International Journal of Sustainable Development &

World Ecology

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tsdw20

Predicting sustainable consumption behavior:

knowledge-based, value-based, emotional and
rational influences on mobile phone, food and
fashion consumption

Shirin Betzler, Regina Kempen & Karsten Mueller

To cite this article: Shirin Betzler, Regina Kempen & Karsten Mueller (2021): Predicting
sustainable consumption behavior: knowledge-based, value-based, emotional and rational
influences on mobile phone, food and fashion consumption, International Journal of Sustainable
Development & World Ecology, DOI: 10.1080/13504509.2021.1930272

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2021.1930272

View supplementary material

Published online: 16 Jul 2021.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 26

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tsdw20
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT & WORLD ECOLOGY
https://doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2021.1930272

Predicting sustainable consumption behavior: knowledge-based, value-based,

emotional and rational influences on mobile phone, food and fashion
consumption
Shirin Betzler, Regina Kempen1 and Karsten Mueller
Department of Work and Organizational Psychology, Osnabrueck University, Osnabrueck, Germany

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Increasing sustainable consumption practices of individuals constitutes a crucial pillar of the Received 1 April 2021
global sustainable development strategy. Thus, the purpose of the present study was to Accepted 10 May 2021
examine psychological influences from different research streams and their incremental pre­ KEYWORDS
dictive value for sustainable consumption. In two studies, knowledge-based, value-based, Sustainable mobile phone
emotional and rational factors were considered to predict sustainable consumption behavior consumption; sustainable
of mobile phones, food and fashion. food consumption;
Survey data were obtained from an online panel (Study 1: N = 101, Study 2: N = 304). sustainable fashion
Multiple regression results showed that value-based, emotional and rational factors contrib­ consumption; theory of
uted significantly to the prediction of sustainable consumption in both studies and all product planned behavior; value-
groups. Problem awareness was a significant predictor only for food consumption. belief-norm theory; self-
To improve the explained variance and detect different patterns of prediction, influencing conscious emotions;
problem awareness
factors were included into the prediction in varying order. Hierarchical regression results
showed that a joint consideration of factors from different theoretical streams improved the
prediction and that product-specific patterns emerged.
The findings support the need to jointly consider different influencing factors for the
prediction of sustainable consumption. Understanding the drivers and obstacles of sustainable
consumption constitutes the basis for educational measures or marketing interventions. The
present study contributes to gaining product-specific knowledge which is pivotal for tailoring
such measures to different consumption areas.

Introduction Hamilton and Terblanche-Smit 2018; Iran et al. 2019).

However, research suggests that individuals are also
The world community has acknowledged the necessity
guided by many other influences such as value-based
of a sustainable turn by setting out the United Nations
norms, awareness constructs or emotions (for a meta-
Agenda for Sustainable Development. In order not to
analysis on psychosocial determinants of pro-environ­
endanger the needs of future generations, ‘substan­
mental behavior, see Bamberg and Moeser 2007).
tially reduc[ing] waste generation through prevention,
Consequently, to predict sustainable consumption
reduction, recycling and reuse’ (United Nations
behavior more comprehensively, the need to jointly
Department of Economic and Social Affairs [DESA]
and systematically consider factors from different the­
2021) proves to be inevitable. Consequently, scholars
oretical traditions (e.g., knowledge/problem aware­
and politicians alike do not discuss the if, but the how
ness, emotional and value-based in addition to
of change. To promote this change and to achieve
rational factors) arises. Despite this, an equal empirical
a sustainable turn, tackling individual consumption
consideration of these frameworks has been rarely
constitutes one essential facet (DESA 2021) of the glo­
undertaken. Thus, the present paper equally considers
bal sustainable development strategy. It is thus of
problem awareness, value-based, emotional and
particular importance to understand what promotes
rational factors for the prediction of sustainable
as well as hinders sustainable consumption2 on an
consumption.
individual level.
Traditionally, the human being has mainly been In terms of the examined services and products,
conceived as a rational consumer in economics much attention has been paid to mobility (e.g., Liu
(Thaler 1980) and politics (Pollex 2017), assuming et al. 2017; Frick et al. 2020) as well as food choices
rational factors as principal drivers of decisions. This is (e.g., Hoeksma et al. 2017; Hansmann et al. 2020). Also,
also reflected in much research predicting sustainable the examination of fashion consumption is on the rise
consumption that adopts a rational perspective (e.g., (e.g., Iran et al. 2019; Jalil and Shaharuddin 2019). In

CONTACT Shirin Betzler [email protected] Department of Work and Organizational Psychology, Osnabrueck University,
Osnabrueck, Germany
Supplemental data for this article can be accessed here.
© 2021 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 S. BETZLER ET AL.

contrast, the increasingly important consumption of approaches considered in the present study will be
Information and Communication Technology (ICT) pro­ reviewed.
ducts is still rarely considered in current sustainability First, knowledge has a long-standing tradition in
research. While ICT bears great potential for sustain­ being considered influential as a basis for consumption
able development in many areas (Hilty et al. 2011), it behavior. Following the consumer behavior literature,
also poses serious challenges regarding the hardware’s the Consumer Decision Process (CDP) model (Blackwell
sustainability along the whole life cycle of products, et al. 2006) conceptualizes the search for information as
such as high energy consumption, or the extraction of one crucial stage of the decision-making process. In
rare precious metals (Welfens et al. 2016). Due to their this process, existing or new knowledge influences the
comparably short life cycles, mobile phones are espe­ evaluation of consumption alternatives along different
cially conflicting in this respect. However, a profound evaluative criteria, e.g., the sustainability of a product,
debate about the need for sustainability in the mobile which in turn affects the final consumption decision.
phone sector is still lacking (Welfens et al. 2016). In the sustainability context, Kollmuss and Agyeman
Against this backdrop, this paper bridges substan­ (2002) proposed a model of pro-environmental beha­
tial research gaps in the area of sustainable consump­ vior in which they conceptualize an awareness factor
tion in the following ways. First, as mentioned above, including knowledge as a distal influence on sustain­
the present study compares different theoretical fra­ able behavior. Specifically, they define environmental
meworks and examines in detail how four major theo­ awareness as ‘knowing of the impact of human beha­
retical approaches (knowledge-based/awareness vior on the environment’ (Kollmuss and Agyeman
(Kollmuss and Agyeman 2002; Bamberg and Moeser 2002, p. 253).
2007), value-based (Stern 2000), emotional (Mellers Empirically, knowledge and awareness factors have
and McGraw 2001; Vining and Ebreo 2002) and rational continuously proven to be a crucial basis for the facil­
(Ajzen 1991) factors) predict sustainable consumption. itation of sustainable consumption (Uddin and Khan
In an additional research question, these approaches 2018; Heo and Muralidharan 2019). For example,
are compared and tested for their incremental predic­ Buerke et al. (2017) found different types of consumer
tive value over and above of each other, thus targeting awareness to be predictive for responsible consumer
the joint consideration of different theoretical models. behavior. In their meta-analysis, Bamberg and Moeser
Second, as very little is known about potential factors (2007) found ‘the awareness of and knowledge about
driving sustainable consumption of ICT, this research environmental problems’ (p. 15) to be an important
tests the different theoretical approaches for the con­ indirect predictor for sustainable consumption.
sumption of mobile phones, thus adding to the recent Following this reasoning and in line with Bamberg
emergence of research on sustainable consumption pat­ et al. (2007), it is thus assumed that a general problem
terns in the so far neglected, yet essential, domain of ICT. awareness (PA) of problematic sustainable states
Third, this research examines the aforementioned serves as a knowledge basis for sustainable
influencing factors as a function of particular products consumption.
and consumer involvement in order to understand Consequently, it is predicted that
specifics of sustainable consumption, giving rise to
target measures more adequately. Specifically, depart­ Hypothesis 1: Problem awareness (PA) is positively
ing from the ICT domain by examining mobile phones, related to sustainable mobile phone consumption.
study 2 investigates the predictive value of the theore­
tical approaches (knowledge-based, value-based, emo­
tional and rational factors) in two additional
Value-based influences on sustainable
established key industries crucial for sustainable
consumption
change, namely, in the food and fashion sectors.
Taken together, this paper offers a framework for the Value-based theories such as the Value-Belief-Norm
consideration of different theoretically relevant influ­ Theory (VBN; Stern 2000) have addressed the indivi­
encing factors for the sustainable consumption of dual’s need to act according to their personal values.
mobile phones, fashion and food. The VBN assumes values as being the basis for making
decisions, determining an individual’s beliefs which in
turn lead to a personal norm, the only direct determi­
Theoretical background nant of a person’s behavior. Stern recognizes the
importance of being aware of which consequences
Knowledge-based influences on sustainable
one’s actions have on others or the environment
consumption
(awareness of consequences, AC) and taking responsi­
As stated above, several theoretical approaches have bility for it (ascription of responsibility, AR) as the core
been used to identify relevant factors predicting sus­ beliefs that lead to forming one’s personal norm (PN).
tainable consumption. In the following, the four major Various studies have successfully applied value-based
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT & WORLD ECOLOGY 3

