4: In the absence of a green product logo, public self-consciousness will not have an influence on green product purchasing decisions.

Hypothesis 5: In the absence of a green product logo, public self-consciousness will not influence the decision to pay premium prices for green products that are more expensive than nongreen products.

Experiment 1

Method

Procedure. We conducted an experiment on mineral water and a car because consumers are familiar with these two products and because they differ considerably in price. For instance, firms promote their cars in terms of fuel consumption and the availability of new energy sources, such as electronics and hydrogen. Companies tend to highlight the eco-friendly aspects of their mineral water in their promotions. Examining the potential relationship between two products that differ in terms of involvement (i.e., personal interests) and price (average price is US$25,000 for a car and US$1 for mineral water) can enhance the generalizability of results and reveal unique relationships differentiated by the two products. In this study, participants were shown images of two variants of mineral water and a car, comprising an eco-friendly brand of mineral water/car and nongreen variants of these. To control for the influence of other features (e.g., price level and brand for both products, and design for the car), we explained that the green and nongreen products had the same price and that the green and nongreen car had the same design.

Participants. Participants were undergraduate students (n = 120 and 101 for the experiments on mineral water and a car, respectively) enrolled in two classes at a university in Korea. We asked the instructors of the classes to solicit respondents; however, these students participated voluntarily in the survey, taking part anonymously and at their own pace. Given that undergraduate students have low purchasing power, we provided scenarios to elevate their perception of purchasing power and asked the respondents to answer the items accordingly. The scenario was initially developed in English by Griskevicius et al. (2010), and sample statements in the scenario are as follows: "You have a job in an organization that you have desired to work for after graduation. Every morning, you start your work with freshly brewed coffee. You are neatly dressed and walk to your office in the high-rise building." To prepare the survey and the scenario in Korean, an individual who was fluent in Korean and English translated the items in the measure from English to Korean, and then another individual with proficiency in Korean and English was asked to back-translate the Korean version to English (Brislin, 1970). A third expert confirmed that there were no semantic differences between the two versions.

Measures. The participants were asked to rate the measures in this study (except for the intention to purchase green products) on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = highly unlikely to 5 = highly likely. We measured consumer innovativeness with the Kirton Adaption-Innovation Inventory (KAI; Kirton, 1976; [alpha] = .91) after excluding five items that reduce the reliability of the construct. We also used the Public Self-Consciousness Scale (PSC) developed by Fenigstein et al. (1975), with one item removed ([alpha] = .89). To identify a purchasing decision, we asked the respondents to select which one of the products (from the images of the green and nongreen products) they would buy on the basis of the provided product information.

Covariates. Researchers (e.g., Borin et al., 2011; Vlosky et al., 1999) have reported that involvement in green products can influence purchasing behaviors. Hence, we measured the latter construct with the scale developed by Vlosky et al. (1999) ([alpha] = .83). Researchers of green product purchasing (e.g., Chan, 2001; Rashid, 2009) have consistently argued that knowledge about the environment can affect purchasing behaviors; thus, we measured this variable with Chan's (2001) Clinical Learning Environment Inventory. We also examined demographic variables (i.e., disposable income and gender) that have been previously reported to influence purchasing behavior (Padel & Foster, 2005). These covariates were included in the analysis.

Validity. We conducted a factor analysis with varimax rotation to determine the validity of the perceptual measures of public self-consciousness, consumer innovativeness, and green product involvement. All items were loaded onto the predefined factors without cross loadings, and explained 81% of the overall variance, thereby confirming the validity of the measures. The measures' Cronbach's alphas were all higher than .80, indicating a high level of reliability (Nunnally, 1978). Table 1 shows the correlations among, and means and standard deviations of, the study variables.

Manipulation test. Given that the participants could potentially select a green or nongreen product without understanding the difference between the two, or make a decision on the basis of spurious reasons, we asked the respondents to explain their reasons for selecting the products. Sample reasons are "The product that I selected would be better for recycling," and "The product that I selected would produce less pollution." For both products, the individuals who selected a green product scored the items higher than they did the nongreen products ([M.sub.mineral water] = 4.570, [SD.sub.mineral water] = 1.317, t = -3.080, p < .001; [M.sub.car] = 4.755, [SD.sub.car] = 1.102, t = -2.025, p < .05). Thus, we believed that the participants recognized the characteristics of, and differences between, the products.

