Powering Sustainable Consumption: The Roles of Green Consumption Values and Power Distance Belief

Abstract

As human consumption is one of the key contributors to environmental problems, it is increasingly urgent to promote sustainable consumption. Drawing on the agentic-communal model of power, this research explores how the psychological feeling of power influences consumers’ preference for green products. We show that low power increases consumers’ preference for green (vs. conventional) products compared to high power (Studies 1a and 1b). Importantly, we identify two factors moderating the main effect of power on green consumption. Specifically, we find that the effect of power on green consumption is more salient among those with high green consumption values (Study 2). In addition, the effects of power are dynamic as a function of power distance belief (PDB), such that low power (vs. high power) promotes green consumption in the low-PDB context while high power (vs. low power) promotes green consumption in the high-PDB context (Study 3). Taken together, these findings provide novel insights into understanding green consumption from the perspectives of social power, green values, and PDB. Besides contributing to the literature, the findings have significant implications for marketers and policy-makers in promoting green campaigns, bridging the attitude-behavior gap, and building a more sustainable society.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Notes

  1. 1.

    Following a reviewer’s suggestion, we tested the interaction effect of power and environmental consciousness (NEP scale) on purchase intention. Results showed that the interaction effect was not significant (b = − .18, p = .27).

  2. 2.

    Following a reviewer’s suggestion, we tested for discriminant validity between environmental consciousness (NEP scale) and GREEN values by conducting an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and calculating the average variance extracted (AVE) for both constructs. Results showed that while GREEN values (α = .93) and NEP (α = .87) were moderately correlated (r = .42), the AVE of GREEN values (AVE = .71) and NEP (AVE = .40) exceeded their shared variance (squared correlation = .178), indicating that the two constructs were distinct.

References

  1. Abele, A. E., & Wojciszke, B. (2014). Communal and agentic content in social cognition: A dual perspective model. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 50(1), 198–255.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Alternative Apparel. (2018). Sustainability. Retrieved December 2, 2018, from https://www.alternativeapparel.com/social-responsibility.

  4. Amatulli, C., De Angelis, M., Peluso, A. M., Soscia, I., & Guido, G. (2019). The effect of negative message framing on green consumption: An investigation of the role of shame. Journal of Business Ethics, 157(4), 1111–1132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Anderson, C., John, O. P., & Keltner, D. (2012). The personal sense of power. Journal of Personality, 80(2), 313–344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Bailey, A. A., Mishra, A. S., & Tiamiyu, M. F. (2018). Application of GREEN scale to understanding U.S. consumer response to green marketing communications. Psychology & Marketing, 35(11), 863–875.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Barbarossa, C., & De 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(2), 229–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Berinsky, A. J., Huber, G. A., & Lenz, G. S. (2012). Evaluating online labor markets for experimental research: Amazon.com’s Mechanical Turk. Political Analysis, 20(3), 351–368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Brough, A. R., Wilkie, J. E., Ma, J., Isaac, M. S., & Gal, D. (2016). Is eco-friendly unmanly? The green-feminine stereotype and its effect on sustainable consumption. Journal of Consumer Research, 43(4), 567–582.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Bullard, O., & Manchanda, R. V. (2013). Do sustainable products make us prevention focused? Marketing Letters, 24(2), 177–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Choi, S., & Ng, A. (2011). Environmental and economic dimensions of sustainability and price effects on consumer responses. Journal of Business Ethics, 104(2), 269–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Cunningham, W. P., Saigo, B. W., & Cunningham, M. A. (2001). Environmental science: A global concern (7th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Deng, M., Guinote, A., & Cui, L. (2018). When low power meets status: Powerlessness triggers behavioral inhibition only under low status. Social Cognition, 36(1), 134–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Diamantopoulos, A., Schlegelmilch, B. B., Sinkovics, R. R., & Bohlen, G. M. (2003). Can socio-demographics still play a role in profiling green consumers? A review of the evidence and an empirical investigation. Journal of Business Research, 56(6), 465–480.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Dubois, D., Rucker, D. D., & Galinsky, A. D. (2012). Super size me: Product size as a signal of status. Journal of Consumer Research, 38(6), 1047–1062.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Dubois, D., Rucker, D. D., & Galinsky, A. D. (2015). Social class, power, and selfishness: When and why upper and lower class individuals behave unethically. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 108(3), 436–449.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. European Commission. (2012). Policies to encourage sustainable consumption. Retrieved June 16, 2018, from http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eussd/pdf/report_22082012.pdf.

  21. European Environment Agency. (2012). Consumption and the environment. Retrieved May 2, 2018, from http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/consumption-and-the-environment-2012.

  22. Farh, J. L., Hackett, R. D., & Liang, J. (2007). Individual-level cultural values as moderators of perceived organizational support–employee outcome relationships in China: Comparing the effects of power distance and traditionality. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 715–729.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Fiske, S. T., & Berdahl, J. (2006). Social power. In A. W. Kruglanski & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (2nd ed., pp. 678–692). New York: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Fiske, S. T., Dupree, C. H., Nicolas, G., & Swencionis, J. K. (2016). Status, power, and intergroup relations: The personal is the societal. Current Opinion in Psychology, 11, 44–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Galinsky, A. D., Magee, J. C., Inesi, M. E., & Gruenfeld, D. H. (2006). Power and perspectives not taken. Psychological Science, 17(12), 1068–1074.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Gao, H., Winterich, K. P., & Zhang, Y. (2016). All that glitters is not gold: How others’ status influences the effect of power distance belief on status consumption. Journal of Consumer Research, 43(2), 265–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Galinsky, A. D., Magee, J. C., Gruenfeld, D. H., Whitson, J. A., & Liljenquist, K. A. (2008). Power reduces the press of the situation: Implications for creativity, conformity, and dissonance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(6), 1450–1466.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Gifford, R. (2014). Environmental psychology matters. Annual Review of Psychology, 65, 541–579.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Gleim, M. R., Smith, J. S., Andrews, D., & Cronin, J. J., Jr. (2013). Against the green: A multi-method examination of the barriers to green consumption. Journal of Retailing, 89(1), 44–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Goodman, J. K., & Paolacci, G. (2017). Crowdsourcing consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 44(1), 196–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 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), 392–402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Han, D., Lalwani, A. K., & Duhachek, A. (2017). Power distance belief, power, and charitable giving. Journal of Consumer Research, 44(1), 182–195.

