IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i21p12322-d674653.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Blind Obedience to Environmental Friendliness: The Goal Will Set Us Free

Author

Listed:
  • Bohee Jung

    (Department of Business Administration, College of Business Economics, Hannam University, 70 Hannam-ro, Daedeok-gu, Daejon 34430, Korea)

  • Jaewoo Joo

    (Department of Marketing, College of Business Administration, Kookmin University, 77 Jeongneung-ro, Seongbuk-gu, Seoul 02707, Korea)

Abstract

In the past, researchers focusing on environmentally friendly consumption have devoted attention to the intention–action gap, suggesting that consumers have positive attitudes toward an environmentally friendly product even though they are not willing to buy it. In the present study, we borrow insights from the behavioral decision making literature on preference reversal to introduce an opposite phenomenon—that is, consumers buying an environmentally friendly product even though they do not evaluate it highly. We further rely on the research on goals to hypothesize that choice–evaluation discrepancies disappear when consumers pursue an environmentally friendly goal. A two (Mode: Choice vs. Evaluation) by three (Goal: Control vs. Quality vs. Environmentally friendly) between-subjects experimental design was used to test the proposed hypotheses. Our findings obtained from 165 undergraduate students in Korea showed that, first, 76% of the participants chose an environmentally friendly cosmetic product whereas only 49% of the participants ranked it higher than a competing product, and, second, when participants read the sentence “You are now buying one of the two compact foundations in order to minimize the waste of buying new foundations,” the discrepancy disappeared (64% vs. 55%). Our experimental findings advance academic discussions of green consumption and the choice–evaluation discrepancy and have practical implications for eco-friendly marketing.

Suggested Citation

  • Bohee Jung & Jaewoo Joo, 2021. "Blind Obedience to Environmental Friendliness: The Goal Will Set Us Free," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-12, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:21:p:12322-:d:674653
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/21/12322/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/21/12322/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Luce, Mary Frances, 1998. "Choosing to Avoid: Coping with Negatively Emotion-Laden Consumer Decisions," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 24(4), pages 409-433, March.
    2. Huffman, Cynthia & Houston, Michael J, 1993. "Goal-Oriented Experiences and the Development of Knowledge," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 20(2), pages 190-207, September.
    3. Yeujun Yoon & Kevin Chastagner & Jaewoo Joo, 2020. "Inner-Self vs. Outer-Self and Socially Responsible Product Consumption," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(22), pages 1-22, November.
    4. Bettman, James R & Luce, Mary Frances & Payne, John W, 1998. "Constructive Consumer Choice Processes," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 25(3), pages 187-217, December.
    5. Schlosser, Ann E, 2003. "Experiencing Products in the Virtual World: The Role of Goal and Imagery in Influencing Attitudes versus Purchase Intentions," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 30(2), pages 184-198, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Blut, Markus & Chowdhry, Nivriti & Mittal, Vikas & Brock, Christian, 2015. "E-Service Quality: A Meta-Analytic Review," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 91(4), pages 679-700.
    2. Mark Heitmann & Andreas Herrmann, 2007. "Die Zufriedenheit mit dem Entscheidungsprozess als Determinante der Kundenbindung," Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research, Springer, vol. 59(5), pages 530-566, August.
    3. Cheng, Yin-Hui & Chuang, Shih-Chieh & Pei-I Yu, Annie & Lai, Wan-Ting, 2019. "Change in your wallet, change your choice: The effect of the change-matching heuristic on choice," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 67-76.
    4. David L. Alexander & Ashley Stadler Blank, 2018. "Besting the status quo: the effect of abstract versus concrete mindsets on emotional trade-off difficulty and avoidant coping behavior," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 29(3), pages 351-362, September.
    5. Roest, Henk & Rindfleisch, Aric, 2010. "The influence of quality cues and typicality cues on restaurant purchase intention," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 17(1), pages 10-18.
    6. Sören Köcher & Hartmut H. Holzmüller, 2014. "Zu viel des Guten? Eine Analyse der Wirkung von Verbraucherschutzinformation," Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research, Springer, vol. 66(4), pages 306-343, June.
    7. Lange, Jens & Krahé, Barbara, 2014. "The effects of information form and domain-specific knowledge on choice deferral," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 92-104.
    8. Calder, Bobby J. & He, Sharlene & Sternthal, Brian, 2023. "Using theoretical frameworks in behavioral research," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 161(C).
    9. Haipeng (Allan) Chen & Woojin Choi & Yan (Lucy) Liu & Haoying Sun & Fu Liu, 2021. "More or Less? Consumer Goal Orientation and Product Choice," Customer Needs and Solutions, Springer;Institute for Sustainable Innovation and Growth (iSIG), vol. 8(1), pages 16-26, June.
    10. Sowon Ahn & Juyoung Kim & Young-Won Ha, 2015. "Feedback weakens the attraction effect in repeated choices," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 26(4), pages 449-459, December.
    11. Kurt Carlson & Chris Janiszewski & Ralph Keeney & David Krantz & Howard Kunreuther & Mary Luce & J. Russo & Stijn Osselaer & Detlof Winterfeldt, 2008. "A theoretical framework for goal-based choice and for prescriptive analysis," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 19(3), pages 241-254, December.
    12. Mantrala, Murali K. & Levy, Michael & Kahn, Barbara E. & Fox, Edward J. & Gaidarev, Peter & Dankworth, Bill & Shah, Denish, 2009. "Why is Assortment Planning so Difficult for Retailers? A Framework and Research Agenda," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 85(1), pages 71-83.
    13. Luce, Mary Frances & Payne, John W. & Bettman, James R., 2000. "Coping with Unfavorable Attribute Values in Choice," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 81(2), pages 274-299, March.
    14. Pham, Michel Tuan & Sun, Jennifer J., 2020. "On the Experience and Engineering of Consumer Pride, Consumer Excitement, and Consumer Relaxation in the Marketplace," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 96(1), pages 101-127.
    15. Wang, Fang & Karimi, Sahar, 2019. "This product works well (for me): The impact of first-person singular pronouns on online review helpfulness," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 283-294.
    16. Botti, Simona & Hsee, Christopher K., 2010. "Dazed and confused by choice: How the temporal costs of choice freedom lead to undesirable outcomes," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 112(2), pages 161-171, July.
    17. Simonson, Itamar & Kramer, Thomas & Young, Maia, 2003. "Effect Propensity: The Location of the Reference State in the Option Space as a Determinant of the Direction of Effects on Choice," Research Papers 1788, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    18. Young Eun Lee & Izak Benbasat, 2011. "Research Note ---The Influence of Trade-off Difficulty Caused by Preference Elicitation Methods on User Acceptance of Recommendation Agents Across Loss and Gain Conditions," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 22(4), pages 867-884, December.
    19. Hyowon Kim & Dong Soo Kim & Greg M. Allenby, 2020. "Benefit Formation and Enhancement," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 18(4), pages 419-468, December.
    20. Amos Schurr & Yaakov Kareev & Judith Avrahami & Ilana Ritov, 2012. "Taking the Broad Perspective: Risky Choices in Repeated Proficiency Tasks," Discussion Paper Series dp621, The Federmann Center for the Study of Rationality, the Hebrew University, Jerusalem.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:21:p:12322-:d:674653. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.