Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Translating Environmental Ideologies into Action: The Amplifying Role of Commitment to Beliefs

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Consumers do not always follow their ideological beliefs about the need to engage in environmentally friendly (EF) consumption. We propose that Commitment to Beliefs (CTB)—the general tendency to follow one’s value-based beliefs—can help identify who is most likely to follow their environmental ideologies. We predicted that CTB would amplify the effect of beliefs prescribing environmental stewardship (e.g., new ecological paradigm), or neglect (e.g., economic system-justification), on corresponding intentions, behavior, and purchasing decisions. In two studies, CTB amplified the positive and negative effects of relevant EF ideologies on EF purchase decisions (Study 1), and consumption and conservation attitudes, intentions, as well as future behavior (Study 2). In each study, only people with higher levels of CTB demonstrated the most ideologically consistent consumption and conservation intentions and behavior. These findings clarify who is most likely to align their decisions and lifestyles according to their sustainable consumption ideologies. The amplification effect of CTB, and the CTB variable itself, present new contributions to consumer behavior research and the domains of sustainable or ethical consumption in particular and offer wide-ranging potential for marketing practitioners and researchers.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

Notes

  1. Scores on all criterion variables were unrelated to the number of days between the beginning of the term and completing measures at T1 or T2, as well as the number of days between completing T1 and T2 measures.

  2. Income level was unrelated to all criterion variables in Study 1 and 2 except for a weak negative relation with EF intentions in Study 2, r(323) = −.12, p < .05. Controlling for income did not alter any of the regression results reported in Study 1 or 2.

  3. We appreciate a reviewer’s suggestion that we decompose our measure of EF consumption into three subscales tapping green consumption, water saving behavior, and energy saving behavior. Measuring EF behavior according to the latter three subscales yielded substantially lower reliabilities (α’s = .02–.59) than our original overall aggregate of EF behavior (α = .66). Therefore, we retained the combined measure for the current study.

Abbreviations

EF:

Environmentally Friendly

CTB:

Commitment to Beliefs

NEP:

New Ecological Paradigm

ESJ:

Economic System-Justification

TPB:

Theory of Planned Behavior

References

  • Adams, A. (2014). Global consumers are willing to put their money where their heart is when it comes to goods and services from companies committed to social responsibility. Nielsen Press Room. Retrieved April 8, 2015, from http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/press-room/2014/global-consumers-are-willing-to-put-their-money-where-their-heart-is.html.

  • Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179–211.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (2005). The influence of attitudes on behavior. In D. Albarracín, B. T. Johnson, & M. P. Zanna (Eds.), The handbook of attitudes (pp. 173–221). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Altemeyer, B., & Hunsberger, B. (1992). Authoritarianism, religious fundamentalism, quest, and prejudice. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 2, 113–133.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andrews, M. (1991). Lifetimes of commitment: Aging, politics, psychology. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Antonetti, P., & Maklan, S. (2014). Feelings that make a difference: How guilt and pride convince consumers of the effectiveness of sustainable consumption choices. Journal of Business Ethics, 124(1), 117–134.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aquino, K., & Reed, A., II. (2002). The self-importance of moral identity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 1423–1440.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (1989). Self-regulation of motivation and action through internal standards and goal systems. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bang, H., Ellinger, A. E., Hadjimarcou, J., & Traichal, P. A. (2000). Consumer concern, knowledge, belief, and attitude toward renewable energy: An application of the reasoned action theory. Psychology & Marketing, 17, 449–468.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baraldi, A. N., & Enders, C. K. (2010). An introduction to modern missing data analyses. Journal of School Psychology, 48(1), 5–37. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2009.10.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barbarossa, C., & Pelsmacker, P. (2016). Positive and negative antecedents of purchasing eco-friendly products: A comparison between green and non-green consumers. Journal of Business Ethics, 134, 229–247.

    Google Scholar 

  • Botetzagias, I., & van Schuur, W. (2012). Active greens: An analysis of the determinants of green party members’ activism in environmental movements. Environment and Behavior, 44, 509–544.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brunsø, K., Scholderer, J., & Grunert, K. G. (2004). Testing relationships between values and food-related lifestyle: Results from two European countries. Appetite, 43, 195–205.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burg, E. (2007). Whole Foods is consumers’ favorite green brand. Marketing Daily. Retrieved Feb 24, 2015 from http://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/60116/whole-foods-is-consumers-favorite-green-brand.html?edition.

  • Burroughs, J. E., & Rindfleisch, A. (2002). Materialism and well-being: A conflicting values perspective. Journal of Consumer Research, 29, 348–370.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carrigan, M., & Attalla, A. (2001). The myth of the ethical consumer—Do ethics matter in purchase behavior? Journal of Consumer Marketing, 18(7), 560–577.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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, 2759–2767.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chatard, A., Arndt, J., & Pyszczynski, T. (2010). Loss shapes political views? Terror management, political ideology, and the death of close others. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 32(1), 2–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cizek, G., & Fitzgerald, S. M. (1999). Methods, plainly speaking: An introduction to logistic regression. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 31, 223–245.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, C. F., Kotchen, M. J., & Moore, M. R. (2003). Internal and external influences on pro-environmental behavior: Participation in a green electricity program. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23, 237–246.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clayton, S. (2003). Environmental identity: A conceptual and an operational definition. In S. Clayton & S. Opotow (Eds.), Identity and the natural environment: The psychological significance of nature (pp. 45–65). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cleveland, M., Kalamas, M., & Laroche, M. (2012). “It’s not easy being green”: Exploring green creeds, green deeds, and internal environmental locus of control. Psychology & Marketing, 29, 293–305.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coffey, D. J., & Joseph, P. H. (2013). A polarized environment: The effect of partisanship and ideological values on individual recycling & conservation behavior. American Behavioral Scientist, 57, 116–139.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J., Cohen, P., Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conway, P., & Peetz, J. (2012). When does feeling moral actually make you a better person? Conceptual abstraction moderates whether past moral deeds motivate consistency or compensatory behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38, 907–919.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cordano, M., Welcomer, S., Scherer, R. F., Pradenas, L., & Parada, V. (2011). A cross-cultural assessment of three theories of pro-environmental behavior: A comparison between business students of Chile and the United States. Environment and Behavior, 43, 634–657.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cosmas, S. (1982). Life styles and consumption patterns. Journal of Consumer Research, 10, 453–455.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunlap, R. E. (2008). The new environmental paradigm scale: From marginality to worldwide use. Journal of Environmental Education, 40, 3–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunlap, R. E., Van Liere, K. D., Mertig, A. G., & Emmet Jones, R. (2000). Measuring endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: A revised NEP scale. Journal of Social Issues Special Issue: Promoting Environmentalism, 56, 425–442.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duriez, B., & Van Hiel, A. (2002). The March of modern fascism. A comparison of social dominance orientation and authoritarianism. Personality and Individual Differences, 32, 1199–1213.

    Google Scholar 

  • Durvasula, S., & Lysonski, S. (2009). How offshore outsourcing is perceived: Why do some consumers feel more threatened? Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 21, 17–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Egea, J. M. O., & Frutos, N. G. (2013). Toward consumption reduction: An environmentally motivated perspective. Psychology & Marketing, 30, 660–675.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erikson R. S., & Tedin, K. L. (2003). American public opinion (6th ed.). New York: Longman.

  • Ethical Consumer. (2014). Ethical consumer markets report 2014. Retrieved from http://www.ethicalconsumer.org/researchhub/ukethicalmarket.aspx.

  • Ethical goods sales increase despite recession. (2012). The Guardian, December 29. Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/dec/29/ethical-goods-sales-increase.

  • Farah, M. F., & Newman, A. J. (2010). Exploring consumer boycott intelligence using a socio-cognitive approach. Journal of Business Research, 63(4), 347–355.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feather, N. T., & McKee, I. R. (2008). Values and prejudice: Predictors of attitudes towards Australian Aborigines. Australian Journal of Psychology, 60, 80–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fernandes, D., & Mandel, N. (2014). Political conservatism and variety-seeking. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 24(1), 79–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferro, M. A. (2014). Missing data in longitudinal studies: Cross-sectional multiple imputation provides similar estimates to full-information maximum likelihood. Annals of Epidemiology, 24(1), 75–77. doi:10.1016/j.annepidem.2013.10.007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feygina, I., Jost, J., & Goldsmith, R. E. (2010). System justification, the denial of global warming, and the possibility of “system-sanctioned change”. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 326–338.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. doi:10.2307/3151312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibbons, F. X., Gerrard, M., Blanton, H., & Russell, D. W. (1998). Reasoned action and social reaction: Willingness and intention as independent predictors of health risk. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(5), 1164–1180.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gifford, R. (2014). Environmental psychology matters. Annual Review of Psychology, 65, 547–579.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graham, J. W. (2003). Adding missing-data-relevant variables to FIML-based structural equation models. Structural Equation Modeling, 10(1), 80–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graham, J., Haidt, J., & Nosek, B. A. (2009). Liberals and conservatives rely on different sets of moral foundations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(5), 1029–1046.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guagnano, G. A., Stern, P. C., & Dietz, T. (1995). Influences on attitude-behavior relationships a natural experiment with curbside recycling. Environment and Behavior, 27, 699–718.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heath, Y., & Gifford, R. (2006). Free-market ideology and environmental degradation. Environment and Behavior, 38, 48–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). (2015). Climate change 2014: Impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. Contribution of IPCC working group II to the fifth assessment report of the IPCC. Geneva, Switzerland: IPCC.

  • Jost, J. T. (2006). The end of the end of ideology. American Psychologist, 61, 651–670.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jost, J. T., Banaji, M. R., & Nosek, B. A. (2004). A decade of system justification theory: Accumulated evidence of conscious and unconscious bolstering of the status quo. Political Psychology, 25(6), 881–919.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jost, J. T., Blount, S., Pfeffer, J., & Hunyady, G. (2003). Fair market ideology: Its cognitive-motivational underpinnings. In R. M. Kramer & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior: An annual series of analytical essays and critical reviews (Vol. 25, pp. 53–91). Oxford: Elsevier Science Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jost, J. T., Federico, C. M., & Napier, J. L. (2009). Political ideology: Its structure, functions, and elective affinities. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 307–337.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jost, J. T., & Thompson, E. P. (2000). Group-based dominance and opposition to equality as independent predictors of self-esteem, ethnocentrism, and social policy attitudes among African Americans and European Americans. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 36, 209–232.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahle, L. R., & Xie, G. (2008). Social values in consumer psychology. Handbook of consumer psychology (pp. 575–585). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis Group/Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

  • Katz, D. (1960). The functional approach to the study of attitudes. Public Opinion Quarterly, 24, 163–204.

    Google Scholar 

  • Khan, R., Misra, K., & Singh, V. (2013). Ideology and brand consumption. Psychological Science, 24, 326–333.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kidwell, B., Farmer, A., & Hardesty, D. M. (2013). Getting liberals and conservatives to go green: Political ideology and congruent appeals. Journal of Consumer Research, 40(2), 350–367.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kinder, D. R. (1998). Opinion and action in the realm of politics. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (pp. 778–867). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klöckner, C. A., & Blöbaum, A. (2010). A comprehensive action determination model: Toward a broader understanding of ecological behaviour using the example of travel mode choice. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30, 574–586.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kronrod, A., Grinstein, A., & Wathieu, L. (2012). Go green! Should environmental messages be so assertive? Journal of Marketing, 76, 95–102.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, K. (2011). The role of media exposure, social exposure and biospheric value orientation in the environmental attitude-intention-behavior model in adolescents. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 31, 301–308.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lin, Y., & Chang, C. (2012). Double standard: The role of environmental consciousness in green product usage? Journal of Marketing, 76(5), 125–134.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindell, M. K., & Whitney, D. J. (2001). Accounting for common method variance in cross-sectional research designs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 114–121.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loechner, J. (2009). Consumers want proof it’s green. Center for Media Research. Retrieved Feb 24, 2015 from http://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/103504/consumers-want-proof-its-green.html.

  • Luchs, M. G., Naylor, R. W., Irwin, J. R., & Raghunathan, R. (2010). The sustainability liability: Potential negative effects of ethicality on product preference. Journal of Marketing, 74, 18–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maio, G. R., & Olson, J. M. (Eds.). (2000). Why we evaluate: Functions of attitudes. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maio, G. R., Olson, J. M., & Cheung, I. (2012). Attitudes in social behavior. In H. Tennen & J. Suls (Eds.), Handbook of psychology (Vol. 5, pp. 506–561). New York, NY: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marcus, J., MacDonald, H. A., & Sulsky, L. M. (2015). Do personal values influence the propensity for sustainability actions? A policy-capturing study. Journal of Business Ethics, 127(2), 459–478.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, W. C., & Bateman, C. R. (2014). Consumer religious commitment’s influence on ecocentric attitudes and behavior. Journal of Business Research, 67, 5–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maxwell-Smith, M., Barnes, K., Devaul-Fetters, A., & Seligman, C. (2016). On the value-expressive function of individual differences in commitment to beliefs: Relations with the Schwartz values scale. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Psychology, Western University, London, Canada.

  • Maxwell-Smith, M. A., & Esses, V. M. (2012). Assessing individual differences in the degree to which people are committed to following their beliefs. Journal of Research in Personality, 46, 195–209.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maxwell-Smith, M. A., Seligman, C., Conway, P., & Cheung, I. (2015). The amplification effect of individual differences in commitment to beliefs on perceived belief dissimilarity. Journal of Personality, 2, 127–141.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mazar, N., & Zhong, C. (2010). Do green products make us better people? Psychological Science, 21(4), 494–498.

    Google Scholar 

  • McConahay, J. B. (1986). Modern racism, ambivalence, and the modern racism scale. In J. F. Dovidio & S. L. Gaertner (Eds.), Prejudice, discrimination, and racism. Orlando: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Milfont, T. L., & Duckitt, J. (2010). The environmental attitudes inventory: A valid and reliable measure to assess the structure of environmental attitudes. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30, 80–94.

    Google Scholar 

  • Milfont, T. L., & Sibley, C. G. (2012). The big five personality traits and environmental engagement: Associations at the individual and societal level. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 32, 187–195.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mintel. (2010). Are Americans willing to pay more green to get more green? Retrieved March 31, 2015, from http://www.mintel.com/press-centre/pressreleases/514/are-americans-willing-to-pay-more-green-to-get-more-green.

  • Nie, C., & Zepeda, L. (2011). Lifestyle segmentation of US food shoppers to examine organic and local food consumption. Appetite, 57, 28–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L. M., & Malle, B. F. (1994). Social dominance orientation: A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 741–763.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reynolds, W. M. (1982). Development of reliable and valid short forms of the Marlowe-Crowne social desirability scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 38, 119–125.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richetin, J., Perugini, M., Conner, M., Adjali, I., Hurling, R., Sengupta, A., et al. (2012). To reduce and not to reduce resource consumption? That is two questions. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 32, 112–122.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schultz, P. W., Oskamp, S., & Mainieri, T. (1995). Who recycles and when? A review of personal and situational factors. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 15, 105–121.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 1–65). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shavitt, S. (1990). The role of attitude objects in attitude functions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 26, 124–148.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shimp, T. A., & Sharma, S. (1987). Consumer ethnocentrism: Construction and validation of the CETSCALE. Journal of Marketing Research, 24, 280–289.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sibley, C. G., & Duckitt, J. (2013). The dual process model of ideology and prejudice: A longitudinal test during a global recession. The Journal of Social Psychology, 153(4), 448–466.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snyder, M., & Gangestad, S. (1986). On the nature of self-monitoring: Matters of assessment, matters of validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 125–139.

