Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Consumer Perceptions of the Social Vs. Environmental Dimensions of Sustainability

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Consumer Policy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Prior research on sustainable consumption has addressed a variety of issues yet is characterized by mixed results. Researchers have often treated sustainability as a uni-dimensional construct, overlooking important differences and thwarting a better understanding of consumer response. We demonstrate that consumers perceive the social and environmental dimensions of sustainability as psychologically distinct in theoretically and practically important ways. Specifically, consumers associate the social dimension of sustainability more with affective, short-term, and local considerations and the environmental dimension more with cognitive, long-term, and global considerations. We identify and explore these distinctions in a qualitative pilot study, which subsequently motivated development of three hypotheses. We provide evidence supporting these hypotheses in a series of five studies. Our findings enable a reinterpretation of prior equivocal research, serve as a foundation for future research, and provide guidance for how policy-makers can tailor policy and related communication efforts depending on whether the focal issue is related to social versus environmental concerns.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. We thank an anonymous reviewer for this suggestion.

References

  • Aaker, J. L. (1997). Dimensions of brand personality. Journal of Marketing Research, 34(3), 347–356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Albers-Miller, N., & Stafford, M. (1999). An international analysis of emotional and rational appeals in services vs goods advertising. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 16, 42–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arnould, E. J., Plastina, A., & Ball, D. (2009). Does fair trade deliver on its core value proposition? Effects on income, educational attainment, and health in three countries. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 28(2), 186–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Austgulen, M. (2014). Environmentally sustainable meat consumption: An analysis of the Norwegian public debate. Journal of Consumer Policy, 37(1), 45–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bergadaà, M. M. (1990). The role of time in the action of the consumer. Journal of Consumer Research, 17, 289–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boström, M., & Micheletti, M. (2016). Introducing the sustainability challenge of textiles and clothing. Journal of Consumer Policy, 39, 367–375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cesario, J., Grant, H., & Higgins, E. T. (2004). Regulatory fit and persuasion: Transfer from “feeling right”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(3), 388–404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chabowski, B. R., Mena, J. A., & Gonzalez-Padron, T. L. (2011). The structure of sustainability research in marketing, 1958–2008: A basis for future research opportunities. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39(1), 55–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Choi, S., & Ng, A. (2011). Environmental and economic dimensions of sustainability and price effects on consumer responses. Journal of Business Ethics, 104(2), 269–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Claudy, M. C., & Peterson, M. (2014). Understanding the underutilization of urban bicycle commuting: A behavioral reasoning perspective. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 33(2), 173–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cotte, J., & Trudel, R. (2009). Socially conscious consumerism: A systematic review of the body of knowledge. Network for Business Sustainability. Retrieved from http://nbs.net/wp-content/uploads/NBS_Consumerism_SR_Researcher.pdf

