And Sustainable Consumer Behaviour

8/19/2019 And Sustainable Consumer Behaviour

1/19

ORIGINAL PAPER

Sex, Personality, and Sustainable Consumer Behaviour:

Elucidating the Gender Effect

Michael G. Luchs & Todd A. Mooradian

Received: 30 March 2011 /Accepted: 2 October 2011 /

Published online: 20 October 2011# Springer Science+Business Media, LLC. 2011

Abstract Sustainable consumer behaviour — behaviour motivated or influenced by socialand/or environmental considerations — is an important topic in public policy and consumer

psychology. Research on the antecedents of sustainable consumer behaviour has found arobust “gender effect ”: women are more likely than men to express concern about consumption’s broader impacts and to act upon those concerns. The mechanismsunderlying the gender effect have not been well elucidated. At the same time, more

limited research has found that sustainable consumer behaviour is also influenced by personality: more agreeable and more open consumers are more likely to place importanceon and to act on social and environmental concerns. Separate research in personality

psychology has shown that women tend to be more agreeable than men. The authorsintegrate these findings to propose and test a model in which personality mediates the effect of sex on sustainable consumer behaviour. The personality differences mediating this effect are the same ones elsewhere subsumed within “gender ” differences. Our findings clarify themechanisms underlying the observed sex effect, confirm the utility of personality constructsin clarifying differences in consumer attitudes and behaviours, and have compellingimplications for public policy.

Keywords Sustainable consumption . Sex . Gender . Personality

Sustainable consumer behaviours (SCB) and the underlying mechanisms via whichconsumers make or fail to make socially and environmentally responsible choices areincreasingly important topics for policy makers (Barr 2008; Schrader and Thøgersen 2011)and for marketing practitioners (e.g., Murphy 2010), and accordingly have been the object of increasing research attention and theory development in consumer psychology (Whiteand Willness 2009). For example, the Journal of Consumer Policy recently presented a

J Consum Policy (2012) 35:127 – 144DOI 10.1007/s10603-011-9179-0

M G L h (*) T A M di

http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-


2/19

special issue on “Putting Sustainable Consumption into Practice” (Schrader and Thøgersen2011), the Journal of Consumer Psychology focused a special issue on ethical tradeoffs inconsumer decision making (Irwin 1999), and a 1998 special issue of the Journal of

Marketing Management labelled green marketing “the Fad That Won’t Slip Slide Away”

(Prothero 1998); indeed, these concerns remain compelling and current more than a decadelater (cf., McEachern and Carrigan 2010).One important, well-established finding in research on SCB has been that women are

more concerned than men about social issues (Eagly et al. 2004) and are also moreconcerned about the environment (Koos 2011; Zelezny et al. 2000). Despite the prominent role of women in the marketplace (Skoloda 2009) and the importance of SCB to policymakers, the mechanisms underlying this difference between men and women are not wellunderstood (although research into those mechanisms has been explicitly called for; Vitell2003; Zelezny et al. 2000). The primary objective of the current research is to address thefollowing question: What underlying factor(s) account for the observed sex difference in

sustainable consumer behaviour?

Recent research suggests that integrating personality constructs into models of consumer psychology can clarify demographic and other individual differences with respect to avariety of phenomena (Bosnjak et al. 2007; Endler, and Rosenstein 1997; Moon 2002).Enduring personality traits, including specifically agreeableness and openness-to-experience, have been shown to influence attitudes and behaviours related to social andenvironmental responsibility (Hirsh 2010). At the same time (but in separate research),women have been shown to be higher on the personality traits agreeableness andneuroticism (Feingold 1994; Schmitt et al. 2008). The current research proposes and tests a

model in which differences in personality, specifically differences in agreeableness, mediatethe effect of sex on evaluations of the perceived importance of social and environmentalresponsibility (henceforth, sustainability importance (SI)). In addition, the current researchtests whether agreeableness, in turn, also predicts sustainable consumer choices (SCB-choice), with that effect being mediated by perceived SI. Figure 1 presents our conceptualmodel. Before reporting the results of two studies, we briefly review the literatures on: SCBand especially sex effects on SCB, and, the literature on personality, including personalityin consumer research, personality’s effects on SCB, and sex-related differences in

personality.

