Understanding residents’ green purchasing behavior from a perspective of the ecological personality traits: the moderating role of gender

Merging the Social Influence Theory and the Goal-Framing Theory to Understand Consumers’ Green Purchasing Behavior: Does the Level of Sensitivity to Climate Change Really Matter?

“…This can cause consumers to make irrational interpretations and infer that environmental crisis information reported from media and peer is deliberately exaggerated. Consumers would believe that the harm caused by environmental crises is less likely to happen ( Yang and Zhang, 2020 , 2021 ), alleviating themselves to bear environmental responsibilities. Significant differences were found between the upper and lower SCC subgroups in how the various goal frames convert into GPB.…”

“…Especially, it is becoming increasingly common to build theoretical framework on multiple theories such as the Stimulus-Organism-Response (S-O-R) model, Social Influence Theory and The Goal-framing Theory, or their extended (integrated) model, aiming to predict pro-environmental attitude or behavior ( Kiatkawsin and Han, 2017 ; Su and Swanson, 2017 ). However, while the drivers derived from current research approaches can activate positive green attitude (motivation), they cannot effectively transform positive green attitude (motivation) into GPB, resulting in attitude (motivation)-behavior gap ( Carrington et al, 2010 ; Claudy et al, 2013 ; Tang et al, 2020 ; Yang and Zhang, 2021 ). Therefore, there is a strong need to narrow the attitude (motivation)-behavior gap.…”

“…According to the S (Stimulus) – O (Organism) – R (Response) model ( Mehrabian and Russell, 1974 ), GPB, a typical acquired behavior, is an effective response to the stimulus. External stimuli and example-setters could shape, reshape, and change individuals’ pro-environmental psychology and behaviors ( Lee, 2011 ; Choi and Kandampully, 2019 ; Yang and Zhang, 2021 ). Some studies have been focused on influencing factors such as consumption value ( Lin and Huang, 2012 ; Biswas and Roy, 2015 ; Wang Y. et al, 2019 ), consumption motivations ( Ofek and Portnov, 2020 ), social norms ( Kiatkawsin and Han, 2017 ; Ge et al, 2020 ), social culture ( Jiang et al, 2020 ), social identity ( Pinto et al, 2014 ), and fear appeals ( Moon et al, 2019 ; Wang L. et al, 2019 ).…”

Moderated Mediation Mechanism to Determine the Effect of Gender Heterogeneity on Green Purchasing Intention: From the Perspective of Residents’ Values

“…Of the various factors that trigger environmental crises, non-green consumption is considered as one of the main causes and studies show that 40% of environmental problems are directly attributable to non-green consumption. Furthermore, the environmental pollution on the production side is mostly demand-driven ( Yang and Zhang, 2021 ). Therefore, governments and environmental organizations at all levels have taken measures to actively persuade manufacturers and consumers to become greener ( Uddin et al, 2021 ).…”

“…Green consumption has been the subject of many studies, which construct a more explanatory integrated or extended model for green consumption based on a mature theoretical framework from various perspectives, such as ecological personality ( Yang and Zhang, 2021 ), motivation ( Gilal et al, 2020 ), social norms ( Kim and Seock, 2019 ; Akhtar et al, 2021 ), self-identity ( Lee, 2009 ; Khare and Pandey, 2017 ; Neves and Oliveira, 2021 ), mindfulness ( Barbaro and Pickett, 2016 ), and consumption value ( Woo and Kim, 2019 ). These studies have promoted the expansion of green consumption and methods to overcome the attitude–behavior gap among residents but further study is required.…”