frameworks in the environmental field, for example in Rational influences on sustainable consumption
predicting green energy consumption (Hartmann et al.
One of the most frequently applied theories from psy­
2018), sustainable behaviors in the tourism industry
chological decision research to model consumption
(Landon et al. 2018) or more recently for behaviors in
behavior is the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB;
the IT sector (Asadi et al. 2019).
Ajzen 1991). This theory conceptualizes human beha­
Consequently, it is predicted that
vior as being dependent on one principal direct influ­
ence: The individual’s intention (INT) to engage in a
Hypothesis 2: Value-based factors as conceptualized by
certain behavior. In turn, three main correlating influ­
the VBN (namely, awareness of consequences (AC),
ences are assumed to predict the intention. First, the
ascription of responsibility (AR), and personal norm
individual’s attitude (ATT) refers to a person’s evalua­
(PN)) are positively related to sustainable mobile
tion of a behavior. This describes whether the indivi­
phone consumption.
dual wants to act in a certain way. Second, the
subjective norm (SN) refers to the individual’s percep­
tion of the evaluation of his or her social environment
Emotional influences on sustainable consumption regarding the individual’s behavior. This determines
the individual’s perception of what he or she should
Emotions have been widely considered in classical
do. Finally, the third influence on the individual’s inten­
product marketing for decades (Holbrook and Batra
tion consists in the perceived behavioral control (PBC).
1987), for example, to promote product purchases.
This determines whether a person has the impression
Also, they have been employed in other contexts
that s/he is able to exercise a certain behavior. The TPB
such as encouraging pro-environmental donations
has been evaluated and shown to predict sustainable
(Bergquist et al. 2020). Interestingly, the consideration
consumption in various contexts, for example in the
of emotional influences to explain individual consump­
domains of mobility (Bamberg et al. 2007; Hamilton
tion decisions in addition to other influences such as
and Terblanche-Smit 2018), ecotourism (Han 2015), or
rational and value-based ones has been comparatively
organic food consumption (Soyez 2012). Less promi­
scarce. This is especially surprising given the fact that
nently, rational factors have been examined for the
emotions are highly influential in guiding human deci­
prediction of sustainable behaviors in the IT sector
sion behavior (Lerner et al. 2015).
(Mishra et al. 2014; Asadi et al. 2019).
In sustainability research, emotions, especially
Consequently, it is predicted that
self-conscious emotions3 such as pride or guilt,
hold a strong potential as predictors and mediator
Hypothesis 4: Rational factors as conceptualized by the
variables of sustainable behaviors (Vining and
TPB (namely, attitude (ATT), subjective norm (SN), per­
Ebreo 2002). In this context, Decision Affect Theory
ceived behavioral control (PBC) and intention (INT)) are
(Mellers and McGraw 2001) assumes that individuals
positively related to sustainable mobile phone
anticipate which emotional reactions will result from
consumption.
deciding for or against a behavioral option and, after
weighing different options, select the emotionally
All of the theoretical traditions reviewed above have
most advantageous one. This implies that individuals
partially contributed to the prediction and explanation
decide for sustainable options as they anticipate
of sustainable consumption. Nevertheless, jointly con­
feelings of pride when having done so or feelings
sidering different theoretical approaches constitutes
of guilt when they have not. In contrast, Steenhaut
an important step towards a more comprehensive
and Van Kenhove´s (2006) ethical decision-making
understanding of sustainable consumption behavior.
framework conceptualizes guilt as resulting from
For example, in his theory of green purchase behavior,
respective ethical beliefs, serving as partial mediator
Han (2020) integrated the TPB and the VBN framework
for intentions. In both theories, self-conscious emo­
for a better prediction. Likewise, Onwezen et al. (2013)
tions are seen as important facilitators of sustainable
obtained a good fit for a model including TPB, emo­
behavior. Building on this theoretical basis, feelings
tional and selected value-based constructs. Thus,
of guilt or pride have been found to be associated
a simultaneous consideration of factors seems appro­
with personal norms (Bamberg et al. 2007), per­
priate in order to improve the explained variance in
ceived consumer effectiveness (Antonetti and
sustainable consumption behavior.
Maklan 2014) and environmentally-related intentions
(Onwezen et al. 2014). Consequently, two additional research questions
Consequently, it is predicted that were formulated for the present study. First, it was
examined whether the theoretical streams accounted
Hypothesis 3: Emotional factors, namely guilt and pride, for variance over and above previously included fac­
are positively related to sustainable mobile phone tors in the order of the research hypotheses, meaning
consumption. all four theoretical streams were fully included. Second,
4 S. BETZLER ET AL.

it was tested whether the explained variance differed a broad range of educational backgrounds and parti­
by order of consideration of the different theoretical cipants’ monthly income. More information on the
streams. Due to theoretical considerations, PA was sample can be found in table 7 of the supplemental
held constant as the first predictor. The remaining material. All participants stated that they possessed
three streams were iterated, resulting in five addition­ a mobile phone.
ally examined models.
Measures
Items were based on existing scales established and
Study 1 extensively tested in the domain of sustainable beha­
Method vior such as travel mode choice (Bamberg and Schmidt
2003; Bamberg et al. 2007) and purchase behavior of
Procedure and sample environmentally friendly products (Onwezen et al.
Participants were recruited via a German online panel 2014) and adapted to assess different aspects of the
obtained from a high-quality panel provider. A web- sustainable consumption of mobile phones. The lan­
survey on mobile phone consumption was conducted guage of item development was German. Items were
with N = 113 participants. At the beginning, to proceed based on previous own work, where they were back-
with the survey, participants received information translated.
about the survey including the voluntariness of their In order to reflect the ecological and the social
participation and gave their consent to participate.4 dimension of sustainable consumption behavior, all
For data quality check, a control item measuring parti­ model constructs were measured by at least three
cipants’ attention was included in the survey items. items covering fair working conditions, environmen­
Also, straightliner response patterns were analyzed. tally friendly production conditions and overall consid­
According to agreement with the panel provider, eration of sustainability. If not otherwise indicated,
n = 12 participants were excluded from further analysis items were measured on a 5-point Likert scale of
due to data quality concerns (n = 4 failed attention agreement. At the beginning of the survey, partici­
scan, n = 1 questionable motivation due to responses pants were informed about the survey’s underlying
in open answer formats) or premature dropout (n = 7 understanding of sustainability in a short text. The
incomplete data sets). The final sample consisted of full study questionnaire including the introductory
N = 101 participants (55 men, 46 women) of mostly text can be found in the supplemental material. Table
German origin. The average age was 37.36 years 1 shows descriptive statistics, internal consistencies
(SD = 12.68, range = 18–65). The sample covered and sample items for all study variables.5 Further