Results

We conducted logit analyses to validate the hypotheses, given that the dependent variable (purchasing decision) is categorical (0 for nongreen products and 1 for green products), whereas the independent variables are metric. We centered consumer innovativeness and public self-consciousness to reduce the risk of multicollinearity in the analysis of moderation effects. After the centering, the maximum variance inflation factor was 1.426, confirming that multicollinearity did not influence the results. In Table 2 the results of the logit analyses for the two products are presented. For both products, consumer innovativeness did not affect purchasing decision, which does not support Hypothesis 1. Public self-consciousness influenced the purchasing decision for mineral water but not the purchasing decision for a car; hence, the results partially support Hypothesis 2. Although the interaction between consumer innovativeness and public self-consciousness exerted no significant effect on the purchasing decision for mineral water, it did significantly influence the purchasing decision for a car. Contrary to our expectations, individuals with low public self-consciousness were more likely to select a green product (a car) as their level of consumer innovativeness increased (see Figure 1), whereas those with high public self-consciousness were less likely to select green products as their level of consumer innovativeness increased. These results do not support Hypothesis 3.

Discussion

The pattern of results in Experiment 1 extends understanding of green product consumption. First, consumer innovativeness alone did not consistently influence purchasing behaviors across the two products. These results can be attributed to the fact that although the hybrid cars considered in the experiment are newly launched, mineral water is not. Thus, consumers may not perceive mineral water brands with green logos as new products, thereby negating the influence of innovativeness on the purchasing decision. Furthermore, even if the hybrid car has been newly introduced, consumers may perceive that the car is not novel enough to fulfill their need to exhibit innovativeness. We measured consumer innovativeness with the KAI, which captures the innate attributes of a person. Similar to previous studies, wherein innate innovativeness as a personality trait minimally predicted innovative behaviors (Lee & Mano, 2014), our results in this research suggest that consumer innovativeness as a global trait is an insufficient driver of green product purchase. However, the results may vary if domain-specific innovativeness is used; this refers to a degree to which individuals tend to adopt a new product in a particular product domain (Goldsmith & Hofacker, 1991).

Second, in contrast to our hypothesis, the interaction between public self-consciousness and consumer innovativeness was found to negatively influence green product purchasing decision. As Figure 1 shows, for participants with high levels of public self-consciousness, the extent of green product purchasing decision decreased as consumer innovativeness increased, whereas for those with low levels of public self-consciousness, the extent of purchasing decision increased as consumer innovativeness rose. That is, public self-consciousness and consumer innovativeness can play opposing roles in green product purchasing decisions when the two internal characteristics work in conjunction as drivers of green product purchasing behaviors. Some previous researchers (e.g., Husted et al., 2013; Vlosky et al., 1999) have indicated that green product consumers are more likely to be environmentally conservative and, therefore, less likely to consider the issue of innovation when making purchasing decisions. It is also possible that the green car used in this study was not considered as a luxurious product; thus, although it was a green product, it could not fulfill consumers' public self-consciousness needs. Thus, future researchers should consider the different ways by which consumers can satisfy their public self-consciousness.

Experiment 2

Method

Overview. Similar to Experiment 1, we conducted an experiment on the same two products, using images of green and nongreen mineral water and cars. Participants were 82 undergraduate students (n = 49 and 33 for the experiments on mineral water and a car, respectively) from a university in Korea, who responded to the survey voluntarily and anonymously at their own pace. Respondents were provided with the scenario devised by Griskevicius et al. (2010) for elevating purchasing power. We controlled for the influence of other product features (e.g., brands for both products and design for a car). However, although we used images identical to those presented in Experiment 1, we excluded the green product logos to determine the effects of logos, and provided different sets of product information to differentiate the type of products. Thus, the participants could identify the differences between green versus nongreen products.

Measures. To maintain measurement equivalence between the two experiments, we used the same measures as those employed in Experiment 1. The participants were asked to rate the measures (except for green product purchasing intention and intention to pay a premium price) on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = highly unlikely to 5 = highly likely. We measured public self-consciousness with the scale developed by Fenigstein et al. (1975), with one item excluded ([alpha] = .87). To identify the purchasing decision, we asked the respondents to select which one of the products (green vs. nongreen) they would buy on the basis of the provided product information. We measured the decision to pay premium prices for green products by asking the respondents to select a product (green vs. nongreen) from the categories, wherein the green products are 25% more expensive than the nongreen products. This approach corresponds with the method used by Griskevicius et al. (2010).