128 M.G. Luchs, T.A. Mooradian

http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-


3/19

Literature

Sustainable Consumer Behaviour

A variety of terms have been used to refer to consumer behaviours that reflect the broader and longer-term impacts of consumption on society and/or on the environment (cf., “SCB”or “sustainable consumption,” Kilbourne et al. 1997; Luchs et al. 2010; Schäfer et al. 2011;Wolff and Schönherr 2011; “socially responsible consumption,” Antil 1984; “ecologicallyconcerned consumption,” Henion 1976; and “responsible consumption,” Fisk 1973). Somedefinitions refer specifically to social issues (e.g., factory safety, labour practices, andcommunity service), others focus on environmental issues (e.g., energy use, resource use,and pollution), and some refer to both. We treat “SCB” as consumer behaviours influenced

by concern for social issues and/or concern for the environment.Prior research has studied the structural, situational, psychological, and demographic

antecedents of SCB including consumer evaluations and behaviours, such as actualchoice. Thøgersen (2005) discusses many of the structural barriers that preclude a greater movement towards sustainable consumption, such as limited transportation options (e.g.,a lack of public, mass-transit transportation options). These structural barriers areespecially important from a public policy point of view given that they depend on changeat the level of a community, region or country and cannot be overcome by individualsacting alone. There are, however, many variables that influence SCB within theconstraints of a given set of structural conditions. With regard to situational variables,for example, although time pressure reduces environmentally responsible purchases, cost

may have little or no influence on such choices (Tanner and Kast 2003). With regard tosocial psychological constructs and theories, research has demonstrated the capacity toclarify the underlying processes of SCB, including models of social norms, attitudes, andmotives (see Bonnes et al. 2003). Goldstein et al. (2008), for example, showed that evoking social norms leads to greater compliance with environmental conservationappeals (towel reuse in hotels). Others have applied classic attitudinal models, includingthe Theory of Reasoned Action and Theory of Planned Behaviour, to clarify the drivers of SCB; evaluations and beliefs about social causes and the environment influenceintentions, behaviours, and choices (relationship C in Fig. 1; e.g., Tanner and Kast 2003). However, while prior research has demonstrated the relationship between pro-

social and pro-environmental evaluations, such as perceived importance and behaviouralintentions, and actual consumer behaviours, other research has shown that therelationship between expressed concerns and actual choice (relationship C in Fig. 1) isoften weak (e.g., Alwitt and Pitts 1996). Indeed, a relatively recent survey suggests that awide gap persists between consumers’ attitudes and behaviours in this context, with 40%of consumers saying they are willing to buy “green products,” but only 4% actually doingso (UNEP 2005, p. 15). Therefore, in addition to addressing our overall research questionabout the relationship between sex and SCB, we explicitly address choice behaviour inaddition to articulated attitudes.

Sex and SCB

Sex, Personality, and Sustainable Consumer Behaviour 129

http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-


4/19

higher perceived importance with regard to responsible consumption; e.g., Berenguer et al.2005). Similarly, Roberts (1996) reported that women are more likely than men to be sociallyresponsible in their consumption behaviours (i.e., women are more likely to make actual

purchases in accord with social and environmental concerns; also see Vitell 2003). Zelezny et

al. (2000) reviewed 13 studies of environmentally responsible consumption and reported that nine found women to be higher in pro-environmental attitudes and behaviours, three found nosignificant differences across sexes, but only one found that men were higher with regard toconcern for the environment. They also collected primary data and found that women’sgreater environmental concerns begin at a young age. Subsequent studies have corroboratedthe tendency of women to report and act on greater social and environmental concerns thanmen across a variety of operationalizations and contexts (e.g., Dietz et al. 2002; Dupont 2004;Hunter et al. 2004; Loughland et al. 2003; Mayer and Frantz 2004).

Some limited research has considered factors that may moderate and mediate thesex – SCB relationship. For example, parenthood has been shown to dampen men’s

environmental concerns but increase women’s environmental concerns (Hamilton1985). However, other research suggests that these intrafamily gender differences may be

perceived by individuals within the family to be larger than they really are (Grønhøj andÖlander 2007). With respect to mediation of the sex – SCB relationship, some researchsuggests that differential values may be important. For example, women rank the

personal value “altruism” higher than men and that difference partially explainsdifferences in environmentalism (Dietz et al. 2002). Overall, however, sex has emergedas an important socio-demographic predictor of SCB across studies and cultures: womenappear to be consistently more concerned than men about SCB and women are more

likely than men to act in accordance with those concerns in making purchase choices(linkages A and B in Fig. 1).

Personality

Another set of psychological constructs that have been shown to predict SCB are personality traits (linkages E and F in Fig. 1; Hirsh 2010; Hirsh and Dolderman 2007).Personality traits are defined as enduring, cross-situational consistencies in behaviouraland response patterns (e.g., McCrae 2009). Recent progress in personality psychology has

been facilitated by recognition of situation – individual interactions as antecedents of

behaviours, by methodological and analytic advances, and by the emergence of a broadconsensus regarding the high-level structure of personality. Individual differences arewell summarized within five broad, high-level traits or “domains”: neuroticism (vs.emotional stability), extraversion, agreeableness, openness-to-experience or intellect, andconscientiousness (John et al. 2008; McCrae 2009). Those broad domains emerge acrossraters (self vs. others), instruments, and paradigms (including questionnaire and lexical or adjective-based approaches), across the lifespan, across languages and cultures, and evenacross species (John et al. 2008; McCrae 2009). These five domains have been related toheredity and, in emerging neuropsychological findings, to underlying genetic and

biophysiological substrates as well as to environmental influences (Krueger and Johnson2008; DeYoung et al. 2010). Building on that progress in personality psychology,research on consumer personality has been similarly revitalized (Bosnjak et al. 2007;


http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-


5/19

Personality and SCB

Hirsh and Dolderman linked the personality traits agreeableness and openness-to-experience to differences in environmental concerns in a Canadian student sample