Table 1. Descriptive statistics, internal consistencies and sample items for all study variables of study 1.
Variables M SD Cronbach’s Sample item [number of items per scale] Source(s)
α
1. Problem 3.36 0.85 .79 In my eyes, the production of mobile phones takes place under Bamberg et al. (2007)
awareness particularly environmentally harmful conditions. [3]
2. Guilt 3.51 0.95 .92 If I bought a mobile phone which had been produced under Onwezen et al. (2014)
particularly unfair working conditions, I would have a bad
conscience. [3]
3. Pride 4.10 1.04 .97 If I bought a particularly sustainable mobile phone, I would have Onwezen et al. (2014)
a good conscience altogether. [3]
4. Attitude 3.44 1.07 .96 For me personally, buying a mobile phone which has been produced Bamberg et al. (2007)
under particularly environmentally friendly conditions would be . . .
(not important – extremely important) [3]
5. Subjective 2.58 1.13 .96 People who are important to me think that I should consider the fair Bamberg et al. (2007)
norm working conditions when buying a mobile phone. [3]
6. Perceived 2.73 1.00 .94 For me, buying a particularly sustainable mobile phone would be Bamberg et al. (2007)
behavioral altogether . . . (very difficult – very easy) [3]
control
7. Awareness of 2.85 1.03 .95 My buying behavior of mobile phones has major consequences on the Bamberg et al. (2007)
consequences fairness of working conditions. [3]
8. Ascription of 3.53 1.02 .94 It is not only the state and the industry, who are responsible for Bamberg and Schmidt (2003)
responsibility reducing the problems resulting from mobile phones, but me too.
[4]
9. Personal 3.22 0.97 .95 Because of my own values, when buying a mobile phone, I feel an Bamberg et al. (2007); Bamberg
norm obligation to pay attention to the fair working conditions during and Schmidt (2003)
production. [6]
10. Intention 3.39 1.09 .97 When buying your next mobile phone, how probable is it that you will Bamberg et al. (2007); self-
particularly consider that it has been produced under developed based on
environmentally friendly conditions? (very improbable – very Blackwell et al. (2006)
probable) [6]
11. Mobile 1.96 0.91 .98 Altogether, when buying my last mobile phone, I have particularly self-developed based on
phone considered aspects of sustainability. [9] Blackwell et al. (2006)
consumption
Note. N = 101.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT & WORLD ECOLOGY 5

information on the intercorrelations can be found in did not significantly contribute to the prediction of
table 8 of the supplemental material. sustainable mobile phone consumption (ΔR2 = .01,
p = .264 and ΔR2 = .00, p = .939, respectively). In
contrast, VBN factors in Step 2 (ΔR2 = .39, p < .001)
Results and TPB factors in Step 4 (ΔR2 = .09, p < .01) signifi­
cantly increased the prediction of sustainable mobile
Table 2 shows the results of the separate multiple
phone consumption.
regressions that were conducted to test Hypotheses
In the iterations of the blockwise inclusion of
1–4.6 As can be seen in the table, PA did not predict
predictors, PA did not significantly contribute to
sustainable consumption significantly, F(1, 99) = 1.26,
the prediction of sustainable mobile phone con­
p = .264, therefore not supporting Hypothesis 1. VBN
sumption (ΔR2 = .01, p = .264 for Step 1 of all
factors significantly predicted sustainable mobile
models). Emotional factors significantly increased
phone consumption, F(3, 97) = 21.43, p < .001,
the prediction of sustainable mobile phone con­
accounting for 38% of variance. These results support
sumption only when inserted as Step 2 (Models 3
Hypothesis 2. Emotional factors significantly predicted
and 4: ΔR2 = .22, p < .001). VBN and TPB factors
sustainable mobile phone consumption, F(2,
significantly contributed to the prediction in every
98) = 14.91, p < .001, with an adjusted R2 of .22, thus
model, regardless of the step of inclusion, with
confirming Hypothesis 3. Finally, TPB factors signifi­
a similar amount of explained variance. Of the
cantly predicted sustainable mobile phone consump­
final set of predictors included in Step 4, AC
tion (adjusted R2 = .38, F(4, 96) = 16.30, p < .001), thus
(β = .26, p = .019), PN (β = .41, p = .01) and SN
supporting Hypothesis 4.
(β = .29, p = .003) significantly contributed to the
In order to address the formulated research ques­
prediction. An extended table of hierarchical regres­
tions, blockwise hierarchical regressions were calcu­
sion results including standardized regression
lated. For Research question 1, the factors pertaining
weights for all steps of blockwise inclusion can be
to the four theoretical streams were included as four
found in table 9 of the supplemental material.
blocks in the same order as the hypotheses (cf. Model
To test for multicollinearity, the variance inflation
1, Table 3). For Research question 2, it was tested
factors (VIF) were inspected for all analyses. Following
whether the explained variance differed by order of
Micheal and Abiodun (2014), VIF values between 1 and
insertion of the blocks. The following three steps were
5.56 were acceptable, suggesting that multicollinearity
iterated, resulting in five additional models (cf. Models
was not an issue.
2–6, Table 3).
Table 3 shows the results of the hierarchical regres­
sion analyses that were conducted to test the Research
Discussion
questions 1 and 2. As can be seen in the table, the
overall adjusted R2 was .43 for all models. For the Results of Study 1 suggest that problem awareness is
theoretically derived order of insertion (Model 1), PA not essential in the context of sustainable mobile
in the first step and emotional factors in the third step phone consumption, rejecting Hypothesis 1. By

Table 2. Results of regression analyses of sustainable mobile phone consumption of all theoretical model streams (study 1).
Predictors ß T p
Model 1: Problem awareness
Problem awareness .11 1.12 .264
F(df) F(1, 99) = 1.26 .264
Adjusted R2 .00
Model 2: VBN factors
Awareness of consequences .31 2.91 .004
Ascription of responsibility − .24 − 2.26 .026
Personal norm .55 5.43 < .001
F(df) F(3, 97) = 21.43 < .001
Adjusted R2 .38
Model 3: Emotional factors
Guilt .37 3.51 .001
Pride .16 1.55 .125
F(df) F(2, 98) = 14.91 < .001
Adjusted R2 .22
Model 4: TPB factors
Attitude .21 1.6 .114
Subjective norm .37 3.91 < .001
Perceived behavioral control − .01 − 0.08 .938
Intention .17 1.37 .17
F(df) F(4, 96) = 16.30 < .001
Adjusted R2 .38
Note. VBN = Value-Belief-Norm Theory, TPB = Theory of Planned Behavior. N = 101.
6 S. BETZLER ET AL.

Table 3. Results of hierarchical regression analyses of sustainable mobile phone consumption with iterations of value-based,
emotional and rational factors (study 1).
Predictors Adjusted R2 ∆R2 Predictors β Adjusted R2 ∆R2
Model 1: Problem awareness, VBN factors, emotional factors, TPB factors Model 5: Problem awareness, TPB factors, VBN factors, emotional factors
Step 1 .00 .01 Step 1 .00 .01
Step 2 .37** .39** Step 2 .38** .40**
Step 3 .36** .00 Step 3 .43** .07*
Step 4 .43** .09** Step 4 .43** .01
Model 2: Problem awareness, VBN factors, TPB factors, emotional factors Model 6: Problem awareness, TPB factors, emotional factors, VBN factors
Step 1 .00 .01 Step 1 .00 .01
Step 2 .37** .39** Step 2 .38** .40**
Step 3 .43** .08* Step 3 .37** .00
Step 4 .43** .01 Step 4 .43** .08**
Model 3: Problem awareness, emotional factors, VBN factors, TPB factors Problem awareness − .05
Awareness of consequences .26*
Step 1 .00 .01 Ascription of responsibility − .17
Step 2 .21** .22** Personal norm .41*
Step 3 .36** .17** Guilt − .16
Step 4 .43** .09** Pride − .05
Model 4: Problem awareness, emotional factors, TPB factors, VBN factors Attitude .18
Subjective norm .29**
Step 1 .00 .01 Perceived behavioral control − .01
Step 2 .21** .22** Intention .02
Step 3 .37** .18**
Step 4 .43** .08**
Note. Parameter estimates are for final step, not entry. VBN = Value-Belief-Norm Theory, TPB = Theory of Planned Behavior. N = 101, *p < .05, **p < .01.