Covariates. We employed the same covariates, that is, green product involvement ([alpha] = .81), knowledge about the environment, disposable income, and gender, used in Experiment 1. Additionally, we measured consumer innovativeness with the KAI ([alpha] = .92), excluding the same five items that were removed for Experiment 1.

Validity. We performed a factor analysis with varimax rotation to determine the construct validity of the measures of public self-consciousness, consumer innovativeness, and green product involvement. All items were loaded onto the predefined factors without cross loadings, and explained 69% of the overall variance, thereby confirming the validity of the measures. In addition, the measures' Cronbach's alphas were higher than .80, indicating a high level of reliability (Nunnally, 1978). Table 3 shows the correlations among, and means and standard deviations of the study variables.

Manipulation test. We conducted manipulation tests because the respondents could select a green over a nongreen product without recognizing the difference between the two. We used the same items that we employed in Experiment 1 for this manipulation test. For mineral water, the individuals who selected a green product scored the items higher than they did the nongreen product (M = 4.667, SD = 1.111, t = -2.573, p = .014). In the case of a car, however, the participants who chose a green product did not score the items with a significantly high value (M = 4.613, SD = 0.955, t = -0.340, p = .765). That is, the participants recognized the differences in the characteristics of green and nongreen mineral water. However, they did not differentiate the green car from the nongreen car when we excluded the corresponding green logos on the images.

Results

We conducted logit analyses to validate the hypotheses. Table 4 shows the results of the logit analyses for the two products. Similar to the results of Experiment 1, results indicate that consumer innovativeness influenced neither the decision to purchase green products nor the decision to pay premium prices for both product types. Public self-consciousness also did not influence purchasing decision for either product, thus supporting Hypothesis 4. In addition, public self-consciousness did not affect the intention to pay a premium price for mineral water; further, it negatively influenced the decision to pay a premium price for a car. Thus, Hypothesis 5 was partially supported.

Discussion

The results of Experiment 2 generally support the idea that in the absence of green logos, the effect of public self-consciousness on green product purchasing behaviors is marginal. This aligns with the finding reported by Griskevicius et al. (2010) that consumers are more likely to buy green products when they are in public. We have expanded this work by showing that even when consumers shop in public, they may not engage in competitive altruistic behaviors if no green logos are present to convey their conscientiousness. As expected, in the absence of a logo, public self-consciousness did not significantly influence the purchasing decision to pay a 25% price premium for mineral water. We find it interesting, however, that this variable negatively affected the purchasing decision to pay a 25% price premium for a car, indicating the influence of product specificity. This finding may be attributed to the fact that consumers, especially those with a high level of public self-consciousness, may more saliently perceive the disutility of buying a green car with a 25% price premium but without green branding. In particular, a car is much more expensive than mineral water, thereby driving consumer recognition of the substantial difference between the 25% price premium and the original price.

General Discussion

Experiments 1 and 2 may help enhance understanding of green product purchasing behaviors. First, the results of both studies consistently indicate that the influence of public self-consciousness on green product purchasing behaviors (decision to purchase and to pay premium prices for green products) depends on product type. One of the potential factors that may explain the ambiguous results gained in prior studies (Chan, 2001; Rashid, 2009) on green product purchasing is that product contexts differ across studies. This product specificity may be related to price difference; for example, in Korea, mineral water costs US$1, whereas cars cost US$25,000. Thus, the two are likely to have different levels of involvement. To extend the results of this study, researchers should consider the attributes of products when they examine the factors that motivate green product purchasing.

Second, previous research (e.g., Hartmann & Apaolaza-Ibanez, 2012; Rashid, 2009) on green product purchasing was primarily centered on identifying the roles of knowledge about the environment and involvement in environmental conservation, that is, the ethical and/or moral aspects of the purchasing behaviors. However, our results indicate that public self-consciousness plays a significant role in the purchase of mineral water even when the ethical and moral effects are controlled. In other words, although the ethical and/or moral aspects related to purchasing behaviors are important, we found that green product purchases are, at least in part, a consequence of public self-consciousness. Thus, we have provided new insights into green product purchasing behaviors and identified a new psychological trait (public self-consciousness) that explains the findings of Griskevicius et al. (2010).