  • Csutora, M. (2012). One more awareness gap? The behaviour-impact gap problem. Journal of Consumer Policy, 35(1), 145–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, D. F., Golicic, S. L., & Boerstler, C. N. (2011). Benefits and challenges of conducting multiple methods research in marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39(3), 467–479.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeVincenzo, M. H., & Scammon, D. (2015). Principle-based consumption communities: Exploring the meanings derived from socially conscious consumption practices. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 34(2), 143–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doran, C. J. (2010). Fair trade consumption: In support of the out-group. Journal of Business Ethics, 95, 527–541.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elkington, J. (1994). Towards the sustainable corporation: Win-win-win business strategies for sustainable development. California Management Review, 36(2), 90–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Epstein, S. (1994). Integration of the cognitive and the psychodynamic unconscious. American Psychologist, 49, 709–724.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eyal, T., Sagristano, M. D., Trope, Y., Liberman, N., & Chaiken, S. (2009). When values matter: Expressing values in behavioral intentions for the near vs. distant future. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(1), 35–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fujita, K., Henderson, M. D., Eng, J., Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2006). Spatial distance and mental construal of social events. Psychological Science, 17, 278–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gershoff, A. D., & Frels, J. K. (2015). What makes it green? The role of centrality of green attributes in evaluations of the greenness of products. Journal of Marketing, 79(1), 97–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldsmith, K., Newman, G. E., & Dhar, R. (2016). Mental representation changes the evaluation of green product benefits. Nature Climate Change, 6, 847–850.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griskevicius, V., Cantú, S. M., & van Vugt, M. (2012). The evolutionary bases for sustainable behavior: Implications for marketing, policy, and social entrepreneurship. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 31(1), 115–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heiskanen, E., Mont, O., & Power, K. (2014). A map is not a territory-making research more helpful for sustainable consumption policy. Journal of Consumer Policy, 37(1), 27–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henderson, M. D., Fujita, K., Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2006). Transcending the ‘here’: The effect of spatial distance on social judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 845–856.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hult, G. T. M. (2011). Market-focused sustainability: Market orientation plus! Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39(1), 1–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Irwin, J. R., Slovic, P., Lichtenstein, S., & McClelland, G. H. (1993). Preference reversals and the measurement of environmental values. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 6, 5–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joireman, J. A., Lasane, T. P., Bennett, J., Richards, D., & Solaimani, S. (2001). Integrating social value orientation and the consideration of future consequences within the extended norm activation model of proenvironmental behaviour. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 133–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joireman, J. A., Van Lange, P. A. M., & Van Vugt, M. (2004). Who cares about the environmental impact of cars? Those with an eye toward the future. Environment and Behavior, 36, 187–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joyner Armstrong, C. M., Hiller Connell, K. Y., Lang, C., Ruppert-Stroescu, M., & LeHew, M. L. A. (2016). Educating for sustainable fashion: Using clothing acquisition abstinence to explore sustainable consumption and life beyond growth. Journal of Consumer Policy, 39(4), 417–439.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D. (2003). A perspective on judgment and choice: Mapping bounded rationality. American Psychologist, 58, 697–720.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karp, D. G. (1996). Values and their effect on pro-environmental behavior. Environment and Behavior, 28(1), 111–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kotler, P. (2011). Reinventing marketing to manage the environmental imperative. Journal of Marketing, 75, 132–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leeuw, A., Valois, P., Morin, A., & Schmidt, P. (2014). Gender differences in psychosocial determinants of university students’ intentions to buy fair trade products. Journal of Consumer Policy, 37(4), 485–505.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liberman, N., & Trope, Y. (1998). The role of feasibility and desirability considerations in near and distant future decisions: a test of temporal construal theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 5–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindgreen, A., Antioco, M., Harness, D., & van der Sloot, R. (2009). Purchasing and marketing of social and environmental sustainability for high-tech medical equipment. Journal of Business Ethics, 85(2), 445–462.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luchs, M., & Miller, R. (2015). Consumer responsibility for sustainable consumption. In L. A. Reisch & J. Thøgersen (Eds.), Handbook of research on sustainable consumption (pp. 254–267). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luchs, M. G., Walker Naylor, R., Irwin, J. R., & Raghunathan, R. (2010). The sustainability liability: Potential negative effects of ethicality on product preference. Journal of Marketing, 74, 18–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marcus, J., MacDonald, H. A., & Sulsky, L. M. (2015). Do personal values influence the propensity for sustainability actions? A policy-capturing study. Journal of Business Ethics, 127(2), 459–478.

  • McDonagh, P., & Prothero, A. (2014). Sustainability marketing research: past, present and future. Journal of Marketing Management, 30(11–12), 1186–1219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKinsey and Company. (2014). Sustainability’s strategic worth: McKinsey global survey results. Retrieved from http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/sustainability/sustainabilitys_strategic_worth_mckinsey_global_survey_results

  • Novak, T. P., & Hoffman, D. L. (2009). The fit of thinking style and situation: New measures of situation-specific experiential and rational cognition. Journal of Consumer Research, 36, 56–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peloza, J., & Shang, J. (2010). How can corporate social responsibility activities create value for stakeholders? A systematic review. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39(1), 117–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peloza, J., Ye, C., & Montford, W. J. (2015). When companies do good, are their products good for you? How corporate social responsibility creates a health halo. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 34(1), 19–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1984). The effects of involvement on responses to argument quantity and quality: Central and peripheral routes to persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46(1), 69–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phipps, M., & Brace-Govan, J. (2011). From right to responsibility: Sustainable change in water consumption. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 30, 203–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Press, M., & Arnould, E. J. (2009). Constraints on sustainable energy consumption: Market system and public policy challenges and opportunities. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 28(1), 102–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prothero, A., Dobscha, S., Freund, J., Kilbourne, W. E., Luchs, M. G., Ozanne, L. K., & Thøgersen, J. (2011). Sustainable consumption: Opportunities for consumer research and public policy. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 30, 31–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schäfer, M., Jaeger-Erben, M., & Bamberg, S. (2012). Life events as windows of opportunity for changing towards sustainable consumption patterns? Journal of Consumer Policy, 35(1), 65–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schroeder, P., & Anantharaman, M. (2017). “Lifestyle leapfrogging” in emerging economies: Enabling systemic shifts to sustainable consumption. Journal of Consumer Policy, 40(1), 3–23.

  • Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, 25 (pp. 1–65). Orlando, FL: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sheth, J. N., Sethia, N. K., & Srinivas, S. (2011). Mindful consumption: A consumer-centric approach to sustainability. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39, 21–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shiv, B., & Fedorikhin, A. (1999). Heart and mind in conflict: The interplay of affect and cognition in consumer decision making. Journal of Consumer Research, 26(3), 278–292.

  • Simpson, B. J. K., & Radford, S. K. (2012). Consumer perceptions of sustainability: A free elicitation study. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 24, 272–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simpson, B. J. K., & Radford, S. K. (2014). Situational variables and sustainability in multi-attribute decision-making. European Journal of Marketing, 48(5/6), 1046–1069.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spiggle, S. (1994). Analysis and interpretation of qualitative data in consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 21, 491–503.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. M. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Procedures and techniques for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sudbury-Riley, L., Kohlbacher, F., & Hofmeister, A. (2012). A cross-cultural analysis of pro-environmental consumer behaviour among seniors. Journal of Marketing Management, 28(3/4), 290–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2010). Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychological Review, 117, 440–463.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • United Nations. (2005). 2005 world summit outcome. Retrieved from http://daccess-ods.un.org/TMP/3803284.16824341.html

  • United Nations. (2017). Sustainable development goals: 17 goals to transform our world. Retrieved from http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/

  • Vallacher, R. R., & Wegner, D. M. (1989). Levels of personal agency: Individual variation in action identification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 660–671.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, J., & Lee, A. Y. (2006). The role of regulatory focus in preference construction. Journal of Marketing Research, 43(1), 28–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White, K., & Simpson, B. (2013). When do (and don’t) normative appeals impact sustainable consumer behaviors? Journal of Marketing, 77, 77–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White, K., MacDonnell, R., & Dahl, D. W. (2011). It’s the mind-set that matters: The role of construal level and message framing in influencing consumer efficacy and conservation behaviors. Journal of Marketing Research, 48, 472–485.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White, K., MacDonnell, R., & Ellard, J. H. (2012). Belief in a just world: Consumer intentions and behaviors towards ethical products. Journal of Marketing, 76, 103–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yan, D. (2014). Future events are far away: Exploring the distance-on-distance effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 106, 514–525.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang, D., Lu, Y., Zhu, W., & Su, C. (2015). Going green: How different advertising appeals impact green consumption behavior. Journal of Business Research, 68(12), 2663–2675.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zajonc, R. B. (1980). Feeling and thinking: Preferences need no inferences. American Psychologist, 35, 151–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge participation in the Sustainable Consumption track at the Third Transformative Consumer Research Conference hosted by Baylor University’s Hankamer School of Business, where the initial ideas for this project were formed. This research was supported in part by a Transformative Consumer Research Grant sponsored by the Association for Consumer Research (ACR) and the Sheth Foundation. The first author also acknowledges research support from California State University, Sacramento.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Business Administration, California State University, Sacramento, 6000 J Street, Sacramento, CA, 95819, USA

    Jesse R. Catlin

  2. College of William & Mary, 101 Ukrop Way, Williamsburg, VA, 23185, USA

    Michael Gerhard Luchs

  3. University of Melbourne, 198 Berkeley Street, Melbourne, VIC, 3010, Australia

    Marcus Phipps

Authors
  1. Jesse R. Catlin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michael Gerhard Luchs
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Marcus Phipps
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jesse R. Catlin.

Appendix—Study Stimuli and Measures

Appendix—Study Stimuli and Measures

figure a
figure b
figure c
figure d
figure e
figure f
figure g
figure h
figure i

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Catlin, J.R., Luchs, M.G. & Phipps, M. Consumer Perceptions of the Social Vs. Environmental Dimensions of Sustainability. J Consum Policy 40, 245–277 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10603-017-9356-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10603-017-9356-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation