Skip to main content

Sex, Personality, and Sustainable Consumer Behaviour: Elucidating the Gender Effect

Journal of Consumer Policy volume 35, pages 127–144 (2012)Cite this article

Abstract

Sustainable consumer behaviour—behaviour motivated or influenced by social and/or environmental considerations—is an important topic in public policy and consumer psychology. Research on the antecedents of sustainable consumer behaviour has found a robust “gender effect”: women are more likely than men to express concern about consumption’s broader impacts and to act upon those concerns. The mechanisms underlying 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 importance on 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 authors integrate 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 the mechanisms underlying the observed sex effect, confirm the utility of personality constructs in clarifying differences in consumer attitudes and behaviours, and have compelling implications for public policy.

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

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Notes

  1. Follow-up analyses suggested that there were no significant differences in these measures as a function of sex. Specifically, neither “attractive”, F(1, 145) = 0.47, p = .50, “comfortable”, F(1, 145) = 0.39, p = .53, nor “cost”, F(1, 145) = 1.35, p = .25 was predicted by sex.

  2. We also analysed the interactive effects of sex and responsibility type on choice. Responsibility type did not interact with sex to predict choice, χ 2  = 0.68, p < .41, confirming that the two responsibility conditions can be collapsed in subsequent analyses of the effect of sex on choice.

  3. We also tested the relationships between sex, performance importance and choice. Performance importance was not significantly related to sex (F(1, 145) = 2.46, p = .12) and choice did not depend upon performance importance (χ 2  = 0.01, p < .91).

  4. A similar analysis of the mediation between gender and choice by openness-to-experience was not significant, Sobel t = .76, p = .45.

References

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Antil, J. H. (1984). Socially responsible consumers: Profile and implications for public policy. Journal of Macromarketing, 4, 18–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • APA. (2010). Publication manual of the American psychological association (6th ed.). Washington: American Psychological Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barr, S. (2008). Environment and society: Sustainability, policy and the citizen. Burlington: Ashgate Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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: An adoption/twin study. Journal of Personality, 61, 159–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bonnes, M., Lee, M., & Bonaiuto, M. (2003). Psychological theories for environmental issues. Burlington: Ashgate Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 across cultures: Robust and surprising findings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 322–331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dietz, T., Kalof, L., & Stern, P. (2002). Gender, values, and environmentalism. Social Science Quarterly, 83, 353–364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dupont, D. P. (2004). Do children matter? An examination of gender differences in environmental valuation. Ecological Economics, 49, 273–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eagly, A. H. (2009). The his and hers of prosocial behavior: An examination of the social psychology of gender. American Psychologist, 64, 644–658.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Endler, N., & Rosenstein, A. (1997). Evolution of the personality construct in marketing and its applicability to contemporary personality research. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 6, 55–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feingold, A. (1994). Gender differences in personality: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 429–456.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fisk, G. (1973). Criteria for a theory of responsible consumption. Journal of Marketing, 37(2), 24–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Francois-Lecompte, A., & Roberts, J. (2006). Developing a measure of socially responsible consumption in France. Marketing Management Journal, 16, 50–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gentile, D. A. (1993). Just what are sex and gender, anyway?: A call for a new terminological standard. Psychological Science, 4, 120–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graziano, W. G. (1994). The development of agreeableness as a dimension of personality. In C. F. Halverson Jr., G. A. Kohnstamm, & R. P. Martin (Eds.), The developing structure of temperament and personality from infancy to adulthood (pp. 339–354). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grønhøj, A., & Ölander, F. (2007). A gender perspective on environmentally related family consumption. Journal of Consumer Behavior, 6, 218–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haugtvedt, C., Petty, R., & Cacioppo, J. (1992). Need for cognition and advertising: Understanding the role of personality variables in consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 1, 239–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henion, K. E. (1976). Ecological marketing. Columbus: Grid Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hirsh, J. B. (2010). Personality and environmental concern. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30, 245–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Holland, P. W. (1988). Causal inference, path analysis, and recursive structural equations models. Sociological Methodology, 18, 449–484.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koos, S. (2011). Varieties of environmental labeling, market structures, and sustainable consumption across Europe: A comparative analysis of organizational and market supply determinants of environmental-labeled goods. Journal of Consumer Policy, 34, 127–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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: Theory and research (pp. 287–310). New York: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loughland, T., Reid, A., Walker, K., & Petocz, P. (2003). Factors influencing young people’s conceptions of environment. Environmental Education Research, 9, 3–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marusic, I., & Bratko, D. (1998). Relations of masculinity and femininity with personality dimensions of the five-factor model. Sex Roles, 38, 29–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McEachern, M. G., & Carrigan M. (Guest Editors) (2010). Journal of Marketing Management Special Issue Call 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 on consumer personality. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 12, 313–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, R. (2010). Why doing good is good for business. Fortune, 161, 90–95.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olver, J. M., & Mooradian, T. A. (2003). Personality traits and personal values: A conceptual and empirical investigation. Personality and Individual Differences, 35, 109–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prothero, A. (1998). Green marketing: The ‘fad’ that won’t slip slide away. Journal of Marketing Management, 14, 507–512.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, J. A. (1996). Will the real socially responsible consumer please step forward? Business Horizons, 39, 79–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 Policy, 34, 175–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt, D. P., Realo, A., Voracek, M., & Allik, J. (2008). Why can't a man be more like a woman? Sex differences in big five personality traits across 55 cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 168–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 green consumer behavior in the new millennium. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 16, 558–575.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The Mason School of Business, College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, VA, 23187-8795, USA

    Michael G. Luchs & Todd A. Mooradian

Authors
  1. Michael G. Luchs
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Todd A. Mooradian
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael G. Luchs.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Luchs, M.G., Mooradian, T.A. Sex, Personality, and Sustainable Consumer Behaviour: Elucidating the Gender Effect. J Consum Policy 35, 127–144 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10603-011-9179-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10603-011-9179-0

Keywords

  • Sustainable consumption
  • Sex
  • Gender
  • Personality