Third, the results of the two experiments consistently indicate that consumer innovativeness plays a marginal role in green product purchasing. Although previous researchers (e.g., Goldsmith & Hofacker, 1991; Lee & Mano, 2014) emphasized the role of consumer innovativeness in consumption, our results show that consumer innovativeness alone does not serve an essential function in green product purchasing behaviors. When consumer innovativeness interacts with public self-consciousness, this plays a significantly negative role in the context of a car purchase; that is, innovative consumers may not wish to display altruistic behaviors. Although early adopters are excited about their purchase, the behaviors may represent domain-specific innovativeness rather than consumer innovativeness per se, as a global trait (cf. Lee & Mano, 2014). Instead, the results show that consumers with high levels of global innovativeness may be less aware of how others view them.

Fourth, our results highlight the importance of logos that identify products as being green. The effect of public self-consciousness, which we found to have a significant influence on green product purchasing decision for mineral water, becomes insignificant in this purchase context in the absence of a green product logo. Furthermore, when the logo is absent, public self-consciousness negatively influences purchasing decision under the condition of a premium price, and consumers do not recognize differences between green and nongreen car types, highlighting the importance of the presence of the logo. These results may, in part, explain the inconclusive results in the existing literature on green product consumption because they indicate that although consumers may be knowledgeable about, and have an interest in, the natural environment, they are not likely to buy green products if these do not feature logos that they perceive can reflect altruism.

Study Limitations and Directions for Future Research

Although we have contributed to the understanding of the psychological aspects of green product consumption, several limitations are worth noting in this study. First, our sample comprised undergraduate students and, therefore, cannot be considered to be representative of all consumers. We provided the participants with scenarios to project the idea that they had sufficient purchasing power, but their actual financial situations may have influenced the overall results. Second, we found that the influence of consumer innovativeness and public self-consciousness on the decision to purchase, and pay premium prices for a, product are contingent on the product type; however, we did not examine the product attributes that can affect this relationship. Third, we conducted the two experiments in Korea, where people consider vehicles as a way of showing wealth (Oliver & Lee, 2010); thus, the results in regard to the car may differ in similar experiments carried out in other countries. Fourth, Experiment 2 had only 82 participants; thus, it should be kept in mind that the results have limited generalizability.

http://dx.doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2016.44.1.29

KYUTAE PARK AND KYOOTAI LEE

Sogang University

Kyutae Park and Kyootai Lee, Graduate School of Management of Technology, Sogang University. This research was supported by the Sogang University Research Grant of 2013 (201310011.01).

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to: Kyootai Lee, Graduate School of Management of Technology, Sogang University, 35 Baekbeom-ro, Mapo-gu, Seoul 121-742, Republic of Korea. Email: kyootai@sogang.ac.kr

References

Aaker, D. A. (2002). Building strong brands. New York: The Free Press.

Borin, N., Cerf, D. C., & Krishnan, R. (2011). Consumer effects of environmental impact in product labeling. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 28, 76-86. http://doi.org/fc6vzn Brislin, R. W. (1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1, 185-216. http://doi.org/b99wbg

Chan, R. Y. K. (2001). Determinants of Chinese consumers' green purchase behavior. Psychology & Marketing, 18, 389-413. http://doi.org/fdd69d

Darlin, D. (2010, May 8). Applause, please, for early adopters. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://nyti.ms/1JqEaKb

Fenigstein, A., Scheier, M. F., & Buss, A. H. (1975). Public and private self-consciousness: Assessment and theory. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 43, 522-527. http:// doi.org/c8c

Gintis, H., Bowles, S., Boyd, R., & Fehr, E. (2003). Explaining altruistic behavior in humans. Evolution and Human Behavior, 24, 153-172. http://doi.org/bb87r8

Goldsmith, R. E., & Hofacker, C. F. (1991). Measuring consumer innovativeness. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 19, 209-221. http://doi.org/cfpn26

Goldsmith, R. E., Moore, M. A., & Beaudoin, P. (1999). Fashion innovativeness and self-concept: A replication. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 8, 7-18. http://doi.org/csxv2s

Griskevicius, V., Tybur, J. M., & Van den Bergh, B. (2010). Going green to be seen: Status, reputation, and conspicuous conservation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 392-404. http://doi.org/fdz9rj

