Abstract
Current research suggests consumers trade off price, quality, and sustainability attributes when making choices. Prior studies have typically focused on product attribute dyads, rather than multiattribute decision-making in the sustainability context. For scholars and practitioners, understanding which attributes are more important to consumers in tradeoff contexts has been a challenge. Self-other orientation may play a significant role in predicting consumers’ sustainable choices. We use prior research on equity sensitivity to demonstrate that segmenting consumers by their disposition to self-other tradeoffs (i.e., their self-other orientation) helps predict price–quality–sustainability tradeoffs. We hypothesize and test how members of these equity sensitivity segments tradeoff price, quality, and sustainability attributes in consumption decisions. Through four conjoint studies featuring diverse product assortments and sustainability issues, we find that price provides high utility for Entitled consumers, while sustainability provides high utility for Benevolent consumers. When product attributes are combined, Benevolents are more likely than Entitleds to purchase sustainable products. We also demonstrate that, in the absence of product choices, Equity Sensitives are more willing to choose a sustainable option over a conventional option, even when prices are high. In light of these findings, we discuss the implications for scholars looking to broadly predict consumers’ sustainable choices and for firms looking to target consumers with consumer-centric sustainability strategy.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Adams, J. S. (1963). Towards an understanding of inequity. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67(5), 422–436.
Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol 2, pp 267–299). New York: Academic.
Auger, P., Burke, P., Devinney, T. M., & Louviere, J. J. (2003). What will consumers pay for social product features? Journal of Business Ethics, 42(3), 281–304.
Auger, P., Devinney, T. M., Louviere, J. J., & Burke, P. F. (2008). Do social product features have value to consumers? International Journal of Research in Marketing, 25(3), 183–191.
Balderjahn, I., Peyer, M., Seegebarth, B., Wiedmann, K.-P., & Weber, A. (2018). The many faces of sustainability-conscious consumers: A category-independent typology. Journal of Business Research, 91, 83–93.
Bradford, T. W. (2015). Beyond fungible: Transforming money into moral and social resources. Journal of Marketing, 79(2), 79–97.
Brucks, M., Zeithaml, V. A., & Naylor, G. (2000). Price and brand name as indicators of quality dimensions for consumer durables. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28(3), 359–374.
Carrington, M. J., Neville, B. A., & Whitwell, G. J. (2010). Why ethical consumers don’t walk their talk: Towards a framework for understanding the gap between the ethical purchase intentions and actual buying behaviour of ethically minded consumers. Journal of Business Ethics, 97(1), 139–158.
Carrington, M. J., Neville, B. A., & Whitwell, G. J. (2014). Lost in translation: Exploring the ethical consumer intention–behavior gap. Journal of Business Research, 67(1), 2759–2767.
Cone/Porter Novelli. (2018). 2018 Cone/Porter Novelli purpose study: How to build deeper bonds, amplify your message and expand your consumer base. Cone/Porter Novelli. Retrieved July 25, 2019, from https://static1.squarespace.com/static/56b4a7472b8dde3df5b7013f/t/5c66ce8dfa0d600c4f44d4ce/1550241426931/021319_PurposeStudy_Single.pdf.
Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale of social desirability independent of psychopathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24(4), 349–354.
De Pelsmacker, P., Driesen, L., & Rayp, G. (2005). Do consumers care about ethics? Willingness to pay for fair-trade coffee. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 39(2), 363–385.
Devinney, T. M., Auger, P., & Eckhardt, G. M. (2010). The myth of the ethical consumer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dodds, W. B., Monroe, K. B., & Grewal, D. (1991). Effects of price, brand, and store information on buyers’ product evaluations. Journal of Marketing Research, 28(3), 307.
Ehrich, K. R., & Irwin, J. R. (2005). Willful ignorance in the request for product attribute information. Journal of Marketing Research, 42(3), 266–277.
Erdem, T., Keane, M. P., & Sun, B. (2008). A dynamic model of brand choice when price and advertising signal product quality. Marketing Science, 27(6), 1111–1125.
Giesler, M., & Veresiu, E. (2014). Creating the responsible consumer: Moralistic governance regimes and consumer subjectivity. Journal of Consumer Research, 41(3), 840–857.
Ginsberg, J. M., & Bloom, P. N. (2004). Green marketing has not fulfilled its initial promise, but companies can take a more effective approach if they realize that a one-size-fits-all strategy does not exist. MIT Sloan Management Review, 46(1), 79–84.
Gleim, M., & Lawson, S. J. (2014). Spanning the gap: An examination of the factors leading to the green gap. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 31(6/7), 503–514.
Green, P. E., & Srinivasan, V. (1990). Conjoint analysis in marketing: New developments with implications for research and practice. Journal of Marketing, 54(4), 3–19.
Grewal, D., Monroe, K. B., & Krishnan, R. (1998). The effects of price-comparison advertising on buyers’ perceptions of acquisition value, transaction value, and behavioral intentions. Journal of Marketing, 62(2), 46–59.
