Modelling the consumer decision‐making process to identify key drivers and bottlenecks in the adoption of environmentally friendly products

Abstract

This paper empirically identifies the attitude‐behaviour gap phenomenon, which has been witnessed frequently in environmentally friendly products, by suggesting a general and flexible Bayesian multivariate model and applying it to survey data. Since cognitive, affective and conative stages, which are closely related to the attitude‐behaviour gap, are successive stages in the consumer decision‐making process, these must be considered simultaneously in empirical analysis. For this reason, a recursive multivariate probit model is proposed. According to the empirical analysis, the affective stage (interest and preference) does not lead to the conative stage (intention to use and intention to purchase) in an analysis of eco‐friendly detergent. By contrast, in an electric vehicle analysis, the affective stage partially influences the conative stage through the relationship between preference and usage intention, and through the relationship between interest and purchase intention. It was also found that high compatibility and low complexity must be emphasized in eco‐friendly detergent, and that high relative advantage and compatibility must be emphasized for an electric vehicle in order to bridge the attitude‐behaviour gap successfully.

“I like it, but I don't use it”: Impact of carsharing business models on usage intentions in the sharing economy

“…Our initial field study of a carsharing business model failure and the follow‐up focus groups indicated that a positive attitude toward carsharing is not a good predictor of usage, although we show that compatibility of specific dimension of the carsharing system with consumers living situation is essential for acceptance and usage intention. This also underlines the existence of an attitude–behavior gap (e.g., Shim et al, ; Tilley, ) in the sharing economy as a generally positive stance toward carsharing (as indicated in our focus groups) did not translate to a meaningful behavior (in our case: use of the service) in the field study.…”

“…Earlier explorative research indicated that convenience and lifestyle are dominant motives in determining carsharing usage (Schaefers, ). Furthermore, Shim et al () recently illustrated that successive stages in the consumer decision‐making process, for example, the relationship between preference and usage intention, need to be considered to explain and overcome the attitude–behavior gap. We provide insights on these aspects for the case of carsharing, as we identified (a) a free‐floating fleet with fast availability and a full‐service level as a specific dimension of convenience, (b) a pricing model with monthly basic fees (that constitutes a base rate model) instead of solely usage‐dependent fees and public service providers as dimension of safety needs, and (c) electric vehicles as an important lifestyle dimension.…”

“…Given the above, there is a gap in research understanding what factors shape consumer usage intentions toward carsharing services. Determining these factors might (a) indicate which business model is optimal (Münzel et al, ; Perboli et al, ) and thus contribute to the ongoing debate on what influences the attitude–behavior gap in sustainability‐related consumption (e.g., Shim, Shin, & Kwak, ; Tilley, ), (b) provide insights for scholars and consultants who seek to predict the market potential of carsharing, and (c) help managers launch and maintain suitable carsharing services.…”

Beyond symbolic and substantive: Strategic disclosure of corporate environmental information in China

“…First, consumers have not yet shown a strong demand for environmentally friendly products, especially in China (L. W. Lin, ), and care more about the function of products than the process by which they are made (Kysar, ). The attitude‐behavior gap phenomenon has been witnessed frequently in the context of green purchasing, whereby having a preference for environmentally friendly products does not necessarily translate into purchasing intention (Joshi & Rahman, ; Shim, Shin, & Kwak, ).…”

A decision‐analytic approach to screening in chemical alternatives assessment

“…For example, material selection decisions at the product formulation stage take into account factors such as performance, cost, health risk, and environmental impact, as well as the ways in which consumers engage with environmentally friendly products. End users considering an environmentally friendly purchase face a complicated decision context (Shim, Shin, & Kwak, 2018), often responding with effortreducing heuristics such as putting higher weight on environmental benefits only when product performance is considered as at least as good as the incumbent (Meyer, 2001). Product developers and procurement staff respond to these same trade-offs but often lack the tools to make a balanced decision (Byggeth & Hochschorner, 2006), especially when comparing both monetary and nonmonetary objectives (McWilliams, Parhankangas, Coupet, Welch, & Barnum, 2016).…”