Hartmann, P., & Apaolaza-Ibanez, V. (2012). Consumer attitude and purchase intention toward green energy brands: The roles of psychological benefits and environmental concern. Journal of Business Research, 65, 1254-1263. http://doi.org/dzdwb2

Hellstrom, T., Hellstrom, C., & Berglund, H. (2002). The innovating self: Exploring self among a group of technological innovators. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 17, 267-286. http:// doi.org/bc92r9

Husted, B. W., Russo, M. V., Meza, C. E. B., & Tilleman, S. G. (2013). An exploratory study of environmental attitudes and the willingness to pay for environmental certification in Mexico. Journal of Business Research, 67, 891-899. http://doi.org/6d4

Kirton, M. (1976). Adaptors and innovators: A description and measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61, 622-629. http://doi.org/fvrvp3

Lee, K., & Mano, H. (2014). Beyond simple innovativeness: A hierarchical continuum and thinking and feeling processing modes. Social Behavior and Personality: An international journal, 42, 597-613. http://doi.org/6d5

Majid, K. A., & Russell, C. A. (2015). Giving green a second thought: Modeling the value retention of green products in the secondary market. Journal of Business Research, 68, 994-1002. http:// doi.org/6d6

Nunnally, J. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw Hill.

Oliver, J. D., & Lee, S.-H. (2010). Hybrid car purchase intentions: A cross-cultural analysis. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 27, 96-103. http://doi.org/drmkwd

Olson, E. L. (2013). It's not easy being green: The effects of attribute tradeoffs on green product preference and choice. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 41, 171-184. http:// doi.org/6d7

Padel, S., & Foster, C. (2005). Exploring the gap between attitudes and behaviour: Understanding why consumers buy or do not buy organic food. British Food Journal, 107, 606-625. http:// doi.org/dtnxkc

PR Newswire. (2015). 4 in 5 consumers think eco-friendly products cost more "green." Retrieved from http://prn.to/1SGQY3s

Rashid, N. R. N. A. (2009). Awareness of eco-label in Malaysia's green marketing initiative. International Journal of Business and Management, 4, 132-141. http://doi.org/6d8

Roehrich, G. (2004). Consumer innovativeness: Concepts and measurements. Journal of Business Research, 57, 671-677. http://doi.org/c594jg

Simon, B. (2008). Identity in modern society: A social psychological perspective. New York: Wiley.

Vlosky, R. P., Ozanne, L. K., & Fontenot, R. J. (1999). A conceptual model of US consumer willingness-to-pay for environmentally certified wood products. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 16, 122-140. http://doi.org/bbf9dk

Table 1. Correlations Among, and Means and Standard Deviations of
Study Variables in Experiment 1

                                   1              2

1 Purchasing behavior (a)                       -.107
2 Public self-consciousness       .195 **
3 Consumer innovativeness         .069           .120
4 Knowledge                      -.049           .091
5 Involvement                     .173 *        -.058
6 Gender (b)                     -.063           .074
7 Income                         -.079          -.275 ***
M (SD) for mineral water      .490 (.502)   5.057 (.974)
M (SD) for car                .891 (.313)   5.069 (1.165)

                                    3                4

1 Purchasing behavior (a)         -.015            -.058
2 Public self-consciousness        .027             .013
3 Consumer innovativeness                          -.013
4 Knowledge                        .123
5 Involvement                      .108            -.105
6 Gender (b)                      -.173 *          -.009
7 Income                          -.079             .058
M (SD) for mineral water      4.220 (1.105)   2.892 (1.052)
M (SD) for car                4.250 (1.076)   3.202 (1.101)

                                    5              6

1 Purchasing behavior (a)          .153 *        .037
2 Public self-consciousness       -.058          .155 *
3 Consumer innovativeness          .083         -.274 ***
4 Knowledge                        .027          .008
5 Involvement                                    .138
6 Gender (b)                       .117
7 Income                          -.140          .011
M (SD) for mineral water      4.034 (1.120)   1.412 (.495)
M (SD) for car                3.900 (1.153)   1.437 (.498)

                                    7

1 Purchasing behavior (a)         -.118
2 Public self-consciousness        .025
3 Consumer innovativeness          .205 **
4 Knowledge                       -.019
5 Involvement                      .023
6 Gender (b)                      -.043
7 Income
M (SD) for mineral water      3.294 (1.174)
M (SD) for car                3.076 (1.151)

Note. Numbers above the diagonal show correlations for a car; those
below the diagonal indicate correlations for mineral water. * p < .10,
** p < .05, *** p < .01. (a) Purchase behavior: Nongreen product = 0,
Green product = 1; (b) Gender: Male = 0, Female = 1.