(2007). Hirsh (2010) replicated and extended those findings in data from the GermanSocio-economic Panel Study (GSOEP), a large longitudinal panel survey of Germanhouseholds (Haisken-DeNew and Frick 2005; Schupp and Wagner 1995): higher agreeableness and higher openness-to-experience were strongly related to greater environmental concern; in the latter analysis, neuroticism and conscientiousness also

predicted environmental concern with significant but weaker relationships.Hirsh (2010) also investigated the role of sex with respect to environmental concern,

specifically testing whether the relationships between personality factors and environmentalconcern were moderated by sex. He concluded that sex did not moderate theserelationships. Although Hirsh noted that sex predicted environmental concern (women

expressed greater environmental concern, consistent with prior research), he did not consider or analyse whether personality traits (such as agreeableness) mediated therelationship between sex and environmental concern. Note also that Hirsh referred to themale/female distinction as “gender,” as does much of the literature analysing the GSOEPdata (Haisken-DeNew and Frick 2005), but the data are from a single, forced-choice item(“male” vs. “female”), a construct which we are referring to as sex, not gender.

The relationship between agreeableness and environmental concern is understandablein terms of the nature and content of agreeableness, which has been defined as the“ propensity to be altruistic, trusting, modest, and warm” (John and Srivastava 1999):“

agreeableness is primarily a dimension of interpersonal tendencies. The agreeable personis fundamentally altruistic …sympathetic to others and eager to help them, and believesthat others will be equally helpful in return” (Costa and McCrae 1992, p. 15; see Graziano1994; Graziano and Eisenberg 1997). Agreeableness has been related to interpersonalempathy (Graziano et al. 2007) and to values related to benevolence (Olver andMooradian 2003). As such, assuming that environmental concern is based in part upon analtruistic concern for the environment, then agreeableness appears to be a strongcandidate to explain the relationship between sex and SCB. Given the nature and content of agreeableness, we could expect this dimension of personality to have a similar effect on “sustainable consumption” choices regardless of whether the focal issue is one of

environmental responsibility or social responsibility — both of which depend on asomewhat selfless and, perhaps, ethics-based decision making orientation. Similarly,openness-to-experience has been related to values such as universalism and benevolence(Olver and Mooradian 2003), and to socially compassionate, traditionally moral, andegalitarian sociopolitical attitudes (Eagly et al. 2004), i.e., values and attitudes that arealso likely to be related to SCB.

Sex and Personality

Consistent sex differences, often labelled “

gender differences,”

have been identifiedwith regard to several of the five personality domains in extensive research acrossmany countries: women demonstrate and self-report higher levels of agreeableness


http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-


6/19

Summary of Proposed Model

Based on independent findings in the extant literature, reviewed above, that sex predictsSCB, that sex predicts differences in agreeableness, and that agreeableness predicts

differences in SCB, the current research tests a proposed model in which agreeablenessmediates the effects of sex on evaluations of the perceived importance of sustainability (SI)

and those evaluations of the perceived importance of sustainability, in turn, mediate the

effect of agreeableness on sustainable consumer choices (SCB-choice). Figure 1 presentsthe conceptual model and the relationships we propose. Relationships broken by hashmarks are expected to be significant when tested directly but mediated by the interveningvariables in the figure. SCB is defined as including both evaluations of the perceivedimportance of sustainability (SI) and consequent choices (SCB-choice), as set apart in thehatched and shaded rectangle in Fig. 1. Study 1 examines these relationships in the context of environmental responsibility; study 2 extends those findings by testing our proposed

model in the context of both social and environmental responsibility and, importantly, onactual choices.

Studies

Study 1

As discussed above, Hirsh (2010) did not analyse the GSOEP data to determine whether

personality mediates the relationship between sex and environmental concern. Therefore,in an initial effort to clarify the relationships between sex, personality, and SCB, we began with a reanalysis of the GSOEP data. We hypothesize that personality mediates therelationship between sex and SCB. Specifically, based on our review of prior research,we hypothesize that agreeableness will mediate the sex – environmental concernrelationship.