    Google Scholar 

  • Solomon, M. R., & Buchanan, B. (1991). A role-theoretic approach to product symbolism: Mapping a consumption constellation. Journal of Business Research, 22(2), 95–109.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steg, L., & Vlek, C. (2009). Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: An integrative review and research agenda. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29, 309–317.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stern, P. C. (2000). Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 407–424.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sustainable selections: How socially responsible companies are turning a profit. (2015). The Nielsen global survey of corporate social responsibility, October 12. Retrieved from http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/insights/news/2015/sustainable-selections-how-socially-responsible-companies-are-turning-a-profit.html.

  • Swaim, J. A., Maloni, M. J., Napshin, S. A., & Henley, A. B. (2014). Influences on student intention and behavior toward environmental sustainability. Journal of Business Ethics, 124(3), 465–484.

    Google Scholar 

  • van der Pligt, J., & de Vries, N. (1998). Belief importance in expectancy-value models of attitudes. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28, 1339–1354.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vecchione, M., Schwartz, S., Alessandri, G., Döring, A. K., Castellani, V., & Caprara, M. G. (2016). Stability and change of basic personal values in early adulthood: An 8-year longitudinal study. Journal of Research in Personality, 63, 111–122.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vyncke, P. (2002). Lifestyle segmentation: From attitudes, interests and opinions, to values, aesthetic styles, life visions and media preferences. European Journal of Communication, 17, 445–463.

    Google Scholar 

  • Webster, D. M., & Kruglanski, A. W. (1994). Individual differences in need for cognitive closure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 1049–1062.

    Google Scholar 

  • White, K. M., & Hyde, M. K. (2012). The role of self-perceptions in the prediction of household recycling behavior in Australia. Environment and Behavior, 44(6), 785–799.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whitmarsh, L., & O’Neill, S. (2010). Green identity, green living? The role of pro-environmental self-identity in determining consistency across diverse pro-environmental behaviours. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(3), 305–314.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winterich, K. P., & Zhang, Y. (2014). Accepting inequality deters responsibility: How power distance decreases charitable behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 41, 274–293.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wothke, W. (2000). Longitudinal and multigroup modeling with missing data. In T. D. Little, K. U. Schnabel, & J. Baumert (Eds.), Modeling longitudinal and multilevel data: Practical issues, applied approaches, and specific examples (pp. 219–281). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yamoah, F. A., Duffy, R., Petrovici, D., & Fearne, A. (2015). Towards a framework for understanding fairtrade purchase intention in the mainstream environment of supermarkets. Journal of Business Ethics, [online], 1–17.

  • Zablocki, B. D., & Kanter, R. M. (1976). The differentiation of life-styles. Annual Review of Sociology, 2, 269–298.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, Y., Winterich, K. P., & Mittal, V. (2010). Power Distance Belief and Impulsive Buying. Journal of Marketing Research, 47, 945–954.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. DAN Management and Organizational Studies, Western University, 1151 Richmond Street, Social Science Centre, Room 4315, London, ON, N6A 5C2, Canada

    Matthew A. Maxwell-Smith

  2. Department of Psychology, Florida State University, 1107 W. Call Street, Tallahassee, FL, 32306-4301, USA

    Paul J. Conway

  3. Department of Psychology, Western University, Social Science Centre, Rm 7418, London, ON, N6A 5C2, Canada

    Joshua D. Wright & James M. Olson

Authors
  1. Matthew A. Maxwell-Smith
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Paul J. Conway
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Joshua D. Wright
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. James M. Olson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Matthew A. Maxwell-Smith.

Additional information

Portions of this work were presented at the 2015 Association of Consumer Research North American Conference, and the Annual Ivey Consumer Behavior Research 2014 Symposium in London, Ontario. A version of this manuscript received the Best Working Paper award at the 2015 Association of Consumer Research North American Conference. We thank Ravi Mehta for his comments on an earlier version of this manuscript.

Appendices

Appendix A: Ideological Scales Used as Predictors

Commitment to Beliefs Scale (Studies 1–2)

I am confident that my beliefs are true and valid.

My beliefs influence the important choices I make in my life.

Nothing is more important to me than following my beliefs.

My beliefs influence how I spend my time (e.g., the groups, associations, and/or events that I participate in).

My beliefs are the most important part of how I define myself as a person.