Table 2. Results of Logit Analyses in Experiment 1

Purchasing decision

                                  Mineral water      Car

Gender                                -.373         .572
Income                                 .065       -1.328
Knowledge                             -.167        -.615
Involvement                           0.736        1.237
Consumer innovativeness (KAI)          .225        1.020
Public self-consciousness (PSC)        .941 **    -1.367
KAI x PSC                             -.588       -2.013 **

Note. ** p < .05.

Table 3. Correlations Among, and Means and Standard Deviations of
Study Variables in Experiment 2

                                      1              2

1 Purchasing behavior (a)                            .311 *
2 Purchasing behavior under
  25% price premium condition        .554 **
3 Public self-consciousness         9.091           9.207
4 Consumer innovativeness            .166           9.031
5 Knowledge                         9.221            .158
6 Involvement                        .310 **         .090
7 Gender (b)                        9.066           9.007
8 Income                            9.183           9.082
M (SD) for mineral water         .488 (.506)    .349 (.482)
M (SD) for car                   .912 (.288)    .500 (.508)

                                      3               4

1 Purchasing behavior (a)            .142          9.330 *
2 Purchasing behavior under
  25% price premium condition       9.059           9.234
3 Public self-consciousness                         9.193
4 Consumer innovativeness            .013
5 Knowledge                         9.191            .048
6 Involvement                       9.031            .269 *
7 Gender (b)                         .128           9.231
8 Income                             .231           9.251
M (SD) for mineral water        5.345 (1.074)   4.296 (1.156)
M (SD) for car                  5.230 (.759)    3.840 (1.019)

                                      5               6

1 Purchasing behavior (a)            .141            .074
2 Purchasing behavior under
  25% price premium condition       9.052            .308 *
3 Public self-consciousness          .010            .091
4 Consumer innovativeness           9.113           9.096
5 Knowledge                                         9.075
6 Involvement                       9.183
7 Gender (b)                         .046            .332 **
8 Income                             .117           9.121
M (SD) for mineral water        2.767 (1.088)   4.267 (1.094)
M (SD) for car                  3.176 (1.141)   4.275 (.936)

                                     7               8

1 Purchasing behavior (a)           .141           9.164
2 Purchasing behavior under
  25% price premium condition       .296 *          .081
3 Public self-consciousness         .023            .454 ***
4 Consumer innovativeness          9.192            .063
5 Knowledge                         .140           9.276
6 Involvement                       .350 **        9.301 *
7 Gender (b)                                       9.307 *
8 Income                            .037
M (SD) for mineral water        1.605 (.495)   3.047 (1.022)
M (SD) for car                  1.559 (.504)   3.088 (1.111)

Note. Numbers above the diagonal indicate correlations for a car;
those below the diagonal indicate correlations for mineral water.

* p < .10, ** p < .05, *** p < .01. (a) Purchase behavior: Nongreen
product = 0, Green product = 1; (b) Gender: Male = 0, Female = 1.

Table 4. Results of Logit Analyses in Experiment 2

                                  Purchasing decision

                                  Mineral water   Car

Gender                            -.655            -.191
Income                            -.203           -3.235
Knowledge                         -.394             .563
Involvement                       1.566 *          -.440
Consumer innovativeness (KAI)      .010           -5.729
Public self-consciousness (PSC)   -.641            3.794

                                  Purchasing decision under
                                  25% price premium condition

                                  Mineral water   Car

Gender                            -.380            1.395
Income                            -.327            2.624 *
Knowledge                         1.451             .292
Involvement                        .917            2.178 *
Consumer innovativeness (KAI)     -.870           -2.030 *
Public self-consciousness (PSC)   -.960           -2.218 *

Note. * p < .10.
COPYRIGHT 2016 Scientific Journal Publishers, Ltd.
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2016 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Park, Kyutae; Lee, Kyootai
Publication:Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal
Article Type:Report
Geographic Code:9SOUT
Date:Jan 1, 2016
Words:5851
Previous Article:Developing a scale to measure total impression of synthetic house-tree-person drawings.
Next Article:Gender-based relationship between eating behavior and sense of coherence in Japanese young adults.
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2019 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters