The Sustainability Liability: Potential Negative Effects of Ethicality on Product Preference

Luchs, Michael G.; Reczek, Rebecca Walker; Irwin, Julie R.; Raghunathan, Rajagopal

doi:10.1509/jmkg.74.5.018

Cited by 591 publications

(416 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

390

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Conversely, the choice of hedonic attributes has been shown to be a consequence of promotion-oriented emotions; choosing a product with hedonically superior attributes is associated with greater excitement, whereas compromising hedonic attributes is associated with disappointment (Chitturi et al 2007;Higgins 2001). Predicting choice in the current context, however, depends on understanding what goals might be satisfied (or sacrificed) when considering a trade-off with sustainability, where sustainable products have been described as products that reflect positive moral principles Baron 2001, 2009) related to a variety of social issues, e.g., fair labor practices, and environmental issues, e.g., avoiding pollution (Luchs et al 2010).…”

Section: When and Why Might Consumers Respond Morementioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, although many consumers articulate strong support for sustainability, a disproportionately lower number of consumers actually purchase products identified as more sustainable (UNEP 2005), contributing to their low market share (Peloza et al 2012). Building on the idea that consumers often infer a trade-off between sustainability and other product attributes (Lin and Chang 2012;Luchs et al 2010), the objective of the current research is to contribute to our understanding of when and why consumers will respond favorably to a product that is more sustainable, despite an explicit trade-off with other valued attributes.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

“Yes, but this Other One Looks Better/Works Better”: How do Consumers Respond to Trade-offs Between Sustainability and Other Valued Attributes?

2015

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Consumers are increasingly facing product evaluation and choice situations that include information about product sustainability, i.e., information about a product's relative environmental and social impact. In many cases, consumers have to make decisions that involve a trade-off between product sustainability and other valued product attributes. Similarly, product and marketing managers need to make decisions that reflect how consumers will respond to different trade-off scenarios. In the current research, we study consumer responses across two different possible trade-off scenarios: one in which consumers face a trade-off between product sustainability and hedonic value, and another in which they must trade-off between product sustainability and utilitarian value. Our results suggest that, overall, consumers are more likely to trade-off hedonic value (e.g., esthetics) for sustainability than to trade-off utilitarian value (e.g., functional performance) for sustainability. In Studies 1A and 1B, we presented participants with a product choice task and also measured their anticipatory emotions as they contemplated their options. The results suggest that given a trade-off, consumers are more likely to choose a sustainable product when they have to trade-off hedonic value than when they have to trade-off utilitarian value. Further, these studies provide some insight into the emotions underlying this effect. In Study 2, we use a different consumer response measure, relative purchase likelihood, and investigate the effect of trade-off type across categories that vary in the degree to which hedonic and utilitarian attributes are perceived to be important (referred to as 'product type'). Our results suggest that the effect of trade-off type still holds, yet is moderated by product type such that consumers' greater willingness to trade-off hedonic value (vs. utilitarian value) for sustainability is attenuated as the relative importance of hedonic (vs. utilitarian) attributes increases. In addition to building on our theoretical understanding of decision making given trade-offs with moral attributes, this research is also intended to support managers as they define and choose among various strategic, product development, and marketing promotion options.

show abstract

Section: When and Why Might Consumers Respond Morementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“Yes, but this Other One Looks Better/Works Better”: How do Consumers Respond to Trade-offs Between Sustainability and Other Valued Attributes?

2015

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Goldstein et al (2008a) proposed that the use of the forced choice policy may be suitable when there is no apparently optimal default choice. This could be the case for consumers' green behavior, as there is no obvious best choice between green and non-green behavior in regard to consumers' heterogeneous preferences, attitudes, and behaviors toward green corporate practices (Luchs et al 2010;White et al 2012;Goldstein et al 2011). Using the forced choice in this second study, we also rule out the explanation that consumers' compliance rate to the opt-out policy is higher compared to the compliance rate in the optin due to inertia.…”

Section: Study 2-forced Choicementioning

confidence: 99%

The Impact of Choice Architecture on Sustainable Consumer Behavior: The Role of Guilt