The potential consequence of hurting others would not stop me from following my beliefs.

I feel uncomfortable when I do something that goes against my beliefs.

My beliefs offer the most accurate and “true” reflection of reality.

I act according to my beliefs even if those around me think that I shouldn’t.

My beliefs do not have anything to do with who I am as a person*.

Living the lifestyle suggested by my beliefs is my top priority.

People need to adopt my beliefs in order to see things clearly.

It is difficult to convince me that something I believe in is wrong.

My primary concern in life is to abide by my beliefs; all other concerns are secondary.

My beliefs are reflected in the way I behave.

When I believe in something, it is worth going to all possible lengths to defend that belief.

I spend my money in accordance with my beliefs.

Without my beliefs, I would have nothing.

Pursuing my beliefs is of paramount importance, even if someone (possibly myself) loses their life in the process.

My beliefs are very important to me.

I would act in accordance with my beliefs even if it meant harming others.

I give up my free time in order to engage in activities related to my beliefs.

Those who hold beliefs opposite to my own are misguided.

I would not hesitate to argue in favor of my beliefs if called upon to do so.

(*reverse-coded).

New Ecological Paradigm Scale (Studies 1–2)

We are approaching the limit of the number of people the earth can support.

Humans have the right to modify the natural environment to suit their needs*.

When humans interfere with nature it often produces disastrous consequences.

Human ingenuity will insure that we do NOT make the earth unlivable*.

Humans are severely abusing the environment.

The earth has plenty of natural resources if we just learn how to develop them*.

Plants and animals have as much right as humans to exist.

The balance of nature is strong enough to cope with the impacts of modern industrial nations*.

Despite our special abilities humans are still subject to the laws of nature.

The so-called “ecological crisis” facing humankind has been greatly exaggerated*.

The earth is like a spaceship with very limited room and resources.

Humans were meant to rule over the rest of nature*.

The balance of nature is very delicate and easily upset.

Humans will eventually learn enough about how nature works to control it*.

If things continue on their present course, we will soon experience a major ecological catastrophe.

Economic System-Justification (Study 1)

If people work hard, they almost always get what they want.

The existence of widespread economic differences does not mean that they are inevitable*.

Laws of nature are responsible for differences in wealth in society.

It is virtually impossible to eliminate poverty.

Poor people are not essentially different from rich people*.

Most people who don’t get ahead in our society should not blame the system; they have only themselves to blame.

Equal distribution of resources is a possibility for our society*.

Social class differences reflect differences in the natural order of things.

Economic differences in the society reflect an illegitimate distribution of resources*.

There will always be poor people, because there will never be enough jobs for everybody.

Economic positions are legitimate reflections of people’s achievements.

If people wanted to change the economic system to make things equal, they could*.

Equal distribution of resources is unnatural.

There is no point in trying to make incomes more equal.

There are no inherent differences between rich and poor; it is purely a matter of the circumstances into which you are born*.

Note. Each item above measured on a scale from 1 = Strongly disagree) to 7 = Strongly agree.

* = reverse-coded item.

Appendix B: Covariate and Criterion Variables

Criterion Variable Administered in Study 1

Assuming the above product is in your current budget, which would you prefer to buy?

Product information:

Water bottle

Capacity: 25 Oz

Made from recyclable food-grade stainless steel

$15.68

Dishwasher safe

Product information:

Stainless steel sports water bottle

Capacity: 25 Oz

$15.45

Dishwasher-friendly

  1. Note. Product information captions were counterbalanced

Covariate Variables Administered in Study 2

Subjective Norms

People who are important to me would approve of me reducing of my water consumption (1 = Not at all; 7 = Very much).

Those people who are important to me think I should reduce my water consumption (1 = Completely disagree; 7 = Completely agree).

People who are important to me would approve of me reducing of my power or electricity consumption (1 = Not at all; 7 = Very much).

Those people who are important to me think I should reduce my power or electricity consumption (1 = Completely disagree; 7 = Completely agree).

People who are important to me would approve of me increasing my environmentally friendly consumption habits (1 = Not at all; 7 = Very much).

Those people who are important to me think I should increase my environmentally friendly consumption habits (1 = Completely disagree; 7 = Completely agree).

Perceived Behavioral Control

I have very little control over reducing my water consumption (1 = Completely disagree; 7 = Completely agree)*.

How much control do you have over reducing your water consumption? (1 = No control; 7 = Complete control).

I have very little control over reducing my electricity or power consumption (1 = Completely disagree; 7 = Completely agree)*.

How much control do you have over reducing your electricity or power consumption? (1 = No control; 7 = Complete control).

If I wanted to, it would be easy for me to increase my environmentally friendly consumption habits (1 = Strongly disagree; 7 = Strongly agree).

It is very difficult for me to increase or decrease consumption habits that are environmentally friendly (1 = Strongly disagree; 7 = Strongly agree)*.

Past EF Behavior

In the last three months, how frequently did you perform each of the following behaviors? (1 = Never; 2 = Seldom; 3 = Occasionally; 4 = Often; 5 = Very frequently; 6 = Almost always).

Buying products with less packaging.

Unplugging electrical devices when not using them.

Buying products that are more environmentally friendly even if they were more expensive.

When washing dishes by hand, not letting water run while rinsing.

Leaving my laptop/computer plugged into the electrical outlet even when I am not using it*.

Refusing to eat meat for environmental reasons.

Unplugging a cell phone charger when charging is completed.

Leaving the lights on when leaving the room*.

Boiling more water than I need in a kettle.*

Note. * = reverse-coded item.

Criterion Variables Administered in Study 2

EF Attitudes at Time 1

For me, reducing my water consumption is:

(1 = Useless; 7 = Useful).

(1 = Good; 7 = Bad)*

(1 = Negative; 7 = Positive).

For me, reducing my power or electricity consumption is:

(1 = Useless; 7 = Useful)

(1 = Good; 7 = Bad)*

(1 = Negative; 7 = Positive).

For me, increasing my environmentally friendly consumption habits is:

(1 = Useless; 7 = Useful),

(1 = Good; 7 = Bad)*

(1 = Negative; 7 = Positive).

EF Intentions at Time 1

How likely is it that you will reduce your water consumption? (1 = Very unlikely; 7 = Very likely)

I do NOT intend to reduce my water consumption. (1 = Strongly disagree; 7 = Strongly agree)*

How likely is it that you will reduce your electricity or power consumption? (1 = Very unlikely; 7 = Very likely)

I do NOT intend to reduce my electricity or power consumption. (1 = Strongly disagree; 7 = Strongly agree)*

How likely is it that you will increase your environmentally friendly consumption habits? (1 = Very unlikely; 7 = Very likely)

I do NOT intend to increase my environmentally friendly consumption habits. (1 = Strongly disagree; 7 = Strongly agree)*

EF Behavior at Time 2

In the last two to four weeks, how frequently did you perform each of the following behaviors? (1 = Never; 2 = Seldom; 3 = Occasionally; 4 = Often; 5 = Very frequently; 6 = Almost always).

Buying products with less packaging.

Unplugging electrical devices when not using them.

Buying products that are more environmentally friendly even if they were more expensive.

When washing dishes by hand, not letting water run while rinsing.

Leaving my laptop/computer plugged into the electrical outlet even when I am not using it.*

Refusing to eat meat for environmental reasons.

Unplugging a cell phone charger when charging is completed.

Leaving the lights on when leaving the room*.

Boiling more water than I need in a kettle*.

Note. * = reverse-coded item.

Appendix C: Supplemental Analyses

Study 1

Common Method Variance

We examined the potential influence of common method variance by applying the “marker variable” technique (Lindell and Whitney 2001). This method involves identifying a variable or construct (i.e., a marker variable) that is theoretically unrelated to the predictor and outcome variables, then examining the relations among all constructs after adjusting for the marker variable. The brief Big-5 personality measure (Gosling et al. 2003) was administered in both Study 1 and 2, and we identified the shortened scale of emotional stability as the marker variable. It is theoretically and empirically unrelated to CTB (Maxwell-Smith and Esses 2012), and emotional stability is one of the few personality dimensions that has consistently registered little to no influence on EF behavior (Milfont and Sibley 2012). In Study 1, all of the zero-order correlation coefficients that were statistically significant remained so after controlling for the marker variable. Moreover, each of the coefficients in the logistic regression analyses, including the analyses of simple slopes, retained their level of statistical significance after controlling for the marker variable. In sum, we can conclude that CMV did not bias the relations between our predictors and outcome variable in Study 1.

Study 2

Common Method Variance

We investigated the influence of common method variance in Study 2 by applying the marker variable technique in a similar fashion as in Study 1, by identifying the brief Big-5 measure of emotional stability (Gosling et al. 2003) as the marker variable. Similar to Study 1, all of the zero-order correlation coefficients that were statistically significant remained so after controlling for the marker variable in Study 2. In addition, each of the coefficients in the OLS regression analyses, including the analyses of simple slopes, retained their level of statistical significance after controlling for the marker variable. Thus, we can conclude that CMV did not bias the relations between our predictors and outcome variables in Study 1 and Study 2.

Construct Validity

To assess the reliability and validity of our measures used in the regression model, we ran confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) on all measures simultaneously using full information maximum likelihood (FIML). Missing data were minimal: 2.45% of cells across the full data set were missing. FIML estimates a likelihood function, which includes both the complete and missing data to produce parameters with the best probability of reproducing the sample data (Baraldi and Enders 2010). It estimates means and variances of the missing portions of data based upon the availability of all other data in the model (Wothke 2000). FIML produces estimates on par with multiple imputations (Graham 2003) even in longitudinal designs (Ferro 2014). We report Cronbach’s alpha, model fit, and composite reliability (CR) to assess convergent validity. To assess discriminant validity we compared the square root of the average variance extracted (AVE) for each construct to each constructs correlations with all other constructs, as suggested by Fornell and Larcker (1981).

In our CFA model, we allowed each item to load on their respective theoretical constructs, and latent constructs were allowed to correlate. The overall model demonstrates good fit, χ2 = 14,403.09, p < .001, RMSEA = .057 95% CI [.055, .058], SRMR = .08. As shown in Table 5, measures generally had high composite reliabilities (.65–.94) and high alpha coefficients (.64–.94). The square root of the average variance extracted (AVE) of each construct is presented in the diagonal of Table 5. It can be seen that all the square root values of AVE for each construct were greater than all of the corresponding zero-order correlations that each construct registered with other variables, indicating consistently strong discriminant validity across all constructs.

Table 5 Descriptive statistics and zero-order correlations based on (Study 2)
Full size table

Assumptions Underlying Regression Analyses

We also examined whether our data met the assumptions necessary to support the results of our regression analyses, following the guidelines recommended by Cohen et al. (2003). As reported in Table 5, the α values for our multi-item predictor and covariate variables in Study 2 ranged from minimally acceptable (.64) to very strong reliability (.94). There was no evidence of undue multicollinearity: Across all variables predicting EF attitudes, intentions, and behavior, no variable inflation factor (VIF) values fell above 1.41, and no collinearity tolerance values fell below .71, which are (respectively) far below and far above the relevant thresholds of 10 and .1 that indicate the presence of multicollinearity. Visual inspection of the residuals from each regression analysis suggested they were normally distributed. We also plotted how the residuals were related to predicted values of the full regression equations as well as each individual predictor; none of these plots suggested that the degree to which the residuals varied indicated any presence of undue heteroscedasticity. Finally, the Durbin–Watson d statistic ranged 1.88–2.29 across all regression analyses, falling within the 1.5 < d < 2.5 threshold range which indicates that the residuals are independent of one another. Thus, we concluded that our data met the theoretical assumptions necessary to perform the reported regression analysis.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Maxwell-Smith, M.A., Conway, P.J., Wright, J.D. et al. Translating Environmental Ideologies into Action: The Amplifying Role of Commitment to Beliefs. J Bus Ethics 153, 839–858 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3404-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3404-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation