Me, my family or the public good? Do inter‐role conflicts of consumer–citizens reduce their ethical consumption behaviour?

Abstract

This article examines role stress, especially inter-role conflicts (IRC), against the background of the consumer-citizen duality. It tests whether consumer-citizen conflicts impair the purchase of ethical food in terms of the ethical intention-behaviour gap. Furthermore, this study examines the potential of eustress arising from citizen-consumer conflicts to enhance actual ethical purchases.Additionally, determinants and moderating conditions of both IRC are tested. A combination of observations of actual purchase behaviour and survey data in a field setting is used to gain insights into role conflict formation and manifestation, arising from the desire to fulfil the demands of two opposing roles: consumer and citizen. The quantitative data are analysed with structural equation modelling to test the hypothesized coherencies simultaneously. Results indicate that stress arises similarly from both IRC. While a positive impact of eustress on purchase behaviour was absent, consumer-citizen role conflicts impede the actual purchase of ethical groceries. The data show that this role conflict derives, for example, from economic demands sent by the consumer role set when a person has ethical buying intentions. Additionally, the identification with the consumer role further amplifies this conflict. The data indicate that consumers instead of citizens should be empowered by marketing practitioners and policy makers, for example by reducing the perception of stress by communicating positive outcomes referring to relevant consumer role set members (e.g., added value for children from purchasing ethically) to stimulate problem-focused coping. K E Y W O R D S consumer-citizen, intention-behaviour gap, inter-role conflict, role stress

Bridging the intention–behavior gap among organic grocery customers: The crucial role of point‐of‐sale information

“…Modelers endeavor to reveal constructs that add new insights to the current research because they are convinced that social desirability and methodological limitations account for only a minor part of the gap (Carrington et al, 2010;Verbeke & Vermeir, 2006). Purchase barriers such as price (e.g., value for money) (Padel & Foster, 2005), availability (Tarkiainen & Sundqvist, 2009), quality (e.g., taste and appearance) (Loebnitz, Schuitema, & Grunert, 2015), situational factors (e.g., promotion and role conflicts) (Frank, 2018;Van Doorn & Verhoef, 2015), and information (e.g., lack of knowledge, lack of trust, certificate diversity) (Gruber, Schlegelmilch, & Houston, 2014;Padel & Foster, 2005) are often the subject of research interest. Bridging essential purchase barriers while accounting for methodological aspects seems to be the key to more organic purchase behaviors.…”

“Green cannibalism” or an “organic inside job”? Empirical insights into the rivalry of ethical grocery types

“…An explanation of the five categories was given to ensure a common understanding and perception. This procedure reduced biases concerning the topic of interest and socially desired purchases and assured virtually normal purchase behavior (Frank, ; Oh & Yoon, ).…”

“…The results of these studies are inconclusive because, when focusing on the phenomenon of the IBG, the applied method should reflect its special character (e.g., selecting participants with high buying intention; Aschemann‐Witzel & Niebuhr Aagaard, ; Frank, ). Additionally, research has revealed that buying ethical groceries appears due to several different self‐oriented, altruistic, and/or biospheric reasons (van Doorn & Verhoef, ; Vega‐Zamora et al, ).…”

“…Although this evaluation is subjective, perceptions might differ between consumers. Nevertheless, following self‐perception theory, consumers try to reach a high level of conformity with their own self‐identity (Juhl et al, ) and their responsibilities, both as a consumer and a citizen (Frank, ). Therefore, they will most likely choose the alternative indicating a higher “green fit.” If consumer gives special weight to packaging and transport distances, then the “green fit” of local groceries will probably be higher, compared with organic groceries.…”

“…Price perception was not included in this model because it was found to have a minor impact on the organic IBG for NBFIs. If you are interested in an in‐depth discussion of price as a purchase barrier for NBFIs, please refer to Frank & Brock ()…”