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Companies often encourage consumers to engage in sustainable behaviors using their services in a more environmentally friendly or green way, such as reusing the towels in a hotel or replacing paper bank statements by electronic statements. Sometimes, the option of green service is implied as the default and consumers can opt-out, while in other cases consumers need to explicitly ask (opt-in) for switching to a green service. This research examines the effectiveness of choice architecture and particularly the different default policies-i.e., the alternative the consumer receives if he/she does not explicitly request otherwise-in engaging consumer green behavior. In four experiments, we show that the opt-out default policy is more effective than the opt-in, because it increases anticipated guilt. This effect is stronger for consumers who are less conscious for the environment (Study 1).We also show that a forced choice policy, in which the consumer is not automatically assigned to any condition and is forced to choose between the green and the nongreen service option, is more effective than the opt-in policy and not significantly more effective than the opt-out policy (Study 2). Finally, we show that the role of defaults is weakened (enhanced), if a negotiated (reciprocal) cooperation strategy is used (Study 3). The article contributes to the literature of defaults and provides managerial and public policy implications for the design of green services.

show abstract

“…A variety of terms have been used to refer to consumer behaviours that reflect the broader and longer-term impacts of consumption on society and/or on the environment (cf., "SCB" or "sustainable consumption," Kilbourne et al 1997;Luchs et al 2010;Schäfer et al 2011;Wolff and Schönherr 2011; "socially responsible consumption, " Antil 1984; "ecologically concerned consumption, " Henion 1976;and "responsible consumption," Fisk 1973). Some definitions refer specifically to social issues (e.g., factory safety, labour practices, and community service), others focus on environmental issues (e.g., energy use, resource use, and pollution), and some refer to both.…”

Section: Sustainable Consumer Behaviourmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We used the context of a product choice given that it is a very familiar and relevant context for the general population, and therefore an appropriate one in which to study the relationships of interest. This specific trade-off was used given the results of recent research suggesting that consumers often expect a trade-off between product functional performance and sustainability (Luchs et al 2010). Therefore, this scenario provides a realistic choice between two viable options.…”

Section: Participants Procedure and Measuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sex, Personality, and Sustainable Consumer Behaviour: Elucidating the Gender Effect

2011

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sustainable consumer behaviour-behaviour motivated or influenced by social and/or environmental considerations-is an important topic in public policy and consumer psychology. Research on the antecedents of sustainable consumer behaviour has found a robust "gender effect": women are more likely than men to express concern about consumption's broader impacts and to act upon those concerns. The mechanisms underlying the gender effect have not been well elucidated. At the same time, more limited research has found that sustainable consumer behaviour is also influenced by personality: more agreeable and more open consumers are more likely to place importance on and to act on social and environmental concerns. Separate research in personality psychology has shown that women tend to be more agreeable than men. The authors integrate these findings to propose and test a model in which personality mediates the effect of sex on sustainable consumer behaviour. The personality differences mediating this effect are the same ones elsewhere subsumed within "gender" differences. Our findings clarify the mechanisms underlying the observed sex effect, confirm the utility of personality constructs in clarifying differences in consumer attitudes and behaviours, and have compelling implications for public policy.Sustainable consumer behaviours (SCB) and the underlying mechanisms via which consumers make or fail to make socially and environmentally responsible choices are increasingly important topics for policy makers (Barr 2008; Schrader and Thøgersen 2011) and for marketing practitioners (e.g., Murphy 2010), and accordingly have been the object of increasing research attention and theory development in consumer psychology (White and Willness 2009). For example, the Journal of Consumer Policy recently presented a

show abstract

The Sustainability Liability: Potential Negative Effects of Ethicality on Product Preference

Cited by 591 publications

References 38 publications

“Yes, but this Other One Looks Better/Works Better”: How do Consumers Respond to Trade-offs Between Sustainability and Other Valued Attributes?

“Yes, but this Other One Looks Better/Works Better”: How do Consumers Respond to Trade-offs Between Sustainability and Other Valued Attributes?

The Impact of Choice Architecture on Sustainable Consumer Behavior: The Role of Guilt

Sex, Personality, and Sustainable Consumer Behaviour: Elucidating the Gender Effect

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About