Data

Our analysis is based on data from the GSOEP, a longitudinal research project focused on

German households (Haisken-DeNew and Frick 2005). Similar to Hirsh’s approach, weused the GSOEP personality items from 2005 in which participants completed a 15-itemshort, German-language version of the Big Five Inventory (John et al. 2008), with threeitems per trait phrased as “I see myself as someone who is”: accompanied with the phrases:“sometimes too coarse with others” (reverse coded), “able to forgive,” and “friendly withothers” and five-point, “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree” response scales. To measureenvironmental concern, we created a single construct by averaging the same three items that Hirsh used: “environmentally conscious,” “importance of environmental protection,” and“worried about the environment.” Given that these questions were administered to the same

participants on multiple occasions, we only used data from the most recent available year for each of these three variables. For example, although “worried about the environment ”was included in the annual survey every year, “environmentally conscious” was only


http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-


7/19

Results

Environmental concern is predicted by sex, consistent with prior research and Hirsh’sanalyses of these same data; specifically, women express greater concern for the

environment, (β =0.09, F (1, 9090)=98.88, p


8/19 between product functional performance and sustainability (Luchs et al. 2010). Therefore,this scenario provides a realistic choice between two viable options.

Fig. 2 a Study 2 stimuli for “social responsibility” b Study 2 stimuli for “environmental responsibility”


http://-/?-http://-/?-


9/19

pollution”). For both of these conditions, functional performance was described as theshoes’ “durability (of the outsoles, seams, and lining)” and “construction (manufacturing/ assembly quality).” The presentation of the stimuli was counterbalanced on the screen (left vs. right). Thus, the study used a 2×2 between subjects design: responsibility type (social

vs. environmental) by presentation order (superior functional performance option on theleft/right vs. superior sustainability on the right/left). Participants were told to assume that the shoes did not differ with regard to cost, attractiveness, or comfort.

First, in order to ensure attention to the information and to facilitate a check of participants’ accurate perception of the differences between the alternatives, participantsrated each pair of shoes in terms of functional performance and sustainability. Then, after responding to several unrelated measures, participants were asked to choose between thetwo pairs of shoes (SCB-choice).

Participants then responded to the 10-Item Personality Inventory (TIPI; Gosling et al. 2003), aconcise measure of the five personality domains. As control measures, participants also rated

which, if either, pair of shoes they expected to be more comfortable, appealing/attractive, andexpensive; each was measured on a nine point scale, where 1= “Definitely A” and9=“Definitely B.” Participants reported their sex on a single, forced-choice item (“male” or “female”). Participants also rated the importance of social/environmental responsibility (SI)using the item “The issue of environmental corporate responsibility is important to me {e.g.,energy use, resource usage, pollution}” or “The issue of corporate social responsibility isimportant to me {e.g., factory safety, labour practices, community service}” on a seven-point scale from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree” depending on the condition, along with(regardless of the condition) “It is important to me that companies maintain high ethical

standards in general.”

Finally, participants provided two ratings related to PerformanceImportance, also on a seven-point scale (“When I buy products, their durability is an important factor that I consider before making a choice” and “When I buy products, their construction/ manufacturing quality is an important factor that I consider before making a choice”).

Analyses and Results: Manipulation Check and Data Management

We first analysed the ratings of shoe functional performance and sustainability to confirm our intended manipulations. Prior to these analyses, the product ratings were re-coded such that superior functional performance anchored the low end of the scale [−4] and high sustainability

anchored the high end of the scale [+4]. For the superior functional performance shoes the meanrating on functional performance was significantly lower than zero ( M func=−3.34, F (1, 146)=1179.55, p


10/19

suspected that despite being told to assume that the two options were the same in terms of attractiveness, comfort, and cost, participants would have made inferences about thoseunspecified attributes. Therefore, we repeated the analysis of SCB-choice controlling for those covariates. When perceived attractiveness, perceived comfort, and perceived cost

were controlled for, there was no significant difference in SCB-choice (χ2

=0.45, p=.50).1

This result was instrumental to subsequent analyses given that we sought to study when andwhy participants would choose one alternative over the other. As such, it was important to

provide a context in which, overall, neither option dominated the other. Therefore, wecontrol for attractiveness, comfort, and cost in subsequent analyses of choice.