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(3), 392–404.
Hamilton, R. (2016). Consumer-based strategy: Using multiple methods to generate consumer insights that inform strategy. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 44(3), 281–285.
Harrison, R., Newholm, T., & Shaw, D. (2005). The ethical consumer. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
Hassan, L. M., Shiu, E., & Shaw, D. (2016). Who says there is an intention–behaviour gap? Assessing the empirical evidence of an intention–behaviour gap in ethical consumption. Journal of Business Ethics, 136(2), 219–236.
Haws, K. L., Winterich, K. P., & Naylor, R. W. (2014). Seeing the world through GREEN-tinted glasses: Green consumption values and responses to environmentally friendly products. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 24(3), 336–354.
Huseman, R. C., Hatfield, J. D., & Miles, E. W. (1987). A new perspective on equity theory: The equity sensitivity construct. Academy of Management Review, 12(2), 222–234.
Irwin, J. R., & Naylor, R. W. (2009). Ethical decisions and response mode compatibility: Weighting of ethical attributes in consideration sets formed by excluding versus including product alternatives. Journal of Marketing Research, 46(2), 234–246.
Iyer, E., & Banerjee, B. (1993). Anatomy of green advertising. ACR North American Advances, NA-20(20), 494–501.
King, W. C., & Miles, E. W. (1994). The measurement of equity sensitivity. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 67(2), 133–142.
Lichtenstein, D. R., & Burton, S. (1989). The relationship between perceived and objective price-quality. Journal of Marketing Research, 26(4), 429–443.
Lin, Y.-C., & Chang, C. A. (2012). Double standard: The role of environmental consciousness in green product usage. Journal of Marketing, 76(5), 125–134.
Luchs, M. G., Brower, J., & Chitturi, R. (2012). Product choice and the importance of aesthetic design given the emotion-laden trade-off between sustainability and functional performance. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 29(6), 903–916.
Luchs, M. G., & Kumar, M. (2017). “Yes, but this other one looks better/works better”: How do consumers respond to trade-offs between sustainability and other valued attributes? Journal of Business Ethics, 140(3), 567–584.
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(5), 18–31.
Lunde, M. B. (2018). Sustainability in marketing: A systematic review unifying 20 years of theoretical and substantive contributions (1997–2016). AMS Review, 8(3), 85–110.
Mazar, N., & Zhong, C.-B. (2010). Do green products make us better people? Psychological Science, 21(4), 494–498.
Minton, A. P., & Rose, R. L. (1997). The effects of environmental concern on environmentally friendly consumer behavior: An exploratory study. Journal of Business Research, 40(1), 37–48.
Mohr, L. A., & Webb, D. J. (2005). The effects of corporate social responsibility and price on consumer responses. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 39(1), 121–147.
Monroe, K. B., & Dodds, W. B. (1988). A research program for establishing the validity of the price–quality relationship. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1), 151–168.
Nielsen. (2015). The sustainability imperative: New insights on consumer expectations. Retrieved March 26, 2019, from https://www.nielsen.com/content/dam/nielsenglobal/dk/docs/global-sustainability-report-oct-2015.pdf.
Nielsen. (2018). Unpacking the sustainability landscape. Retrieved July 25, 2019, from https://www.nielsen.com/us/en/insights/report/2018/unpacking-the-sustainability-landscape.
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(2), 171–184.
Ozanne, L. K., & Smith, P. M. (1998). Segmenting the market for environmentally certified wood products. Forest Science, 44(3), 379–389.
Papaoikonomou, E., Cascon-Pereira, R., & Ryan, G. (2016). Constructing and communicating an ethical consumer identity: A social identity approach. Journal of Consumer Culture, 16(1), 209–231.
Rao, A. R., & Monroe, K. B. (1989). The effect of price, brand name, and store name on buyers’ perceptions of product quality: An integrative review. Journal of Marketing Research, 26(3), 351–357.
Rao, V. R., & Sattler, H. (2000). Measurement of informational and allocative effects of price. In A. Gustafsson, A. Herrmann, & F. Huber (Eds.), Conjoint measurement: Methods and applications (pp. 47–66). Berlin: Springer.
Ross, S. M., & Kapitan, S. (2018). Balancing self/collective-interest: Equity theory for prosocial consumption. European Journal of Marketing, 52(3/4), 528–549.
Sen, S., & Bhattacharya, C. B. (2001). Does doing good always lead to doing better? Consumer reactions to corporate social responsibility. Journal of Marketing Research, 38(2), 225–243.
Sheth, J. N., Sethia, N. K., & Srinivas, S. (2011). Mindful consumption: A customer-centric approach to sustainability. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39(1), 21–39.
Shiu, E., & Shaw, D. (2003). Ethics in consumer choice: A multivariate modelling approach. European Journal of Marketing, 37(10), 1485–1498.
Simpson, B., & Radford, S. K. (2014). Situational variables and sustainability in multi-attribute decision-making. European Journal of Marketing, 48(5/6), 1046–1069.
Teas, R. K., & Agarwal, S. (2000). The effects of extrinsic product cues on consumers’ perceptions of quality, sacrifice, and value. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28(2), 278–290.
Trudel, R., & Cotte, J. (2009). Does it pay to be good? MIT Sloan Management Review, 50(2), 61–68.
Völckner, F., & Hofmann, J. (2007). The price–perceived quality relationship: A meta-analytic review and assessment of its determinants. Marketing Letters, 18(3), 181–196.
White, K., Habib, R., & Hardesty, D. J. (2019). How to SHIFT consumer behaviors to be more sustainable: A literature review and guiding framework. Journal of Marketing, 83(3), 22–49.
Xia, L., Monroe, K. B., & Cox, J. L. (2004). The price is unfair! A conceptual framework of price fairness perceptions. Journal of Marketing, 68(4), 1–15.
Zeithaml, V. A. (1988). Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: A means-end model and synthesis of evidence. Journal of Marketing, 52(3), 2–22.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflicts of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Research Involving Human Participants: All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the Ethical Standards of the University of Massachusetts Amherst Isenberg School of Management Institutional Review Board and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed Consent: Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendices
Appendix 1: K-Means Cluster Analysis Details
We reference Ross and Kapitan (2018) for the rationale for using segmentation procedure, which validated the use of K-means resulting in a 3-cluster solution. Use of K-means is useful when the number of clusters is known, which is the case of the application here. The K-means cluster analysis was used to assign individuals into one of three segments (Entitled, Equity Sensitive, and Benevolent) based on their score on the equity sensitivity index. Scores for the Equity Sensitive Index range from 0 to 50, where 0 is very entitled, and 50 is very benevolent.
There are known limitations of K-means cluster analysis including being sensitive to scaling issues across variables, outliers, and initial seed selection. However, in our analysis, these were not an issue. Our analysis segmented one variable (equity sensitivity index score), so no scaling issues were involved. The initial seeds for the clusters were set as the theoretical minimum (0), average (25), and maximum (50) levels. Additionally, since this variable is normally distributed in a bounded range, there were no outliers.
In both study 1 and study 2 we conducted the cluster analysis on the entire sample prior to individual-condition analysis. For both studies, initial seeds for the clusters were set at the theoretical minimum (0), average (25), and maximum (50). The K-means procedure achieved convergence in 5 iterations. For study 1, differences in the means (MENT = 13.88, MEQS = 25.19, MBEN = 37.38) were statistically different [F(2,1140) = 1863.46, p = 0.000]. The threshold of scores on the equity sensitivity index were 0–19 as Entitled, 20–32 for Equity Sensitive, and 30–50 for Benevolent segments. For study 2, differences in the means [MENT = 15.60, MEQS = 26.29, MBEN = 36.62] were statistically different [F(2, 244) = 372.82, p = 0.000]. The threshold of scores on the equity sensitivity index were 0–20 as Entitled, 21–31 for Equity Sensitive, and 32–50 for Benevolent segments.
Appendix 2: Sports watch Study Product Stimuli
Product Description [Low Price, High Quality, Conventional]
This Horlogio Analog Watch has a classically casual style, features a white dial face, which is embellished with stand-out Arabic numerals and minute indexes, and comes protected by a durable sapphire glass dial window. A black silicone band is equipped with a sturdy buckle clasp. Other details include a steel-toned, stationary bezel, 35-mm ceramic case, and waterproofing to 300 ft. Sleek and dependable, this handsome timepiece brings an easy functionality to your fast-paced lifestyle.
Price: $29.
About Horlogio
Horlogio entered the wristwatch market at a time when the watch industry had just discovered digital technology. As a company with cutting-edge technology, Horlogio entered this field confident that it could develop timepieces that would lead the market. Recently, Horlogio launched a series of smartwatches that sync to the user’s cell phone to automatically update the time. Horlogio: Always moving time forward.
Product Description [High Price, Low Quality, Sustainable]
This Horlogio Analog Ecowatch has a classically casual style, features a white dial face, which is embellished with stand-out Arabic numerals and minute indexes. A black plastic band is equipped with a buckle clasp. Other details include a black-toned, stationary bezel, 35-mm plastic case, and a solar cell battery. Sleek and sporty, this handsome timepiece brings an easy functionality to your fast-paced lifestyle.
Price: $149.
About Horlogio
Horlogio entered the wristwatch market at a time when the watch industry had just discovered digital technology. As a company with cutting-edge technology, Horlogio entered this field confident that it could develop timepieces that would lead the market. Recently, Horlogio launched its Ecowatch line, made from sustainably-sourced materials and working to improve living conditions in manufacturing communities around the world. Horlogio: Watching out for a better planet.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Ross, S.M., Milne, G.R. Price? Quality? Or Sustainability? Segmenting by Disposition Toward Self-other Tradeoffs Predicts Consumers’ Sustainable Decision-Making. J Bus Ethics 172, 361–378 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-020-04478-5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-020-04478-5