contrast, emotional, value-based and rational factors widespread (McDonald et al. 2009), options in the
all significantly predicted sustainable mobile phone fashion industry are on the rise, but still fairly limited
consumption, thus supporting Hypotheses 2–4. With (Yang et al. 2017), and only minor sustainable tenden­
38% of explained variance each, value-based and cies can be registered in the mobile phone sector
rational factors both seem to be the relevant predictors (Welfens et al. 2016).
of sustainable consumption. In terms of product involvement as a general mea­
As the results of the hierarchical regression analyses sure of the self-relevance of purchasing activities to the
show, jointly considering the theoretical streams individual (Slama and Tashchian 1985), one central
improved the explained variance (43%). In all tested aspect constitutes the perceived risk of a purchase
models, VBN and TPB factors were overlapping, but (Laurent and Kapferer 1985). Given the differences in
also explained additional variance over and above of the duration of use of mobile phones, food and fashion
each other, suggesting that the factors also cover dis­ items, as well as the average price of the three product
tinct psychological aspects of sustainable consump­ groups as one essential attribute of product involve­
tion. Emotional factors explained a substantial ment (Martin 1998), the selection of the three indus­
amount of variance only when added in Step 2. This tries can be seen as an approximation of a high (mobile
suggests that VBN and TPB factors contain an emo­ phone), medium (fashion item) and low (food item)
tional component. When included after the VBN or TPB involvement product.
factors, emotional factors might be superimposed by Accordingly, extending the findings from study 1,
these and no longer incrementally add to the predic­ the principal research question of how knowledge-
tion of sustainable consumption. To further examine based, value-based, emotional and rational influences
the relevance of different theoretical streams in con­ predict sustainable consumption in the areas of mobile
trast to other consumption contexts such as food or phones, food and fashion is examined.
fashion, a second study was conducted. Consequently, it is predicted that

Hypothesis 1: Problem awareness (PA) is positively

Study 2
related to a) sustainable mobile phone consumption,
Based on the insights from Study 1, data was collected b) sustainable food consumption and c) sustainable
for three different product groups. The selection of fashion consumption.
food and fashion consumption as comparative cases
to mobile phone consumption allows for model test­ Hypothesis 2: Value-based factors as conceptualized by
ing for three product groups differing in their availabil­ the VBN (namely, awareness of consequences (AC),
ity of sustainable consumption options as well as the ascription of responsibility (AR), and personal norm
expected product involvement. (PN)) are positively related to a) sustainable mobile
In terms of availability, while sustainable consump­ phone consumption, b) sustainable food consumption
tion alternatives in the food sector are already and c) sustainable fashion consumption.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT & WORLD ECOLOGY 7

Hypothesis 3: Emotional factors, namely guilt and pride, Measures

are positively related to a) sustainable mobile phone Based on Study 1, items were rephrased to measure
consumption, b) sustainable food consumption and c) the consumption of food and fashion, respectively.7 All
sustainable fashion consumption. measures showed good internal consistencies
(Cronbach’s α > .80) for all three product groups,
Hypothesis 4: Rational factors as conceptualized by the except for problem awareness (Cronbach’s α: Mobile
TPB (namely, attitude (ATT), subjective norm (SN), per­ phones: .58, Food: .74, Fashion: .76). Table 4 shows
ceived behavioral control (PBC) and intention (INT)) are descriptive results and internal consistencies of all
positively related to a) sustainable mobile phone con­ study variables for the three product groups of Study
sumption, b) sustainable food consumption and c) 2. Further information on the intercorrelations can be
sustainable fashion consumption. found in tables 10–12 of the supplemental material.

In additional research questions, the approaches

tested in the hypotheses are examined for their incre­ Results
mental shares when considered jointly in differing
Table 5 shows the results of the multiple regressions
order. As for the comparison of the different product
that were conducted to test Hypotheses 1–4 for the
groups, it is of great interest to detect common or
three product groups mobile phones, food and
unique patterns. Thus, in a third additional research
fashion.
question, it is examined which similarities and differ­
For sustainable mobile phone consumption, PA did
ences exist between the product groups.
not explain sustainable consumption significantly, F(1,
101) = 0.86, p = .356, therefore not supporting
Hypothesis 1a. VBN, emotional and TPB factors signifi­
Method
cantly predicted sustainable mobile phone consump­
Procedure and sample tion, F(3, 99) = 15.58, p < .001; F(2, 100) = 5.05, p = .008;
In Study 2, a web-survey was conducted with N = 361 and F(4, 98) = 15.39, p < .001, respectively, explaining
participants. Analogous to the analyses in Study 1, 30%, 7% and 36% of variance. Thus, Hypotheses 2a, 3a
according to agreement with the panel provider, and 4a are supported.
n = 57 participants were excluded from further ana­ For sustainable food consumption, PA predicted
lysis due to data quality concerns (n = 26 failed atten­ consumption significantly, F(1, 99) = 13.42, p < .001,
tion scan) or premature dropout (n = 31 incomplete explaining 11% of variance. VBN factors, F(3,
data sets). The final sample consisted of N = 304 par­ 97) = 41.77, p < .001, as well as emotional factors, F(2,
ticipants (151 men, 153 women) of mostly German 98) = 23.91, p < .001, significantly predicted sustainable
origin. The average age was 38.82 years (SD = 13.81, food consumption, explaining 55% and 31% of var­
range = 18–81). Participants varied in their educa­ iance, respectively. Finally, TPB factors also significantly
tional background as well as their monthly income. predicted sustainable food consumption, F(4,
More information about the sample can be found in 96) = 41.89, p < .001, explaining 62% of variance.
the supplemental material (Table 7). Participants were Thus, Hypotheses 1b, 2b, 3b and 4b are supported.
randomly assigned to one of three product sub­ For sustainable fashion consumption, PA did not
groups: n = 103 (mobile phones); n = 101 (food); explain sustainable consumption significantly, F(1,
n = 100 (fashion). No significant age or gender differ­ 98) = 1.73, p = .192, therefore not supporting
ences were found between the subgroups. Hypothesis 1c. VBN, emotional and TPB factors

Table 4. Descriptive statistics and internal consistencies of all study variables for mobile phone, food and fashion consumption in
study 2.
Mobile phones Food Fashion
Variables M SD Cronbach’s α M SD Cronbach’s α M SD Cronbach’s α
1. Problem awareness 3.24 0.61 .58 3.32 0.75 .74 3.69 0.74 .76
2. Guilt 3.60 0.98 .92 3.65 0.95 .91 3.45 0.96 .91
3. Pride 3.96 1.12 .95 4.01 1.11 .96 3.94 0.98 .95
4. Attitude 3.67 0.90 .91 3.81 0.93 .89 3.59 0.98 .94
5. Subjective norm 2.55 1.14 .96 2.81 1.08 .94 2.61 1.10 .96
6. Perceived behavioral control 2.58 0.94 .93 3.00 1.01 .92 2.77 0.99 .94
7. Awareness of consequences 2.80 1.00 .92 3.21 0.96 .90 2.98 0.99 .92
8. Ascription of responsibility 3.55 1.07 .95 3.65 0.93 .93 3.69 0.94 .92
9. Personal norm 3.23 0.87 .94 3.28 0.96 .94 3.06 1.01 .96
10. Intention 3.50 1.02 .96 3.29 0.95 .95 3.08 1.10 .97
11a. Mobile phone consumption 1.85 0.84 .98
11b. Food consumption 2.62 0.97 .97
11c. Fashion consumption 2.22 1.01 .99
Note. Mobile phones: n = 103; Food: n = 101; Fashion: n = 100.
8 S. BETZLER ET AL.

