Consumer Perceptions of the Social Vs. Environmental Dimensions of Sustainability

被引:62
作者
Catlin J.R. [1 ]
Luchs M.G. [2 ]
Phipps M. [3 ]
机构
[1] College of Business Administration, California State University, Sacramento, 6000 J Street, Sacramento, 95819, CA
[2] College of William & Mary, 101 Ukrop Way, Williamsburg, 23185, VA
[3] University of Melbourne, 198 Berkeley Street, Melbourne, 3010, VIC
关键词
Choice; Environmental; Mixed methods; Policy communication; Social; Sustainability;
D O I
10.1007/s10603-017-9356-x
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
Prior research on sustainable consumption has addressed a variety of issues yet is characterized by mixed results. Researchers have often treated sustainability as a uni-dimensional construct, overlooking important differences and thwarting a better understanding of consumer response. We demonstrate that consumers perceive the social and environmental dimensions of sustainability as psychologically distinct in theoretically and practically important ways. Specifically, consumers associate the social dimension of sustainability more with affective, short-term, and local considerations and the environmental dimension more with cognitive, long-term, and global considerations. We identify and explore these distinctions in a qualitative pilot study, which subsequently motivated development of three hypotheses. We provide evidence supporting these hypotheses in a series of five studies. Our findings enable a reinterpretation of prior equivocal research, serve as a foundation for future research, and provide guidance for how policy-makers can tailor policy and related communication efforts depending on whether the focal issue is related to social versus environmental concerns. © 2017, Springer Science+Business Media, LLC.
引用
收藏
页码:245 / 277
页数:32
相关论文
共 68 条
[31]  
Karp D.G., Values and their effect on pro-environmental behavior, Environment and Behavior, 28, 1, pp. 111-133, (1996)
[32]  
Kotler P., Reinventing marketing to manage the environmental imperative, Journal of Marketing, 75, pp. 132-135, (2011)
[33]  
Leeuw A., Valois P., Morin A., Schmidt P., Gender differences in psychosocial determinants of university students’ intentions to buy fair trade products, Journal of Consumer Policy, 37, 4, pp. 485-505, (2014)
[34]  
Liberman N., Trope Y., The role of feasibility and desirability considerations in near and distant future decisions: a test of temporal construal theory, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, pp. 5-18, (1998)
[35]  
Lindgreen A., Antioco M., Harness D., van der Sloot R., Purchasing and marketing of social and environmental sustainability for high-tech medical equipment, Journal of Business Ethics, 85, 2, pp. 445-462, (2009)
[36]  
Luchs M., Miller R., Consumer responsibility for sustainable consumption, Handbook of research on sustainable consumption, pp. 254-267, (2015)
[37]  
Luchs M.G., Walker Naylor R., Irwin J.R., Raghunathan R., The sustainability liability: Potential negative effects of ethicality on product preference, Journal of Marketing, 74, pp. 18-31, (2010)
[38]  
Marcus J., MacDonald H.A., Sulsky L.M., Do personal values influence the propensity for sustainability actions? A policy-capturing study, Journal of Business Ethics, 127, 2, pp. 459-478, (2015)
[39]  
McDonagh P., Prothero A., Sustainability marketing research: past, present and future, Journal of Marketing Management, 30, 11-12, pp. 1186-1219, (2014)
[40]  
Sustainability’s strategic worth: McKinsey global survey results, (2014)