Next, we analysed whether responsibility type (i.e., social vs. environmental), had an effect on these results. SCB-choice did not depend on responsibility type (χ2=0.11, p=.74). Thus,these empirics and analyses corroborate our expansive construal of SCB; the conceptualmodel (Fig. 1) may generalize across both environmental and social responsibility forms of SCB. Therefore, we combined data from both responsibility types in all subsequent analyses.2

Results: Sex, Sustainability Importance, and SCB-Choice

Next, we analysed SCB-choice as a function of sex (relationship A in Fig. 1). SCB-choicedepended significantly on sex (χ2=5.92, p


11/19

(1, 145)=10.24, p


12/19

marginal, Sobel t =1.69, p=.09.4 These results illustrate the importance of the distinction between SI and SCB-choice. While our results collectively support our prediction that therelationship between sex and SCB is mediated by agreeableness, the evidence for the link tochoice is weaker than the link to evaluations of the importance of SCB. This observation is

not surprising if one considers that choice depends on many factors other than personality,such as involvement in the product category, product knowledge, etc. Nonetheless, theseresults do collectively support our central thesis that personality, specifically agreeableness,

plays a central role in explaining the sex – SCB relationship. Further, a subsequent analysissuggests that the relationship between agreeableness and SCB-choice is, indeed, mediated

by SI, Sobel t =2.32, p


13/19

concerned with both sex and gender and the distinction between the two. Most of theresearch reporting a sex – SCB relationship has used the label “gender,” but has measuredand analysed “sex,” that is, the binary male – female distinction that reflects the “the

biological reality of differing chromosomes and associated hormonal and reproductive

differences” (Wood and Eagly 2010, p. 629). We reserve the term “gender ” for thedifferences captured as masculine and feminine identities shaped by both biology and thesocial environment; that is “the meanings that cultures impute to male and female and themeanings that individuals impute to themselves” (Wood and Eagly 2010, p. 630).Masculine roles are typically “agentic;” that is, “masterful, assertive, competitive, anddominant ” and focus on pro-social behaviours that benefit “collections” (groups andorganizations) (Eagly 2009, p. 645). Feminine roles tend to be “communal,” defined as“friendly, unselfish, concerned with others, and emotionally expressive,” and focus on pro-social behaviours in relation to others in close, dyadic relationships (Eagly 2009, p. 645).

Agreeableness describes many of the same cross-situational response and behavioural

tendencies that have also become labelled and studied as “gender ” (Eagly 1987, 2009;Wood and Eagly 2010). Multidimensional measures of gender identity that include“Femininity” and “Masculinity” components, such as the Bem Sex Role Inventory (BSRI;Bem 1974) and the Personal Attributes Questionnaire (PAQ; Spence et al. 1974) have beenshown to covary closely with several of the domains within the structure of personality(Lippa 1991). The Femininity factor in the BSRI has been shown to correlate closely with

NEO-PI-R agreeableness (r =.58, n=464, p


14/19

to the depiction of others’ dilemmas and emotions (e.g., Mooradian et al. 2008) and toincorporate the welfare of others into their own decision making (Hoffman 2000). The current research shows that these same traits and processes drive responses to socially responsibleand “green” marketing efforts, and suggests that while both sex and agreeableness may be

relevant in programme development, each may inform different elements of a public policycampaign. Specifically, while sex can be used to segment the market and to prioritize target message recipients (these are often differentiated as “media” decisions — decisions about themedia via which a message will be communicated), message content (“copy” or “creative”decisions) should build on an understanding of the role of agreeableness and not rely onmessages that primarily appeal to women at the expense of limiting their relevance to men.Further, targeting women at the expense of targeting men should be done with caution sinceagreeableness is more proximal to sustainability-related attitudes and behaviours than is sexand, while there are differences in agreeableness between the sexes, there is also widevariance in agreeableness within the sexes.

To illustrate, consider the issue of consumers choosing to purchase and use chemicalfertilizers within watershed regions known to suffer from run-off pollution from fertilizer overuse (e.g., the Chesapeake Bay on the east coast of the USA). Based on prior research,efforts to reduce such fertilizer use — or to reform related legislation — might have been limitedto reaching those consumers presumed most likely to respond favourably to appeals to reducefertilizer use, such as women, discounting demographic segments presumed to be less likely torespond (e.g., men). The current findings suggest that an appeal to the agreeableness of consumers — an appeal evoking emotions related to the effects of policies and behaviours onothers — may be especially effective. Such an appeal could explicitly encourage consumers to

consider the impact that the behaviour has on the daily lives of those in the community, such asfisherman, or on future generations. As opposed to traditional appeals, which typically refer tothe environment as an amorphous, depersonalized abstraction — appeals that focus on emotionsand relationships with others are more likely to lead to changes in consumer behaviours. Thus,while women are more likely than men to exhibit both the trait agreeableness and SCB, it may

be limiting and somewhat inefficient to target women given that sex is a relatively more distal predictor of SCB than previously thought. Many men also exhibit this trait, and excluding themfrom promotional targeting efforts would be especially limiting within product categories inwhich they are the primary decision maker.

Attitude – Behaviour Relationships

Another contribution of our research is our demonstration of the relationship betweenattitudes towards sustainability and related behaviours, specifically choice related

behaviours. Our research illustrates the importance of studying both the perceivedimportance of sustainability and SCB related choice behaviours given that there is often agap between attitudes and behaviours in this context. However, our research shows that while distinct, the two are clearly related — i.e., the perceived importance of sustainabilitydoes indeed predict choice. Appreciating the distinction between attitudes and choice in this

context is, however, as important as understanding their relationship given the persistent gap between sustainability-related attitudes and behaviours in the marketplace.


http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-


15/19

the effect of each type of issue on consumer behaviour can be very similar. In other words, for many consumers, the specific issue may be less important than the perception that they areconfronted with consumption options that are relatively more (or less) ethical — and emotioneliciting — than other available alternatives. Although the results in our research did not

depend on issue type, however, it would be premature to conclude that issue type does not matter with respect to sustainable consumption behaviours. Rather, our research suggests that in some contexts, such as the current context of a trade-off with a product ’s functional

performance, the nature of the specific sustainability issue may be less salient than the presence of a trade-off with a valued product attribute, such as functional performance.

Limitations and Future Research

The current studies encompass large samples from two different regions and cultures. It will bevaluable for future research to examine the identified relationships in data collected across time

or via multiple methods, including observed behaviours, to validate these findings and extendour understanding of SCB as manifest in actual behaviours in the marketplace. Future researchcould also more directly test the specific mechanisms underlying the effects of agreeablenessitself on SCB, potentially by first exploring the effects of each of the various facets of agreeableness. Doing so might also provide insight into the specific conditions under whicheach issue type (e.g., social vs. environmental) may be more relevant to SCB given that somefacets of agreeableness, such as empathy for example, are likely more relevant to choicesinvolving social issues rather than environmental issues.

Further, as discussed above, we construe agreeableness as a manifestation of gender in

personality trait differences. Nevertheless, gender is certainly a broader construct and thereare other aspects of gender, including traits associated with masculinity, and other multidimensional measures of gender that may be related to SCB in interesting ways.Interesting future research may also augment these findings with multidimensionalconstruals of SCB; for example, Francois-Lecompte and Roberts (2006) identified anddeveloped measures for five dimensions of socially responsible consumption (in a Frenchsample): corporate responsibility; country of origin preferences; shopping at local or small

businesses; purchasing cause-related products; and, reducing one’s consumption. Thosedistinct facets of SCB may be related to antecedents such as gender in meaningfullydifferent ways. By addressing the role of gender and of other personality traits with respect

to each of these facets of SCB, future research may be able to offer additional insights to public policy makers focused on accelerating current trends towards more SCB.

References

Alwitt, L. F., & Pitts, R. E. (1996). Predicting purchase intentions for an environmentally sensitive product. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 5, 49 – 64.

Antil, J. H. (1984). Socially responsible consumers: Profile and implications for public policy. Journal of

Macromarketing, 4, 18 – 39.APA. (2010). Publication manual of the American psychological association (6th ed.). Washington:

American Psychological Association.


http://-/?-http://-/?-


16/19

Bem, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 155 – 162.

Berenguer, J., Corraliza, J. A., & Martín, R. (2005). Rural-urban differences in environmental concern,attitudes, and actions. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 21, 128 – 138.

Bergeman, C., Chipuer, H., Plomin, R., Pedersen, N., McClearn, G., Nesselroade, J., et al. (1993). Genetic

and environmental effects on openness to experience, agreeableness, and conscientiousness: Anadoption/twin study. Journal of Personality, 61, 159 – 179.Bonnes, M., Lee, M., & Bonaiuto, M. (2003). Psychological theories for environmental issues. Burlington:

Ashgate Publishing.Bosnjak, M., Bratko, D., Galesic M., & Tuten, T. (2007). Consumer personality and individual differences:

Revitalizing a temporarily abandoned field. Journal of Business Research, 60 (6) (Special Issue:Consumer Personality and Individual Differences), 587 – 589.

Costa, P. T. Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO personality inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO five- factor inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual . Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

Costa, P. T., Jr., Terracciano, A., & McCrae, R. R. (2001). Gender differences in personality traits acrosscultures: Robust and surprising findings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 322 – 331.

DeYoung, C. G., Hirsh, J. B., Shane, M. S., Papademetris, X., Rajeevan, N., & Gray, J. R. (2010). Testing

predictions from personality neuroscience: Brain structure and the big five. Psychological Science, 21,820 – 828.Dietz, T., Kalof, L., & Stern, P. (2002). Gender, values, and environmentalism. Social Science Quarterly, 83,

353 – 364.Dupont, D. P. (2004). Do children matter? An examination of gender differences in environmental valuation.

Ecological Economics, 49, 273 – 286.Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Eagly, A. H. (2009). The his and hers of prosocial behavior: An examination of the social psychology of

gender. American Psychologist, 64, 644 – 658.Eagly, A. H., Diekman, A. B., Johannesen-Schmidt, M. C., & Koenig, A. M. (2004). Gender gaps in

sociopolitical attitudes: A social psychological analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,87 , 796 – 816.

Endler, N., & Rosenstein, A. (1997). Evolution of the personality construct in marketing and its applicabilityto contemporary personality research. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 6 , 55 – 66.Feingold, A. (1994). Gender differences in personality: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 116 , 429 – 456.Fisk, G. (1973). Criteria for a theory of responsible consumption. Journal of Marketing, 37 (2), 24 – 31.Francois-Lecompte, A., & Roberts, J. (2006). Developing a measure of socially responsible consumption in

France. Marketing Management Journal, 16 , 50 – 66.Gentile, D. A. (1993). Just what are sex and gender, anyway?: A call for a new terminological standard.

Psychological Science, 4, 120 – 122.Goldstein, N., Cialdini, R., & Griskevicius, V. (2008). A room with a viewpoint: Using social norms to

motivate environmental conservation in hotels. Journal of Consumer Research, 35, 472 – 482.Gosling, S. D., Rentfrow, P. J., & Swann, W. B., Jr. (2003). A very brief measure of the big-five personality

domains. Journal of Research in Personality, 37 , 504 – 528.

Graziano, W. G. (1994). The development of agreeableness as a dimension of personality. In C. F. HalversonJr., G. A. Kohnstamm, & R. P. Martin (Eds.), The developing structure of temperament and personality

from infancy to adulthood (pp. 339 – 354). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Graziano, W. G., & Eisenberg, N. H. (1997). Agreeableness: A dimension of personality. In R. Hogan, J.

Johnson, & S. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology (pp. 795 – 824). San Diego: Academic.Graziano, W. G., Habashi, M. M., Sheese, B. E., & Tobin, R. M. (2007). Agreeableness, empathy, and

helping: A person×situation perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 583 – 599.Grønhøj, A., & Ölander, F. (2007). A gender perspective on environmentally related family consumption.

Journal of Consumer Behavior, 6 , 218 – 235.Haisken-DeNew, J., & Frick, J. (2005). Desktop companion to the German socioeconomic panel study,

Version 8.0. Berlin: German Institute for Economic Research (DIW). Available from http://www.diw.de/ en/diw_02.c.222847.en/desktop_companion_overview.html#239344

Hamilton, L. C. (1985). Concern about toxic wastes: Three demographic predictors. Sociological Perspectives, 28, 463 – 486.

Haugtvedt C Petty R & Cacioppo J (1992) Need for cognition and advertising: Understanding the role


http://www.diw.de/en/diw_02.c.222847.en/desktop_companion_overview.html#239344http://www.diw.de/en/diw_02.c.222847.en/desktop_companion_overview.html#239344http://www.diw.de/en/diw_02.c.222847.en/desktop_companion_overview.html#239344http://www.diw.de/en/diw_02.c.222847.en/desktop_companion_overview.html#239344


17/19

Hirsh, J. B., & Dolderman, D. (2007). Personality predictors of consumerism and environmentalism: A preliminary study. Personality and Individual Differences, 43, 1583 – 1593.

Hoffman, M. L. (2000). Empathy and moral development implications for caring and justice. New York:Cambridge University Press.

Holland, P. W. (1988). Causal inference, path analysis, and recursive structural equations models.

Sociological Methodology, 18, 449 –

484.Hunter, L. M., Hatch, A., & Johnson, A. (2004). Cross-national gender variation in environmental behaviors.Social Science Quarterly, 85, 677 – 694.

Irwin, J. R. (1999). Ethical trade-offs in consumer decision making (Special Issue). Journal of Consumer Psychology, 8, 211 – 213.

John, O. P., Naumann, L. P., & Soto, C. J. (2008). Paradigm shift to the integrative big-five trait taxonomy:History, measurement, and conceptual issues. In O. P. John, R. W. Robins, & L. A. Pervin (Eds.),

Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 114 – 158). New York: Guilford Press.John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The big five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical

perspectives. In O. P. John, R. W. Robins, & L. A. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 102 – 138). New York: Guilford.

Kilbourne, W. E., McDonagh, P., & Prothero, A. (1997). Sustainable consumption and the quality of life: A

macromarketing challenge to the dominant social paradigm. Journal of Macromarketing, 17 , 4 – 24.Koos, S. (2011). Varieties of environmental labeling, market structures, and sustainable consumption acrossEurope: A comparative analysis of organizational and market supply determinants of environmental-labeled goods. Journal of Consumer Policy, 34, 127 – 151.

Krueger, R. F., & Johnson, W. (2008). Behavioral genetics and personality: A new look at the integration of nature and nurture. In O. P. John, R. W. Robins, & L. A. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theoryand research (pp. 287 – 310). New York: Guilford.