Table 5. Results of regression analyses of sustainable consumption of mobile phones, food and fashion of all theoretical model
streams (study 2).
Mobile phones Food Fashion
Predictors β T p β T p β T p
Model 1: Problem awareness
Problem awareness − .09 − 0.93 .356 .35 3.66 < .001 .13 1.31 .192
F(df) F(1, 101) = 0.86 .356 F(1, 99) = 13.42 < .001 F(1, 98) = 1.73 .192
Adjusted R2 .00 .11 .01
Model 2: VBN factors
Awareness of consequences .20 − 1.95 .054 .04 0.48 .63 .03 0.37 .71
Ascription of responsibility − .22 − 2.25 .027 .02 0.29 .769 − .05 − 0.62 .534
Personal norm .51 5.03 < .001 .72 8.44 < .001 .70 8.36 < .001
F(df) F(3, 99) = 15.58 < .001 F(3, 97) = 41.77 < .001 F(3, 96) = 30.71< .001
Adjusted R2 .30 .55 .47
Model 3: Emotional factors
Guilt .29 2.62 .01 .56 5.92 < .001 .56 6.31 < .001
Pride .04 0.32 .749 .03 0.34 .733 − .10 − 1.18 .242
F(df) F(2, 100) = 5.05 .008 F(2, 98) = 23.91 < .001 F(2, 97) = 20.02< .001
Adjusted R2 .07 .31 .28
Model 4: TPB factors
Attitude − .17 − 1.40 .163 .17 1.93 .056 .05 0.49 .629
Subjective norm .36 3.56 .001 .16 2.01 .048 .20 2.37 .02
Perceived behavioral control .21 2.6 .011 − .06 − 0.82 .417 .11 1.54 .127
Intention .38 3.12 .002 .58 6.28 < .001 .56 5.12 < .001
F(df) F(4, 98) = 15.39 < .001 F(4, 96) = 41.89 < .001 F(4, 95) = 35.72< .001
Adjusted R2 .36 .62 .58
Note. Mobile phones: n = 103; Food: n = 101; Fashion: n = 100. VBN = Value-Belief-Norm Theory, TPB = Theory of Planned Behavior.

significantly predicted sustainable fashion consump­ TPB factors significantly contributed to the prediction
tion, F(3, 96) = 30.71, p < .001; F(2, 97) = 20.02, in all models, regardless of the step of inclusion. When
p < .001; and F(4, 95) = 35.72, p < .001, respectively, included in the second step, only the TPB factors pre­
explaining 47%, 28% and 58% of variance. Thus, dicted sustainable fashion consumption significantly
Hypotheses 2c, 3c and 4c are supported. (Models 5 and 6: ΔR2 = .58, p < .001). VBN factors
Across all product groups, PN was the strongest significantly contributed to the prediction of sustain­
predictor for sustainable consumption within the VBN able mobile phone and food consumption in all mod­
framework (mobile phones: β = .51, p < .001; food: els. For fashion consumption, they contributed
β = .72, p < .001; fashion: β = .70, p < .001). In terms significantly if included before the TPB factors.
of emotional factors, guilt was the only significant An extended table of hierarchical regression results
predictor relevant across all product groups (mobile including standardized regression weights for all steps
phones: β = .29, p = .01; food: β = .56, p < .001; fashion: of blockwise inclusion can be found in table 13 of the
β = .56, p < .001). For the TPB factors, INT was the supplemental material. VIF values ranged between 1
strongest predictor (mobile phones: β = .38, p = .002; and 4.95, suggesting that multicollinearity was not an
food: β = .58, p < .001; fashion: β = .56, p < .001), issue (Micheal and Abiodun 2014).
followed by SN (mobile phones: β = .36, p < .001;
food: β = .16, p = .048; fashion: β = .20, p = .02).
Table 6 shows the results of the hierarchical regres­ Discussion
sion analyses that were conducted to test the addi­ Results of Study 2 suggest that problem awareness
tional Research questions 1–3. As can be seen in the plays a role only for the prediction of sustainable
table, 41% of variance was explained in sustainable food consumption, supporting Hypothesis 1b in the
mobile phone consumption, 67% in food consumption food sample, but rejecting it for mobile phone and
and 59% in fashion consumption. fashion consumption (Hypotheses 1a and 1c).
PA did neither significantly contribute to the pre­ Similarly to Study 1, emotional, value-based and
diction of sustainable mobile phone nor fashion con­ rational influences predicted sustainable consumption
sumption (ΔR2 = .01, p = .356; and ΔR2 = .02, p = .192, for all product groups, thus confirming Hypotheses
respectively for Step 1 of all models). In contrast, for 2–4. For all product groups, the TPB factors constituted
sustainable food consumption, PA significantly con­ the strongest predictors, with 36% (mobile phones),
tributed to the prediction (ΔR2 = .12, p < .001), explain­ 62% (food) and 58% (fashion) explained variance.
ing 11% of variance. Emotional factors significantly They were closely followed by the VBN factors as pre­
increased the prediction of sustainable consumption dictors, explaining 30% (mobile phones), 55% (food)
only when inserted as Step 2 in all product groups and 47% (fashion) of variance.
(Models 3 and 4: Mobile phones: ΔR2 = .10, p = .005; As the results of the hierarchical regression analyses
food: ΔR2 = .24, p < .001; fashion: ΔR2 = .28, p < .001). show, jointly considering the theoretical streams
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT & WORLD ECOLOGY 9

Table 6. Results of hierarchical regression analyses of sustainable consumption of mobile phones, food and fashion with iterations
of value-based, emotional and rational factors (study 2).
Mobile phones Food Fashion
Predictors β Adjusted R2 ΔR2 β Adjusted R2 ΔR2 β Adjusted R2 ΔR2
Model 1: Problem awareness, VBN factors, emotional factors, TPB factors
Step 1 .00 .01 .11** .12** .01 .02
Step 2 .32** .34** .58** .47** .47** .47**
Step 3 .31** .01 .57** .00 .48** .02
Step 4 .41** .12** .67** .11** .59** .12**
Model 2: Problem awareness, VBN factors, TPB factors, emotional factors
Step 1 .00 .01 .11** .12** .01 .02
Step 2 .32** .34** .58** .47** .47** .47**
Step 3 .42** .12** .66** .09** .57** .12**
Step 4 .41** .00 .67** .01 .59** .02
Model 3: Problem awareness, emotional factors, VBN factors, TPB factors
Step 1 .00 .01 .11** .12** .01 .02
Step 2 .08** .10** .34** .24** .27** .28**
Step 3 .31** .24** .57** .23** .48** .22**
Step 4 .41** .12 ** .67** .11** .59** .12**
Model 4: Problem awareness, emotional factors, TPB factors, VBN factors
Step 1 .00 .01 .11** .12** .01 .02
Step 2 .08** .10** .34** .24** .27** .28**
Step 3 .37** .30** .64** .31** .59** .33**
Step 4 .41** .06* .67** .03* .59** .01
Model 5: Problem awareness, TPB factors, VBN factors, emotional factors
Step 1 .00 .01 .11** .12** .01 .02
Step 2 .38** .40** .64** .53** .58** .58**
Step 3 .42** .06* .66** .03* .57** .01
Step 4 .41** .00 .67** .01 .59** .02
Model 6: Problem awareness, TPB factors, emotional factors, VBN factors
Step 1 .00 .01 .11** .12** .01 .02
Step 2 .38** .40** .64** .53** .58** .58**
Step 3 .37** .00 .64** .02 .59** .02
Step 4 .41** .06* .67** .03* .59** .01
Problem awareness − .14 .18** .02
Awareness of consequences .19 .06 − .00
Ascription of responsibility − .17 − .10 − .01
Personal norm .26 .28* .19
Guilt − .08 − .05 − .08
Pride .00 − .13 − .15*
Attitude − .20 .19 .09
Subjective norm .30** .14 .15
Perceived behavioral control .11 − .04 .10
Intention .34* .40** .50**
Note. Parameter estimates are for final step, not entry. VBN = Value-Belief-Norm Theory, TPB = Theory of Planned Behavior. Mobile phones: n = 103; Food:
n = 101; Fashion: n = 100, *p < .05; **p < .01.

improved the explained variance in all product groups. General discussion

Explained variance varied across product groups (41% In the present study, influencing factors of different
in mobile phone consumption, 67% in food consump­ theoretical streams were considered for the prediction
tion and 59% in fashion consumption). Emotional fac­ of sustainable consumption of mobile phones and other
tors explained a substantial amount of variance in all product groups, namely, food and fashion. It was
product groups when added in Step 2. TPB factors hypothesized that knowledge-based (Hypothesis 1),
proved to be the strongest predictors, contributing to value-based (Hypothesis 2), emotional (Hypothesis 3)
the prediction of sustainable consumption in all pro­ and rational (Hypothesis 4) factors each predict sustain­
duct groups regardless of the step of inclusion. Except able consumption behavior. Furthermore, in additional
for sustainable fashion consumption, where VBN fac­ research questions, the theoretical streams were jointly
tors did not explain additional variance over the TPB considered for the prediction of sustainable consump­
factors, they contributed additionally in all remaining tion in varying order. This is important because knowl­
models. These results suggest that VBN and TPB factors edge about the specific influences of sustainable
generally share a substantial part of variance, but also consumption helps tailoring interventions for the pro­
have distinctive parts. Moreover, it seems like VBN and motion of sustainable practices and thus contributes to
TPB factors comprise an emotional component, which a sustainable turn.
leads to emotional factors, when included in Steps 3 or First, in both studies, the strongest predictors for
4, being superimposed by these facets. sustainable consumption were stemming from the
10 S. BETZLER ET AL.

VBN and the TPB theory. In study 2, in line with the indirect predictor for sustainable consumption
theoretical predictions of the TPB, intention was (Bamberg and Moeser 2007), not necessarily translat­
the strongest predictor of the rational constructs ing into actual consumption behavior. Only for food
for all products. Empirically, similar findings stres­ consumption, a direct effect emerged. Thus, the effect
sing the central position of intention have been of variance in problem awareness seems to be depen­
shown (e.g., Onwezen et al. 2013; Iran et al. dent on the product group. While a varying degree of
2019). Hierarchical regression results indicate that problem awareness seems to be an important basis for
the factors of both theories are overlapping, but sustainable consumption behavior in the food sector,
also have distinctive parts. This suggests that, sustainable practices in other sectors are less depen­
besides a rational calculation to favor a behavioral dent on this variance of knowledge. Building on the
option as the most sensible one, acting according theoretical insights of the CDP model (Blackwell et al.
to one’s principles and values is important. This is 2006), this might be due to differences in the search for
in line with previous findings (e.g., Han and Hyun information as well as the resulting evaluative process
2017; Rezvani et al. 2017) that personal norm plays of the consumption decision. For a low involvement
a central role in behaving sustainably. In both stu­ product like food items, due to high purchase fre­
dies and for all product groups, a (value-based) quency and the habitual character of many food pur­
personal norm as well as the subjective norm con­ chases, consumers may have a lot of internal
stitute relevant predictors, suggesting that perso­ information available. In contrast, for medium or high
nal and social normative influences should go hand involvement products like fashion or mobile phones,
in hand to promote sustainable consumption. Also, an external search is necessary. If consumers cannot or
in Study 1, awareness of consequences held do not want to engage in it, other factors like value-
a significant influence. This circumstance should based or emotional ones could be more influential for
be addressed in educational measures, that is by the consumption decision. Alternatively, it is also con­
fostering awareness and the individual’s conviction ceivable that individuals do not dispose of too little,
to act according to their principles just as much as but rather contradictory knowledge for fashion or
encouraging to be a pioneer in one’s social group. mobile phone consumption. This may impede the
Second, the results show that emotions predict sus­ decision-making process for sustainable behaviors,
tainable consumption, explaining a substantial creating ‘dilemmas, tensions and paralysis’ (Longo
amount of variance for all product groups. Looking at et al. 2019, p. 759), thus not translating into behavior.
the regression weights, this effect was accounted for Marketing or educational measures for the promotion
by the negative emotion guilt. In contrast, pride did of sustainable consumption in the food sector should
not prove to be a significant predictor. Building on address this circumstance, paying particular attention
existing research, these findings further stress the to including sufficient and trustworthy information. At
importance of guilt as key emotion in the promotion the same time, the amount of information should be
of sustainable consumption (Bamberg and Moeser adjusted to the target group at hand, accounting for
2007; Lindenmeier et al. 2017), but contradict other interindividual differences.
findings, for example, from Onwezen et al. (2013), on Concerning the overall prediction of sustainable
the importance of pride. Following the Decision Affect consumption behavior by all theoretical streams,
Theory (Mellers and McGraw 2001), this suggests that results show that the joint consideration improves
the anticipation of guilt as a negative emotional reac­ the explained variance compared to a single predic­
tion is potentially more aversive than the expected tion. Differences emerged depending on the product
gain in light of experiencing pride, making guilt more group, ranging from 41% explained variance in mobile
effective in the decision process. Interestingly, in the phone consumption over 59% in fashion consumption
hierarchical regression analysis, guilt was only to 67% in food consumption. Presumably, depending
a significant predictor when included before the VBN on the product group, other supposedly non-psycho­
or the TPB factors, suggesting that an emotional com­ logical factors such as price, brand or technical features
ponent is contained in an ascription of responsibility or of the product gain more importance (Petruzzellis
a personal norm (VBN) or an attitudinal belief (TPB). 2010). Also, the purchase process of durable goods
This makes the predictive power of guilt obsolete at like technological products seems to be complex
a later point of inclusion. (e.g., considering different time dimensions; Sriram
Third, problem awareness did not prove to be et al. 2010), suggesting differences in product involve­
a significant predictor in most of the cases. ment. Finally, as descriptive results show, both per­
Specifically, results show that problem awareness was ceived behavioral control and sustainable
a significant predictor for sustainable consumption consumption behavior were highest for food and low­
only in the food sample (explained variance of 11%). est for mobile phones, with fashion ranging in
These results match earlier findings and confirm the between. This supports the initial assumption of the
importance of problem awareness unfolding as an availability of sustainable consumption options of the
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT & WORLD ECOLOGY 11

