IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v16y2024i5p1736-d1342279.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How Does Ant Forest Influence Low Carbon Consumption Behavior: An Analysis Based on the S-O-R Model

Author

Listed:
  • Wei Xiong

    (Research Institute of Natural Gas Economy, PetroChina Southwest Oil & Gas Field Company, Chengdu 610051, China)

  • Danping Liu

    (School of Management, Xihua University, Chengdu 610039, China)

  • Zizi Li

    (Research Institute of Natural Gas Economy, PetroChina Southwest Oil & Gas Field Company, Chengdu 610051, China)

  • Qiaoyi Wang

    (School of Management, Xihua University, Chengdu 610039, China)

  • Shibin Yao

    (School of Management, Xihua University, Chengdu 610039, China)

Abstract

As environmental problems continue to worsen, new ways need to be found to stimulate people to be proactive in protecting the environment and engage in low-carbon behaviors. The use of eco-friendly apps may become a powerful tool for promoting offline environmental activities and encouraging low-carbon consumption behavior. Using survey data from 298 Ant Forest app users and based on the theory of consumption value, this study applies the S-O-R model and uses structural equation modeling (SEM) to explore the impact of Ant Forest usage on consumers’ low-carbon behavior. Our research shows that Ant Forest usage enhances users’ low carbon purchase behavior and habitual low carbon consumption behavior. Epistemic, emotional, and social values play mediating roles in the usage and low-carbon consumption behaviors of Ant Forest users. When users feel the epistemic, emotional, and social values of using Ant Forest, they are more willing to engage in low-carbon consumption behavior. Herd mentality serves as a moderating variable that amplifies Ant Forest users’ sense of experience, enabling them to derive more epistemic and social value from using Ant Forest. Ant Forest’s online games and offline environmental activities help users develop low-carbon consumption habits, and this is worth promoting and replicating.

Suggested Citation

  • Wei Xiong & Danping Liu & Zizi Li & Qiaoyi Wang & Shibin Yao, 2024. "How Does Ant Forest Influence Low Carbon Consumption Behavior: An Analysis Based on the S-O-R Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(5), pages 1-17, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:5:p:1736-:d:1342279
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/5/1736/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/5/1736/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Laurens Rook, 2006. "An Economic Psychological Approach to Herd Behavior," Journal of Economic Issues, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 40(1), pages 75-95, March.
    2. Fehr, Ernst & Gachter, Simon, 1998. "Reciprocity and economics: The economic implications of Homo Reciprocans1," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 42(3-5), pages 845-859, May.
    3. Kilbourne, William & Pickett, Gregory, 2008. "How materialism affects environmental beliefs, concern, and environmentally responsible behavior," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 61(9), pages 885-893, September.
    4. Wan, Bingyue & Tian, Lixin & Zhu, Naiping & Gu, Liqin & Zhang, Guangyong, 2018. "A new endogenous growth model for green low-carbon behavior and its comprehensive effects," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 230(C), pages 1332-1346.
    5. Rabin, Matthew, 1993. "Incorporating Fairness into Game Theory and Economics," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 83(5), pages 1281-1302, December.
    6. Offerman, Theo, 2002. "Hurting hurts more than helping helps," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 46(8), pages 1423-1437, September.
    7. Yang Chen & Danqing Cai, 2019. "Ant Forest through the Haze: A Case Study of Gamified Participatory Pro-Environmental Communication in China," J, MDPI, vol. 2(4), pages 1-13, October.
    8. Sheth, Jagdish N. & Newman, Bruce I. & Gross, Barbara L., 1991. "Why we buy what we buy: A theory of consumption values," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 159-170, March.
    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. Charness, Gary & Haruvy, Ernan & Sonsino, Doron, 2007. "Social distance and reciprocity: An Internet experiment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 63(1), pages 88-103, May.
    2. Martijn J. van den Assem & Dennie van Dolder & Richard H. Thaler, 2012. "Split or Steal? Cooperative Behavior When the Stakes Are Large," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 58(1), pages 2-20, January.
    3. Brandes, Leif & Franck, Egon, 2012. "Social preferences or personal career concerns? Field evidence on positive and negative reciprocity in the workplace," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 33(5), pages 925-939.
    4. Adrian Bruhin & Ernst Fehr & Daniel Schunk, 2019. "The many Faces of Human Sociality: Uncovering the Distribution and Stability of Social Preferences," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 17(4), pages 1025-1069.
    5. Hoffmann, Magnus & Kolmar, Martin, 2017. "Distributional preferences in probabilistic and share contests," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 120-139.
    6. Dietrich, Franz, 2012. "Modelling change in individual characteristics: An axiomatic framework," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 76(2), pages 471-494.
    7. Urs Fischbacher & Simeon Schudy, 2014. "Reciprocity and resistance to comprehensive reform," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 160(3), pages 411-428, September.
    8. Stanca, Luca, 2010. "How to be kind? Outcomes versus intentions as determinants of fairness," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 106(1), pages 19-21, January.
    9. Gonçalves, Helena Martins & Lourenço, Tiago Ferreira & Silva, Graça Miranda, 2016. "Green buying behavior and the theory of consumption values: A fuzzy-set approach," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(4), pages 1484-1491.
    10. Charness, Gary & Rabin, Matthew, 2005. "Expressed preferences and behavior in experimental games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 53(2), pages 151-169, November.
    11. Jan Schnellenbach, 2006. "Appeasing nihilists? Some economic thoughts on reducing terrorist activity," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 129(3), pages 301-313, December.
    12. Daniel Woods & Maroš Servátka, 2019. "Nice to you, nicer to me: Does self-serving generosity diminish the reciprocal response?," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 22(2), pages 506-529, June.
    13. Christian Korth, 2009. "Reciprocity—An Indirect Evolutionary Analysis," Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems, in: Fairness in Bargaining and Markets, chapter 0, pages 35-55, Springer.
    14. Ernst Fehr & Urs Fischbacher, "undated". "Why Social Preferences Matter - The Impact of Non-Selfish Motives on Competition," IEW - Working Papers 084, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.
    15. Leibbrandt, Andreas & López-Pérez, Raúl & Spiegelman, Eli, 2023. "Reciprocal, but inequality averse as well? Mixed motives for punishment and reward," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 210(C), pages 91-116.
    16. Florian Englmaier & Stephen Leider, 2020. "Managerial Payoff and Gift-Exchange in the Field," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 56(2), pages 259-280, March.
    17. Bogliacino, Francesco & Grimalda, Gianluca & Pipke, David, 2021. "Kind or contented? An investigation of the gift exchange hypothesis in a natural field experiment in Colombia," OSF Preprints xmjaq, Center for Open Science.
    18. Cox, James C. & Friedman, Daniel & Gjerstad, Steven, 2007. "A tractable model of reciprocity and fairness," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 59(1), pages 17-45, April.
    19. Martin Dufwenberg & Alec Smith & Matt Van Essen, 2013. "Hold-Up: With A Vengeance," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 51(1), pages 896-908, January.
    20. Dong, Bin & Dulleck, Uwe & Torgler, Benno, 2012. "Conditional corruption," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 609-627.

    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:16:y:2024:i:5:p:1736-:d:1342279. 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.