Lippa, R. (1991). Some psychometric characteristics of gender diagnosticity measures: Reliability, validity,consistency across domains, and relationship to the Big Five. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 61, 1000 – 1011.Loughland, T., Reid, A., Walker, K., & Petocz, P. (2003). Factors influencing young people’s conceptions of

environment. Environmental Education Research, 9, 3 – 20.

Luchs, M. G., Naylor, R. W., Irwin, J. R., & Raghunathan, R. (2010). The sustainability liability: Potentialnegative effects of ethicality on product preference. Journal of Marketing, 74, 18 – 31.Marusic, I., & Bratko, D. (1998). Relations of masculinity and femininity with personality dimensions of the

five-factor model. Sex Roles, 38, 29 – 44.Mayer, F. S., & Frantz, C. M. (2004). The connectedness to nature scale: A measure of individuals’ feeling in

community with nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24, 503 – 515.McCrae, R. R. (2009). The five-factor model of personality traits: Consensus and controversy. In P. Corr &

G. Matthews (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of personality psychology. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

McEachern, M. G., & Carrigan M. (Guest Editors) (2010). Journal of Marketing Management Special IssueCall for Papers: Special Issue on Re-visiting Contemporary Issues in Green/Ethical Marketing.

Available from http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/cfp/rjmmcfp.pdf

Moon, Y. (2002). Personalization and personality: Some effects of customizing message style based onconsumer personality. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 12, 313 – 325.

Mooradian, T. A. (1996). Personality and ad-evoked feelings: The case for extraversion and neuroticism. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 24, 99 – 110.

Mooradian, T. A., Matzler, K., & Szykman, L. (2008). Empathetic responses to advertising: Testing anetwork of antecedents and consequences. Marketing Letters, 19, 79 – 92.

Murphy, R. (2010). Why doing good is good for business. Fortune, 161, 90 – 95.Olver, J. M., & Mooradian, T. A. (2003). Personality traits and personal values: A conceptual and empirical

investigation. Personality and Individual Differences, 35, 109 – 125.Prothero, A. (1998). Green marketing: The ‘fad’ that won’t slip slide away. Journal of Marketing

Management, 14, 507 – 512.Roberts, J. A. (1996). Will the real socially responsible consumer please step forward? Business Horizons,

39, 79 – 83.Schäfer, M., Jaeger-Erben, M., & Santos, A. (2011). Leapfrogging to sustainable consumption? An

explorative survey of consumption habits and orientations in southern Brazil Journal of Consumer


http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/cfp/rjmmcfp.pdfhttp://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/cfp/rjmmcfp.pdfhttp://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/cfp/rjmmcfp.pdf


18/19

Schrader, U., & Thøgersen, J. (2011). Putting sustainable consumption into practice. Journal of Consumer Policy, 34, 3 – 8.

Schupp, J., & Wagner, G. (1995). The German socio-economic panel: A database for longitudinalinternational comparisons. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Sciences, 8, 95 – 108.

Skoloda, K. M. (2009). Too busy to shop: Marketing to multi-minding women. Westport: Praeger.

Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equations models. In S.Leinhart (Ed.), Sociological methodology (pp. 290 – 312). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Spence, J. T., Helmreich, R., & Stapp, J. (1974). The personal attributes questionnaire: A measure of sex role

stereotypes and masculinity-femininity. JSA. Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 4, 127 (Ms. No. 617).

Straughan, R. D., & Roberts, J. A. (1999). Environmental segmentation alternatives: A look at greenconsumer behavior in the new millennium. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 16 , 558 – 575.

Tanner, C., & Kast, S. W. (2003). Promoting sustainable consumption: Determinants of green purchases bySwiss consumers. Psychology and Marketing, 20, 883 – 902.

Thøgersen, J. (2005). How may consumer policy empower consumers for sustainable lifestyles? Journal of Consumer Policy, 28, 143 – 178.

UNEP. (2005). Talk the walk: Advancing sustainable lifestyles through marketing and communications.

United Nations Environment Programme: UN Global Compact and Utopies.Vitell, S. J. (2003). Consumer ethics research: Review, synthesis and suggestions for the future. Journal of Business Ethics, 43, 33 – 47.

White, K., & Willness, C. (2009). Consumer reactions to decreased usage messages: The role of elaborative processing. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 19, 73 – 87.

Wolff, F., & Schönherr, N. (2011). The impact evaluation of sustainable consumption policy instruments. Journal of Consumer Policy, 34, 43 – 66.

Wood, W., & Eagly, A. H. (2010). Gender identity. In M. R. Leary & R. H. Hoyle (Eds.), Handbook of individual differences in social behavior (pp. 109 – 125). New York: Guilford.

Zelezny, L. C., Chua, P.-P., & Aldrich, C. (2000). Elaborating on gender differences in environmentalism. Journal of Social Issues, 56 , 443 – 457.



19/19

Reproducedwithpermissionof thecopyrightowner. Further reproductionprohibitedwithoutpermission.