    Google Scholar 

  33. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Keltner, D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Anderson, C. (2003). Power, approach, and inhibition. Psychological Review, 110(2), 265–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Kifer, Y., Heller, D., Perunovic, W. Q. E., & Galinsky, A. D. (2013). The good life of the powerful: The experience of power and authenticity enhances subjective well-being. Psychological Science, 24(3), 280–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Kraus, M. W., Piff, P. K., Mendoza-Denton, R., Rheinschmidt, M. L., & Keltner, D. (2012). Social class, solipsism, and contextualism: How the rich are different from the poor. Psychological Review, 119(3), 546–572.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Kronrod, A., Grinstein, A., & Wathieu, L. (2012). Go green! Should environmental messages be so assertive? Journal of Marketing, 76(1), 95–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Lalwani, A. K., & Forcum, L. (2016). Does a dollar get you a dollar’s worth of merchandise? The impact of power distance belief on price-quality judgments. Journal of Consumer Research, 43(2), 317–333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Madzharov, A. V., Block, L. G., & Morrin, M. (2015). The cool scent of power: Effects of ambient scent on consumer preferences and choice behavior. Journal of Marketing, 79(1), 83–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Magee, J. C., & Galinsky, A. D. (2008). Social hierarchy: The self-reinforcing nature of power and status. Academy of Management Annals, 2(1), 351–398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Magee, J. C., & Smith, P. K. (2013). The social distance theory of power. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 17(2), 158–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. 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(4), 503–515.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Newman, G. E., Gorlin, M., & Dhar, R. (2014). When going green backfires: How firm intentions shape the evaluation of socially beneficial product enhancements. Journal of Consumer Research, 41(3), 823–839.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Olson, E. L. (2013). It’s not easy being green: The effects of attribute trade-offs on green product preference and choice. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 41(2), 171–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Oyserman, D. (2006). High power, low power, and equality: Culture beyond individualism and collectivism. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 16(4), 352–356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Pancer, E., McShane, L., & Noseworthy, T. J. (2017). Isolated environmental cues and product efficacy penalties: The color green and eco-labels. Journal of Business Ethics, 143(1), 159–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Peloza, J., White, K., & Shang, J. (2013). Good and guilt-free: The role of self-accountability in influencing preferences for products with ethical attributes. Journal of Marketing, 77(1), 104–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Pitesa, M., & Thau, S. (2013). Compliant sinners, obstinate saints: How power and self-focus determine the effectiveness of social influences in ethical decision making. Academy of Management Journal, 56(3), 635–658.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Piff, P. K., Kraus, M. W., Côté, S., Cheng, B. H., & Keltner, D. (2010). Having less, giving more: The influence of social class on prosocial behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99(5), 771–784.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Prothero, A., Dobscha, S., Freund, J., Kilbourne, W. E., Luchs, M. G., Ozanne, L. K., et al. (2011). Sustainable consumption: Opportunities for consumer research and public policy. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 30(1), 31–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Rai, T. S., & Fiske, A. P. (2011). Moral psychology is relationship regulation: Moral motives for unity, hierarchy, equality, and proportionality. Psychological Review, 118(1), 57–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Romani, S., Grappi, S., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2016). Corporate socially responsible initiatives and their effects on consumption of green products. Journal of Business Ethics, 135(2), 253–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Roux, C., Goldsmith, K., & Bonezzi, A. (2015). On the psychology of scarcity: When reminders of resource scarcity promote selfish (and generous) behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 42(4), 615–631.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Rucker, D. D., Dubois, D., & Galinsky, A. D. (2011). Generous paupers and stingy princes: Power drives consumer spending on self versus others. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(6), 1015–1029.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Rucker, D. D., & Galinsky, A. D. (2008). Desire to acquire: Powerlessness and compensatory consumption. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(2), 257–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Rucker, D. D., & Galinsky, A. D. (2009). Conspicuous consumption versus utilitarian ideals: How different levels of power shape consumer behavior. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(3), 549–555.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Rucker, D. D., & Galinsky, A. D. (2017). Social power and social class: Conceptualization, consequences, and current challenges. Current Opinion in Psychology, 18, 26–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Rucker, D. D., Galinsky, A. D., & Dubois, D. (2012). Power and consumer behavior: How power shapes who and what consumers value. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22(3), 352–368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Rucker, D. D., Hu, M., & Galinsky, A. D. (2014). The experience versus the expectations of power: A recipe for altering the effects of power on behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 41(2), 381–396.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Sachdeva, S., Jordan, J., & Mazar, N. (2015). Green consumerism: Moral motivations to a sustainable future. Current Opinion in Psychology, 6, 60–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Seo, J. Y., & Scammon, D. L. (2017). Do green packages lead to misperceptions? The influence of package colors on consumers’ perceptions of brands with environmental claims. Marketing Letters, 28(3), 357–369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Sexton, S. E., & Sexton, A. L. (2014). Conspicuous conservation: The Prius halo and willingness to pay for environmental bona fides. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 67(3), 303–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Shrum, L. J., McCarty, J. A., & Lowrey, T. M. (1995). Buyer characteristics of the green consumer and their implications for advertising strategy. Journal of Advertising, 24(2), 71–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Smith, P. K., & Trope, Y. (2006). You focus on the forest when you’re in charge of the trees: Power priming and abstract information processing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(4), 578–596.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Spiller, S. A., Fitzsimons, G. J., Lynch, J. G., Jr., & McClelland, G. H. (2013). Spotlights, floodlights, and the magic number zero: Simple effects tests in moderated regression. Journal of Marketing Research, 50(2), 277–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Straughan, R. D., & Roberts, J. A. (1999). Environmental segmentation alternatives: A look at green consumer behavior in the new millennium. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 16(6), 558–575.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Summers, C. A., Smith, R. W., & Reczek, R. W. (2016). An audience of one: Behaviorally targeted ads as implied social labels. Journal of Consumer Research, 43(1), 156–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Tangari, A. H., Burton, S., & Smith, R. J. (2015). Now that’s a bright idea: The influence of consumer elaboration and distance perceptions on sustainable choices. Journal of Retailing, 91(3), 410–421.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Theotokis, A., & Manganari, E. (2015). The impact of choice architecture on sustainable consumer behavior: The role of guilt. Journal of Business Ethics, 131(2), 423–437.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Thøgersen, J. (2005). How may consumer policy empower consumers for sustainable lifestyles? Journal of Consumer Policy, 28(2), 143–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Thøgersen, J., Haugaard, P., & Olesen, A. (2010). Consumer responses to ecolabels. European Journal of Marketing, 44(11/12), 1787–1810.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Torelli, C. J., & Shavitt, S. (2010). Culture and concepts of power. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99(4), 703–723.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Tost, L. P., Wade-Benzoni, K. A., & Johnson, H. H. (2015). Noblesse oblige emerges (with time): Power enhances intergenerational beneficence. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 128, 61–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Trudel, R. (2019). Sustainable consumer behavior. Consumer Psychology Review, 2, 85–96.