products as a discriminating factor between the Practical implications

groups.
The present study yields relevant practical implica­
Two major conclusions can be drawn from these
tions. First, emotional factors seem to be particularly
results. First, jointly considering factors from differ­
important. On the one hand, this is valuable infor­
ent theoretical backgrounds seems generally desir­
mation regarding the development of educational
able to heighten the prediction of sustainable
measures. Specifically, education about problems
consumption for different product groups. These
and consequences associated with (non-) sustain­
results confirm previous findings that the simulta­
able behavior should not only be focused on infor­
neous acknowledgement of factors originating from
mation, but emotion-driven. Also, educational
different theoretical families is essential to under­
measures should address the particular importance
stand individual consumption behavior (e.g., Han
of personal and social norms by strengthening
2015). Also, they support recent claims to acknowl­
them accordingly. On the other hand, marketing
edge consumption as the complex process that it is
campaigns on promoting sustainable practices
for consumers (Buerke 2016). Second, both common
should include emotional claims. In particular,
and unique patterns in the importance of influen­
appealing to one’s feelings of guilt seems to be
cing factors emerge across product groups. Personal
effective. For example, campaigns could focus on
norm, guilt and intention are central predictors of
the individual’s contribution to problematic condi­
the respective theoretical streams in all three pro­
tions in production countries.
duct groups. In contrast, problem awareness only
Second, to tackle sustainable consumption in the
exerts an influence on food consumption. Also, sub­
food sector, fostering awareness about unsustainable
jective norm proves to be especially relevant for
consumption patterns seems to be an important basis
mobile phone consumption. Thus, designing effec­
for promoting behavior change. Here, environmental
tive measures for behavior change requires a closer
education can make a change in targeting the lack of
look and adequate adjustment to the consumption
knowledge as well as the development of values in this
context at hand.
area. This circumstance should be tackled in educa­
tional measures, such as training formats.
Finally, the great influence of value-based norms
Limitations and further research
in addition to rational influences once more proves
Some limitations to the present research must be the conception of the human being as homo oeco­
noted. On a methodological level, a higher internal nomicus to be outdated. However, the majority of
consistency of the scale measuring problem awareness policy measures still focuses on a rational individual
would be desirable. The measuring instrument was (Pollex 2017), neglecting the impact of factors like
developed based on existing validated instruments values or emotions. It is thus necessary to promote
from related areas, but the transmission to the area a paradigm shift in policy making regarding sustain­
of mobile phones might have caused some irregulari­ able consumption and rigorously incorporate the
ties. Measuring awareness about a problematic state existing knowledge about psychological determi­
might mean different things in the different product nants on sustainable consumption in order to pro­
groups, causing the scale’s internal consistency to mote change on a bigger scale.
range between α = .58 and .79 depending on the
product category. However, the remaining scales dis­
pose of good reliabilities of α > .80, thus providing Conclusion
a sound questionnaire instrument.
Sustainable development is one of our time’s most
Additionally, the present study uses self-report data. pressing issues, and sustainable consumption con­
While this has a long-standing tradition in psychologi­ stitutes one important way to achieve it. Hence,
cal research, aiming at the introspection of the indivi­ there is an obvious need for the identification of
dual’s behavior, it has to be noted that self-report data factors that can promote corresponding behavior
is susceptible to distortions such as social desirability change in individual consumption. Our study pro­
bias (Podsakoff and Organ 1986). Future research vides evidence that jointly considering knowledge-
should address this short-coming, for example, by based, value-based, emotional and rational factors
using objective behavior measures such as the pur­ heightens the overall prediction of sustainable con­
chase value of products. sumption behavior of mobile phones, food and
Finally, the present study constitutes a cross-sec­ fashion. The findings suggest that common patterns
tional design. Further research using longitudinal exist across products, stressing the importance of
data would be desirable to consider the development a rational intention, a value-based personal norm or
of sustainable consumption decisions over time and to feelings of guilt. At the same time, the importance
derive causal conclusions. of certain factors seems to be product-specific, such
12 S. BETZLER ET AL.

as problem awareness for food consumption. Thus, Data Availability Statement

a joint consideration of factors is desirable for
The data that support the findings of this study are openly
a comprehensive prediction, all the while paying available in the Open Science Framework under the DOI
close attention to the specifics of the product. In 10.17605/OSF.IO/HVJ9T at http://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/
order to achieve the greatest possible impact, this HVJ9T.
has to be taken into consideration in marketing or
educational measures. In this regard, this work
offers an integration of perspectives on sustainable References
consumption which is of utmost importance for
Ajzen I. 1991. The theory of planned behavior. Organ Behav
researchers, practitioners – and the planet. Hum Decis Process. 50(2):179–211. doi:10.1016/0749-
5978(91)90020-T.
Antonetti P, Maklan S. 2014. Feelings that make a difference:
Notes how guilt and pride convince consumers of the effective­
ness of sustainable consumption choices. J Bus Ethics. 124
1. Department of Business Psychology, Aalen University
(1):117–134. doi:10.1007/s10551-013-1841-9.
of Applied Sciences
Asadi S, Nilashi M, Safaei M, Abdullah R, Saeed F,
2. Sustainable consumption is conceptualized as a way
Yadegaridehkordi E, Samad S. 2019. Investigating factors
to consume which ensures comparable or better living
influencing decision-makers’ intention to adopt Green IT
conditions for current and future generations. This
in Malaysian manufacturing industry. Resour Conserv
entails carefully handling and protecting natural,
Recycl. 148:36–54. doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.04.028.
social and economic resources.
Bamberg S, Hunecke M, Bloebaum A. 2007. Social context,
3. Self-conscious emotions require a representation of
personal norms and the use of public transportation: two
the self and result from evaluating one’s actions
field studies. J Environ Psychol. 27(3):190–203.
against a set of (internal or external) standards
doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2007.04.001.
(Vining and Ebreo 2002; Tracy and Robins 2004).
Bamberg S, Moeser G. 2007. Twenty years after Hines,
4. Since this survey constitutes a non-interventional
Hungerford, and Tomera: a new meta-analysis of
study, ethical approval as foreseen by the Declaration
psycho-social determinants of pro-environmental
of Helsinki was not required.
behaviour. J Environ Psychol. 27(1):14–25. doi:10.1016/j.
5. Originally, additional data was collected for a set of 4
jenvp.2006.12.002.
value orientations and post materialism. For reasons of
Bamberg S, Schmidt P. 2003. Incentives, morality, or habit?
model complexity, these were not considered in Predicting students’ car use for university routes with the
further analysis. The full dataset can be obtained models of Ajzen, Schwartz, and Triandis. Environ Behav. 35
from a data repository. (2):264–285. doi:10.1177/0013916502250134.
6. Data analysis was originally conducted with structural Bergquist M, Nystroem L, Nilsson A. 2020. Feeling or follow­
equation modelling (SEM), integrating the four ing? A field experiment comparing social norms based and
hypotheses. No sufficient fit to the data was obtained. emotions based motives encouraging pro environmental
Following MacCallum and Austin (2000), this might be donations. J Consum Behav. 19(4):1–8. doi:10.1002/
due to the high complexity of the model, making it cb.1813.
necessary to estimate a large number of parameters, in Blackwell RD, Miniard PW, Engel JF. 2006. Consumer
combination with a rather small sample size. Behavior. Mason (OH): Thomson South-Western.
7. In study 2, attitude was measured with three addi­ Buerke A. 2016. Nachhaltigkeit und consumer confusion am
tional items. For reasons of comparability between
point of sale: eine Untersuchung zum Kauf nachhaltiger
studies, only the overlapping three items were ana­
Produkte im Lebensmitteleinzelhandel. [Sustainability and
lyzed. Also, additional data was collected for a set of 4
consumer confusion at the point of sale: an investigation
value orientations and post materialism. For reasons of
on buying sustainable products in food retailing].
model complexity, these were not considered in
Wiesbaden: Springer Gabler Fachmedien.
further analysis. The full dataset can be obtained
Buerke A, Straatmann T, Lin-Hi N, Mueller K. 2017. Consumer
from a data repository.
awareness and sustainability-focused value orientation as
motivating factors of responsible consumer behavior. Rev
Manag Sci. 11(4):959–991. doi:10.1007/s11846-016-0211-
Disclosure Statement 2.
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors. Frick V, Matthies E, Thøgersen J, Santarius T. 2020. Do online
environments promote sufficiency or overconsumption?
Online advertisement and social media effects on cloth­
ing, digital devices, and air travel consumption. J Consum
Funding Behav. [accessed 2021 Feb 19], 21. doi:10.1002/cb.1855.
This work is part of the project ‘Sustainable Consumption of Hamilton B, Terblanche-Smit M. 2018. Consumer intention to
Information and Communication Technology in the Digital purchase green vehicles in the South African market:
Society - Dialogue and Transformation through Open a theory of planned behaviour perspective. South African
Innovation’ and was supported by the Ministry for Science J Bus Manag. 49(1):1–7. doi:10.4102/sajbm.v49i1.190.
and Culture of Lower Saxony and the Volkswagen Han H. 2015. Travelers’ pro-environmental behavior in
Foundation (VolkswagenStiftung) through the a green lodging context: converging value-belief-norm
‘Niedersaechsisches Vorab’ grant program (grant number theory and the theory of planned behavior. Tour Manag.
VWZN3037). 47:164–177. doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2014.09.014.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT & WORLD ECOLOGY 13

Han H. 2020. Theory of green purchase behavior (TGPB): a new MacCallum RC, Austin JT. 2000. Applications of structural equa­
theory for sustainable consumption of green hotel and green tion modeling in psychological research. Annu Rev Psychol. 51
restaurant products. Bus Strategy Environ. 29(6):2815–2828. (1):201–226. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.51.1.201.
doi:10.1002/bse.2545. Martin CL. 1998. Relationship marketing: a high-involvement
Han H, Hyun SS. 2017. Drivers of customer decision to visit an product attribute approach. J Prod Brand Man. 7(1):6–26.
environmentally responsible museum: merging the theory of doi:10.1108/10610429810209700.
planned behavior and norm activation theory. J Travel Tour McDonald S, Oates C, Thyne M, Alevizou P, McMorland LA.
Mark. 34(9):1155–1168. doi:10.1080/10548408.2017.1304317. 2009. Comparing sustainable consumption patterns
Hansmann R, Baur I, Binder CR. 2020. Increasing organic food across product sectors. Int J Consum Stud. 33(2):137–145.
consumption: an integrating model of drivers and barriers. doi:10.1111/j.1470-6431.2009.00755.x.
J Clean Prod. 275:123058. doi:10.1016/j. Mellers BA, McGraw AP. 2001. Anticipated emotions as
jclepro.2020.123058. guides to choice. Curr Dir Psychol. 10(6):210–214.
Hartmann P, Apaolaza V, D’Souza C. 2018. The role of psy­ doi:10.1111/1467-8721.00151.
chological empowerment in climate-protective consumer Micheal VA, Abiodun AA. 2014. Estimation of regression
behaviour: an extension of the value-belief-norm coefficients in the presence of multicollinearity. Soc Basic
framework. Eur J Mark. 52(1/2):392–415. doi:10.1108/EJM- Sci Res Rev. 2(10):404–415.
01-2017-0080. Mishra D, Akman I, Mishra A. 2014. Theory of reasoned action
Heo J, Muralidharan S. 2019. What triggers young Millennials application for green information technology acceptance.
to purchase eco-friendly products?: the interrelationships Comput Hum Behav. 36:29–40. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.03.030.
among knowledge, perceived consumer effectiveness, Onwezen MC, Antonides G, Bartels J. 2013. The norm
and environmental concern. J Mark Commun. 25 activation model: an exploration of the functions of
(4):421–437. doi:10.1080/13527266.2017.1303623. anticipated pride and guilt in pro-environmental
Hilty L, Lohmann W, Huang EM. 2011. Sustainability and behaviour. J Econ Psychol. 39:141–153. doi:10.1016/j.
ICT-an overview of the field. Not Polit. 27(104):13–28. joep.2013.07.005.
Hoeksma DL, Gerritzen MA, Lokhorst AM, Poortvliet PM. Onwezen MC, Bartels J, Antonides G. 2014. Environmentally
2017. An extended theory of planned behavior to predict friendly consumer choices: cultural differences in the
consumers’ willingness to buy mobile slaughter unit meat. self-regulatory function of anticipated pride and guilt.
Meat Sci. 128:15–23. doi:10.1016/j.meatsci.2017.01.011. J Environ Psychol. 40:239–248. doi:10.1016/j.
Holbrook MB, Batra R. 1987. Assessing the role of emotions as jenvp.2014.07.003.
mediators of consumer responses to advertising. J Cons Petruzzellis L. 2010. Mobile phone choice: technology versus
Res. 14(3):404–420. doi:10.1086/209123. marketing. The brand effect in the Italian market. Eur
Iran S, Geiger SM, Schrader U. 2019. Collaborative fashion J Mark. 44(5):610–634. doi:10.1108/03090561011032298.
consumption–A cross-cultural study between Tehran and Podsakoff PM, Organ DW. 1986. Self-reports in organizational
Berlin. J Clean Prod. 212:313–323. doi:10.1016/j. research: problems and prospects. J Manag. 12
jclepro.2018.11.163. (4):531–544.
Jalil MH, Shaharuddin SS. 2019. Consumer purchase behavior Pollex J. 2017. Regulating consumption for sustainability?
of eco-fashion clothes as a trend to reduce clothing waste. Why the European Union chooses information instru­
Int J Innov Technol Expl Eng. 8(12):4224–4233. ments to foster sustainable consumption. Eur Policy
Kollmuss A, Agyeman J. 2002. Mind the gap: why do people Anal. 3(1):185–204.
act environmentally and what are the barriers to Rezvani Z, Jansson J, Bengtsson M. 2017. Cause I’ll feel good!
pro-environmental behavior? Environ Educ Res. 8 An investigation into the effects of anticipated emotions
(3):239–260. doi:10.1080/13504620220145401. and personal moral norms on consumer pro-environmen­
Landon AC, Woosnam KM, Boley BB. 2018. Modeling the tal behavior. J Promot Manag. 23(1):163–183. doi:10.1080/
psychological antecedents to tourists’ pro-sustainable 10496491.2016.1267681.
behaviors: an application of the value-belief-norm model. Slama ME, Tashchian A. 1985. Selected socioeconomic and
J Sustain Tour. 26(6):957–972. doi:10.1080/ demographic characteristics associated with purchasing
09669582.2017.1423320. involvement. J Mark. 49(1):72–82. doi:10.1177/
Laurent G, Kapferer JN. 1985. Measuring consumer involve­ 002224298504900107.
ment profiles. J Mark Res. 22(1):41–53. doi:10.1177/ Soyez K. 2012. How national cultural values affect
002224378502200104. pro-environmental consumer behavior. Int Mark Rev. 29
Lerner JS, Li Y, Valdesolo P, Kassam KS. 2015. Emotion and (6):623–646. doi:10.1108/02651331211277973.
decision making. Annu Rev Psychol. 66(1):799–823. Sriram S, Chintagunta PK, Agarwal MK. 2010. Investigating
doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115043. consumer purchase behavior in related technology pro­
Lindenmeier J, Lwin M, Andersch H, Phau I, Seemann AK. duct categories. Mark Sci. 29(2):291–314. doi:10.1287/
2017. Anticipated consumer guilt: an investigation into mksc.1090.0506.
its antecedents and consequences for fair-trade Steenhaut S, Van Kenhove P. 2006. The mediating role of antici­
consumption. J Macromarketing. 37(4):444–459. pated guilt in consumers’ ethical decision-making. J Bus
doi:10.1177/0276146717723964. Ethics. 69(3):269–288. doi:10.1007/s10551-006-9090-9.
Liu Y, Sheng H, Mundorf N, Redding C, Ye Y. 2017. Integrating Stern PC. 2000. Toward a coherent theory of environmentally
norm activation model and theory of planned behavior to significant behavior. J Soc Issues. 56(3):407–424.
understand sustainable transport behavior: evidence from doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00175.
China. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 14(12):1593. Thaler R. 1980. Toward a positive theory of consumer choice.
doi:10.3390/ijerph14121593. J Econ Behav Organ. 1(1):39–60. doi:10.1016/0167-2681(80)
Longo C, Shankar A, Nuttall P. 2019. It’s not easy living 90051-7.
a sustainable lifestyle”: how greater knowledge leads to dilem­ Tracy JL, Robins RW. 2004. Putting the self into
mas, tensions and paralysis. J Bus Ethics. 154(3):759–779. self-conscious emotions: a theoretical model. Psych
doi:10.1007/s10551-016-3422-1. Inq. 15(2):103–125. doi:10.1207/s15327965pli1502_01.
14 S. BETZLER ET AL.

Uddin SF, Khan MN. 2018. Young consumer’s green Churchman, A, editors. New Handbook of Environmental
purchasing behavior: opportunities for green Psychology. New York (NY): Wiley; p. 541–558.
marketing. J Glob Mark. 31(4):270–281. doi:10.1080/ Welfens MJ, Nordmann J, Seibt A. 2016. Drivers and barriers
08911762.2017.1407982. to return and recycling of mobile phones. Case studies of
United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs communication and collection campaigns. J Clean Prod.
[DESA]. 2021. Sustainable development goals - goal 12. 132:108–121. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.11.082.
[accessed 2021 Jul 8]. https://sdgs.un.org/goals/goal12 Yang S, Song Y, Tong S. 2017. Sustainable retailing in the
Vining J, Ebreo A. 2002. Emerging theoretical and methodolo­ fashion industry: a systematic literature review.
gical perspectives on conservation behaviour. In: Bechtel RB, Sustainability. 9(7):1266. doi:10.3390/su9071266.