    Google Scholar 

  81. Van der Wal, A. J., van Horen, F., & Grinstein, A. (2016). The paradox of ‘green to be seen’: Green high-status shoppers excessively use (branded) shopping bags. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 33(1), 216–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Van Vugt, M. (2009). Averting the tragedy of the commons using social psychological science to protect the environment. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18(3), 169–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Wade-Benzoni, K. A., Hernandez, M., Medvec, V., & Messick, D. (2008). In fairness to future generations: The role of egocentrism, uncertainty, power, and stewardship in judgments of intergenerational allocations. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44(2), 233–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Wang, X., Wang, X., Fang, X., & Jiang, Q. (2018). Power distance belief and brand personality evaluations. Journal of Business Research, 84(2), 89–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Webb, D. J., Mohr, L. A., & Harris, K. E. (2008). A re-examination of socially responsible consumption and its measurement. Journal of Business Research, 61(1), 91–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Weber, E. U. (2015). Climate change demands behavioral change: What are the challenges? Social Research: An International Quarterly, 82(3), 561–580.

    Google Scholar 

  87. White, K., & Simpson, B. (2013). When do (and don’t) normative appeals influence sustainable consumer behaviors? Journal of Marketing, 77(2), 78–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. Winterich, K. P., & Zhang, Y. (2014). Accepting inequality deters responsibility: How power distance decreases charitable behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 41(2), 274–293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  89. Yan, L., Keh, H. T., & Chen, J. (2019). The rise of the middle class: The curvilinear effect of social class on green consumption. Working paper.

  90. Zabkar, V., & Hosta, M. (2013). Willingness to act and environmentally conscious consumer behaviour: Can prosocial status perceptions help overcome the gap? International Journal of Consumer Studies, 37(3), 257–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  91. Zaval, L., Markowitz, E. M., & Weber, E. U. (2015). How will I be remembered? Conserving the environment for the sake of one’s legacy. Psychological Science, 26(2), 231–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  92. Zhang, Y., Winterich, K. P., & Mittal, V. (2010). Power distance belief and impulsive buying. Journal of Marketing Research, 47(5), 945–954.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  93. Zhong, C. B., Magee, J. C., Maddux, W. W., & Galinsky, A. D. (2006). Power, culture, and action: Considerations in the expression and enactment of power in East Asian and Western societies. In Y.-R. Chen (Ed.), National culture and groups (research on managing groups and teams, volume 9) (pp. 53–73). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This study was funded by the research incentive grant (1764979) awarded to Hean Tat Keh by Monash University, and the research grant (2210209) awarded to Li Yan by the University of Technology Sydney. Part of this research was conducted at the Monash Business Behavioral Laboratory.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hean Tat Keh.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix: Product Stimuli for Studies 1b and 3

Appendix: Product Stimuli for Studies 1b and 3

Study 1b: hand wash

figurea

Study 3: all-purpose cleaner (adapted from Haws et al. 2014)

figureb

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Yan, L., Keh, H.T. & Wang, X. Powering Sustainable Consumption: The Roles of Green Consumption Values and Power Distance Belief. J Bus Ethics 169, 499–516 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04295-5

Download citation

Keywords

  • Social power
  • Sustainable consumption
  • Green products
  • Power distance belief