Conscientious consumers: a relationship between moral foundations, political orientation and sustainable consumption

Accepted Manuscript Conscientious Consumers: A Relationship between Moral Foundations, Political Orientation and Sustainable Consumption Dr Leah Watkins, Assoc. Prof. Robert Aitken, Dr Damien Mather PII:

S0959-6526(15)00721-0

DOI:

10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.06.009

Reference:

JCLP 5656

To appear in:

Journal of Cleaner Production

Received Date: 15 January 2015 Revised Date:

1 June 2015

Accepted Date: 2 June 2015

Please cite this article as: Watkins L, Aitken R, Mather D, Conscientious Consumers: A Relationship between Moral Foundations, Political Orientation and Sustainable Consumption, Journal of Cleaner Production (2015), doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.06.009. This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Conscientious Consumers: A Relationship between Moral Foundations,

TE D

M AN U

SC

RI PT

Political Orientation and Sustainable Consumption

Dr Leah Watkins (corresponding author), University of Otago, New Zealand ([email protected])

EP

Assoc. Prof. Robert Aitken, University of Otago, New Zealand ([email protected])

AC C

Dr Damien Mather, University of Otago, New Zealand ([email protected])

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Word Count: 6712 Conscientious Consumers: A Relationship between Moral Foundations, Political Orientation and Sustainable Consumption Abstract

RI PT

Encouraging change towards more sustainable ways of living and more sustainable places to live is a complex process. Part of this complexity is to do with understanding the motives and values that drive behavioural change towards sustainable consumption. As an important subset of values research, moral foundations have been found to underlie and motivate individuals’ attitudes to a broad range of issues and to be strongly reflected in individuals’

SC

political orientation. However, there is no literature to date investigating the link between moral foundations and sustainable consumption. Increasingly, marketplace choice has

M AN U

emerged as a form of political participation, through which consumers can exercise their moral and ideological beliefs about sustainability and other issues. This paper addresses the identified gap in the literature and presents an argument that moral foundations underpin individual’s political orientation and desire for change and that this is enacted through their individual consumption choices and collective political action in sustainability issues. The paper presents data from a New Zealand study using structural equation modelling to

TE D

demonstrate the relationship between moral foundations, political orientation, individual sustainable consumption behaviours and wider political involvement in sustainability issues. Our results show that people with individualising moral foundations, who tend to the political

EP

left, are more likely to engage in sustainable consumption behaviour and to demonstrate their commitment to change through political action on sustainability issues than people who hold binding moral foundations. This paper extends our understanding of value–behaviour

AC C

linkages and gaps with regards to sustainable consumption by focussing on the importance of moral values. These insights provide the basis on which more effective communication strategies could be developed that more closely align with and appeal to those with the different moral foundations and political orientations investigated in this study. Keywords: Conscientious consumers; Sustainability; Moral foundations; Political ideology; Political orientation; Politics and consumption

1

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 1. Introduction The world is faced with a number of challenges, one of the most important of which is how to balance the increasing reliance on and relentless depletion of finite resources with the need to give people the choices they consider a right, particularly in neo-liberal western economies. Fuelled by politically and economically-motivated exhortations to consume, and by

RI PT

psychological and social propensities to conform, an unremitting increase in consumption seems inevitable. However, in response to such exhortations, some consumers have taken a deliberately oppositional stance and consciously and intentionally use their consumption to demonstrate their commitment to more sustainable ways of living (Micheletti, Follesdal and

SC

Stolle 2004; Newman and Bartels 2010). Making sustainable consumption choices about how and where to live can be understood as articulating something more fundamental about our

M AN U

moral foundations and more indicative of our political orientations than merely down-sizing, walking to work or refreshing a wardrobe (Jost 2006). In this study we define sustainable consumption behaviour in its broadest sense to include the wider behaviours through which consumers engage with the marketplace, and extend consideration beyond individual’s green product choices to include more explicitly values-based consumption behaviour such as

TE D

vegetarianism, energy conservation and transportation choices.

As Stolle, Hooghe and Micheletti (2005), make clear, consumption decisions that are motivated by moral concerns can be seen as overtly political and socially reactive. Crockett and Wallendorf (2004), suggest that consumers have increasingly come to express and

EP

demonstrate their individual political ideologies through consumption acts and that in an era of increasing political apathy, the meaning of consumption as an expression of political ideology requires careful analysis, both from a consumer culture and from a political point of

AC C

view. If the act of consumption is seen as an expression of politically motivated behaviour, then it is important to understand the relationship between individuals’ moral concerns and political ideology, the types of sustainable consumption behaviour they are likely to engage in and the most effective ways in which these can be further encouraged. While the link between values and sustainable consumption behaviour has been widely researched, there is a lack of literature focussing on the important sub-set of moral values. Morals have been linked to political orientation and involvement; however these two concepts have not been brought together in the context of sustainable consumption behaviour. In doing so, this paper increases our understanding of the individual-level traits that motivate more sustainable

2

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT behaviours and greater political involvement in action that supports change towards a sustainable consumption future. 2. Literature Review 2.1 Values, Moral Foundations and Sustainable Consumption

RI PT

Consumer behaviour is motivated by a number of complex factors that are deeply embedded in, and heavily influenced by, social, psychological, cultural and institutional contexts

(Jackson 2005, Moisander 2007). In addition to these factors and their effects on deliberative choice about what to consume, there are also a number of pragmatic barriers to making

SC

sustainable consumption choices such as price, availability, convenience, quality, habit, a lack of belief in product claims, perceived consumer effectiveness, and a lack of information

M AN U

(Aitken and Watkins 2014), and these all contribute to a recognised gap between consumers’ sustainability attitudes and their sustainable consumption behaviour (McDonagh and Prothero, 2014).

One area of focus in the literature on motivations for sustainable consumption is the role of values. Research indicates self-transcendent values such as universalism, benevolence, selfdirection, responsibility, and freedom are most commonly linked with sustainable

TE D

consumption, whereas the values of power, hedonism, tradition, ambition, and security are linked with less sustainable consumption (Vermeir and Verbeke 2006, Karp 1996). Other research on values suggests collectivist (Triandis 1993) and altruistic (Schwartz 1992) value

EP

orientations strengthen pro-environmental behaviour intentions. Moral foundations refer to a sub-set of wider values research that focus on morality (Graham,

AC C

Nosek and Haidt 2009). Definitions of morality in philosophy frequently stress rules or codes of conduct that reduce harm to others and society (e.g., Gert 2005, Singer 2011). Understanding what is meant by morality as a foundation for thinking about the nature of society and the behaviour of the people in it, is a question that has, and continues, to exercise the minds of philosophers, psychologists, sociologists, cultural theorists and consumer behaviourists. Given increasing concerns with what are seen by many as the worst consequences of human behaviour, such as the over-consumption of resources and the inequitable distribution of wealth, research is needed on the relationship between sustainable consumption behaviour and the moral foundations that motivate it.

3

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT In an attempt to reconcile several different approaches to understanding the nature of moral foundations, Graham, Nosek, Haidt, Iyer, Koleva and Ditto (2011) developed a systematic theory of morality that accounted for the key differences in moral concerns. Their Moral Foundations Theory suggests that people differ significantly in relation to five psychological foundations of morality – harm/care, fairness/reciprocity, in-group/loyalty, authority/respect

RI PT

and purity/sanctity. Graham, Haidt and Nosek (2009) reduced these five foundations to two underlying moral dimensions – individualising moral foundations (harm/care,

fairness/reciprocity) and binding moral foundations (in-group/loyalty, authority/respect and purity/sanctity).

SC

Given the moral nature of sustainability decisions, we propose moral foundations as an

important sub-set of values research which may provide important insight into understanding

M AN U

sustainability behaviour. Despite the clear links found in the wider literature between individual’s values and sustainable consumption there is a lack of research focussing specifically on the role of moral foundations.

2.2 Moral Foundations and Political Ideology

Moral foundations have been found to underlie, motivate and unite individuals’ positions

TE D

across a broad range of issues (Graham et al. 2009), and to be strongly reflected in individuals’ political ideology. In general terms, political ideology is commonly measured on a continuum polarised as left (liberal) or right (conservative) and this orientation has been shown to be both parsimonious and to exhibit strong predictive validity in relation to attitudes

EP

towards social issues (Jost 2006) and demonstrates good test-re-test reliability and predictive validity (Khan, Misra and Singh 2013). Graham et al (2009) demonstrate that the left-right

AC C

distinction is valid for predicting individual behaviour and according to Kidwell et al (2013) while the distinction between a left and right political orientation is an abstract construct, it has been used accurately to characterise political views in a wide range of cultural contexts (e.g. in the United Kingdom, liberal and conservative; in the United States of America, republican and democrat). According to Jost (2006:653), political ideology is “an interrelated set of moral and political attitudes that possess cognitive, affective, and motivational components. That is, ideology helps to explain why people do what they do; it organises their values and beliefs and leads to political behaviour”. Kidwell, Farmer and Hardesty (2013) extend this definition and suggest that the moral and political attitudes that comprise ideology

4

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT also explain how society should function “in order to achieve social justice and social order” (Kidwell et al. 2013:351). Research across four studies demonstrates that conservatives endorse all five moral foundations - they typically strive for high degrees of self-control and uphold a strong sense of duty which provides a ‘binding’ foundation that consolidates support for authority and

RI PT

their acceptance of conformity. In contrast, liberals are more focussed on individualising moral foundations based on caring and fairness and the avoidance of harm in the pursuit of social justice (Graham et al. 2009). According to Carney, Jost, Gosling, and Potter (2008) there are two core aspects that differentiate liberals and conservatives: (a) acceptance versus

SC

rejection of inequality and (b) preference for social change versus preservation of the status quo. While these studies did not consider the relationship between moral foundations and

M AN U

sustainable consumption, they do provide evidence of the importance of understanding the likely basis upon which decisions relating to the purchase, usage or disposal of goods and services might be made. For example, Carney et al. (2008) suggest that the different moral foundations encourage conservatives to emphasise duty, structure and conformity, while liberals are more flexible, open and creative leading to differences in product ownership,

TE D

relationships with others, leisure activities and living and working environments. While scholars have conducted notable research employing the left and right political continuum as a basis for predicting a variety of individual behaviours, there has been no research that considers how moral foundations and political ideology relate to sustainable

EP

consumption choices and political action on sustainability issues. This relationship is critical to understanding the ways in which behaviour is motivated by underlying moral values, structured through ideological affiliation and enacted through deliberative political

AC C

consumption.

2.3 Political Ideology and Consumption Because of its ubiquitous presence in contemporary life, it is not surprising that consumption is increasingly becoming a site for political action (Stolle et al. 2005, Shah, McLeod, Kim, Lee, Gotlieb and Breivik 2007, Schudson 2007, Neilson and Paxton 2010; Newman and Bartels 2010). Politically motivated consumption behaviour has been widely documented in studies of consumer activism such as Glickman (2009), Doane (2001) and Micheletti, Follesdal and Stolle (2004), however, the relationship between political ideology and consumption needs further development and explication (Crockett and Wallendorf 2004). 5

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Research that has focussed on political ideology and consumer behaviour to date has shown it to influence both decisions about what to buy and where to shop (Crockett and Wallendorf 2004), as well as consumer decision making processes and consumption motives (Farmer 2014). In a number of consumption contexts, Farmer (2014) demonstrates that liberals deliberate more extensively before making consumption decisions than their conservative

RI PT

counterparts and, in general, are more likely to favour novel, experiential and outcome-based consumption choices. In contrast, conservatives are more likely to prefer utilitarian, status quo and feasible consumption options.

While limited research has considered the role of political orientation in the context of

SC

sustainable consumption, recent research suggests that framing pro-environmental rhetoric in terms that resonate more closely with the moral domains inhabited by particular politically

M AN U

orientated groups are likely to be more effective in encouraging concomitant consumption behaviours (Feinberg and Willer 2012). Following this understanding, Kidwell et al. (2013), demonstrate that where communication is congruent with political ideology the persuasive appeal of sustainable consumption messages is enhanced, leading to an increased likelihood of behavioural change. Still missing, however, is empirical evidence of the link between

2.3.1

TE D

moral foundations, political orientation and sustainable consumption. Political Consumption

Increasingly, marketplace choice has emerged as a form of political participation, through which consumers can exercise their political and ideological beliefs, and use their

EP

consumption choices to directly express their ethical and sustainability beliefs (Micheletti 2003, Willis and Schor 2012, Stolle and Hooge 2004). Literature shows that many

AC C

conventional political actions including voting, reading political news and joining political organisations, are declining while expressive activities such as protests, petitioning and online posting and sharing are increasing (Gotlieb and Wells 2012). As individuals move away from participation in conventional political activities, it seems they are increasingly looking for personal ways to address their concerns. Bajde (2007) argues that the erosion of the division between state and market, public and private, political and commercial, and the extent to which politics is determined by market considerations, has led to the notion of a hybrid ‘consumer-citizen’ who exercises increasingly politically inspired consumption (Newman and Bartels 2010). Michelette (2003: 25) conceptualises political consumerism as an activity on the boundary between individualised and collective action, a form of 6

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT “individualised collective action”. In expanding the notion of what is political in relation to consumption, Newman and Bartels (2010) suggest that lifestyle politics, that is, the practice of ‘politicising the personal’ provides a useful way of understanding how individuals “identify the political implications of everyday personal recreational, fashion, and consumption choices and attempt to alter them in expression of political preferences and to

RI PT

affect change” (Newman and Bartels 2010: 4). Early concern that this type of individualised political consumption ‘crowds out’ genuine forms of collective political action (the citizen-consumer dichotomy), has been empirically refuted by data from Europe, Canada and the US (Willis and Schor 2012). Indeed, Willis and

SC

Schor (2012), find that greater levels of political consumption are positively related to a range of political actions (i.e. that conscious consumption and political engagement tend to go

M AN U

hand-in-hand). Willis and Schor’s research suggests that political consumption is one among many strategies and actions that individuals see as connected to larger political and ideological commitments towards social justice and environmental sustainability. The findings of several empirical studies suggest that many conscious consumers frame their dayto-day consumption decisions as political and view their choices as having an effect on the success or failure of individual businesses or industries and thus an effective way to ‘vote

TE D

with their money” to ‘elect’ the sort of society of which they wish to be a part (Willis and Schor 2012, Neilson and Paxton 2010).

In view of what is known about the binding vs individualising moral beliefs consistent with

EP

opposing political ideologies, we investigate their influence on sustainable consumption behaviours. In particular, we explore the possibility that those who are at the left hand, liberal side of this political continuum are more likely to be motivated to consume sustainably

AC C

because of their concerns for the wider social and environmental consequences of not doing so (individualising moral concerns), while conservatives are less likely to demonstrate sustainable consumption behaviour given their focus on binding moral foundations. We hypothesise (based on the findings of Willis and Schor 2012), that those on the left of the political spectrum will not only demonstrate greater individualised political consumption behaviours but also be more likely to engage in collective political action. Due to their naturally opposing attitudes towards change we would also expect differences between liberals and conservatives in their adoption of sustainable consumption behaviours. Given their view, for example, that access to and distribution of resources is inequitable and unfair, liberals may be more motivated to seek political change directly through their own personal 7

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT consumption choices and through their involvement in collective political action (Schor and Willis 2009). In contrast, those on the right hand, conservative side of the continuum are likely to be more inclined to support the continuation of existing patterns of consumption and thus be less concerned to call for political change or alternative socio-economic models of resource distribution.

RI PT

This paper investigates the link between individualising and binding moral foundations that underpin political ideology to investigate differences in sustainable consumption behaviour and political involvement in sustainability issues. Specifically, the study addresses the

SC

following hypotheses:

H1: Individualising moral foundations will have a positive influence on a liberal political orientation.

M AN U

H2: A liberal political orientation will have a positive influence on sustainable consumption behaviour. H3. A liberal political orientation will have a positive influence on political activity in relation to sustainability issues.

TE D

3. Methodology

The study comprised 510 respondents representing a non-probability panel sample drawn from the Valued Opinions ™ panel administered by Research Now, New Zealand (NZ) Ltd. The company ensured the sample was representative of NZ census quotas for age, gender,

EP

education, income, ethnicity and geographic location. Responses were completely anonymous and ethical criteria such as the respondent’s right to withdraw from the survey at

AC C

any time were made clear in an introductory page. Informed consent was explained and confirmed when respondents clicked through to the survey. The aim of the project was stated as understanding New Zealander's attitudes, opinions, activities and interests as they relate to consumption behaviour, and identified the researchers’ university as commissioning the survey. The anonymity provided and the neutrality of purpose was designed to mitigate the risk of social desirability bias given the sensitive nature of the topics (political orientation, morals and sustainable behaviour).

There is evidence that non-probability online panel samples provide similar levels of accuracy and validity to random digit dialling telephone and random sample online internet 8

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT survey modes, whilst facilitating higher response rates (Ansolabehere and Schaffner 2011). Respondents completed a 20 minute on-line survey. The survey asked respondents about the frequency of 24 sustainable consumption practices in different sectors (e.g. food, general goods, water, energy, transportation, and services). The choice of a behavioural frequency scale (1= never, 2= seldom, 3=sometimes, 4=often, 5=always) was used to minimise social

RI PT

desirability bias and address the intention-behaviour gap commonly found in sustainable consumption studies (Auger and Devinney 2007). Respondents were then asked six questions on their political actions relating to issues of sustainability and social justice (for example signing petitions, protesting). These questions were based on Schor and Willis (2009) and

SC

measured on a 5 point scale (1 never, 5 consistently). Participants were also asked to rate their agreement with a range of social and political attitude statements and the 32 item Moral

M AN U

Foundation Questionnaire (Graham et al. 2011).

Political orientation was measured using self-report on a five point scale semantically anchored at 1 left and 5 right. This measurement item was reverse-coded for reasons of parsimony in the Structural Equation Model analysis. Previous empirical studies have shown that self-rating on a simple left/right scale provides a useful measure of respondents’ political

TE D

orientations, and demonstrates good test-re-test reliability and predictive validity (Khan, Misra and Singh 2013, Carney et al. 2008). Carney et al. (2008) suggest that although single item measures can be subject to psychometric limitations, in many cases they are effective for assessing constructs well understood by lay people. Correlations with various attitude

EP

statements revealed participants’ self-reported orientation were consistent with the attitudes expressed about a range of social and political issues, suggesting strong face validity for the

AC C

self-report measure. Finally, details of respondents’ demographic attributes were collected.

4. Results

The 24 sustainable consumer behaviour measurement items were first analysed using exploratory factor analysis to determine their underlying dimensionality. Using both cumulative eigenvalue and scree slope criteria, three underlying dimensions were supported, labelled F3, light green; F4, mid-green; and F5, deep green lifestyle with 12, 4 and 7 behavioural measurement items respectively. Full details of the initial latent factor item loadings for these consumption behaviour factors are shown in Appendix A. Examples of measurement items for these behavioural latent variables include, for F3 light green, 9

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT conserving water, reducing energy usage and recycling; for F4 mid-green, boycotting unfair firms, and buying fair trade products; and for F5 deep green, vegetarianism, and flying less. Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) was conducted on the data using the SAS system’s PROC CALIS (SAS Institute Inc. 1989). The analysis follows a two-step process based on the approach recommended by Andersen and Gerbing (1988). The first step, confirmatory

RI PT

factor analysis, was used to develop a measurement model that demonstrated an acceptable fit to the data. In the second step, the measurement model was modified to represent the

theoretical model of interest. This theoretical model was then tested and revised until a

SC

theoretically meaningful and statistically acceptable model was found.

Following Bentler’s (1995) convention, we identify latent variables with the prefix F and manifest variables with the prefix V. The measurement model in this study consisted of two

M AN U

exogenous moral foundation latent variables (Graham et al. 2011, Kidwell et al. 2013): F1, binding, and F2, individualising; two endogenous manifest variables v31, liberal political orientation and V56, political action; and three endogenous green consumption latent variables (F3, light green; F4, mid green; and F5, deep green lifestyle). The competing models were non-standard covariance structure models with multiple indicators measuring

TE D

latent dimensions for five of the seven constructs (F1 to F5). Each of the five latent variables F1 – F5 was measured by at least five manifest items in the initial measurement model. Full details of the initial measurement items for the two latent moral foundation factors F1 and F2, the two manifest item measures V31 political orientation and V56 political activity, and the 6

EP

binary behaviour measures that V56 was derived from are shown in Appendix B. The initial and final measurement models pose no particular direction on causality or

AC C

likelihood amongst latent and/or manifest variables. Rather, covariance parameters are estimated amongst all 5 latent and both manifest variables. The initial measurement model was estimated using the maximum likelihood, and the chi-square statistic was significant: 1540,

= 510 = 5135.429,

< 0.001, however, refinement of the initial

measurement model was required. The measurement model was refined by removing 18 measurement items identified by the sequential application of the Lagrange multiplier test as non-discriminant. Each removal resulted in a significant improvement in the measurement model chi-square statistic at the 95% confidence level. In the final measurement model, each of the five latent variables was measured by between three and five measurement items. The revised measurement model 10

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT displayed acceptable overall model fit statistics: a GFI of 0.93, a CFI of 0.92, a standardized root mean square residual of 0.045 and a RMSEA of 0.055 (Gerbing and Anderson 1992). See Figure 1 below for the revised measurement model and fit statistics. Insert Figure 1

RI PT

The initial theoretical model was produced from the final measurement model by replacing bi-directional covariance links amongst non-exogenous constructs with unidirectional

predictive links as suggested by theory. Generally, the two exogenous moral foundation latent variables F1, binding moral foundations, and F2, individualising moral foundations, were

SC

posited to predict V31 political orientation. Furthermore, we expected predictive relationships from moral foundations and political orientation to reflect sustainable consumer behaviours

M AN U

and political action.

The theoretical model was refined by application of the Wald test to each predictive path, identifying the path whose removal would most improve the overall theoretical model fit. For example, the first such path to be removed was the path from individualising moral foundation, F1 to political orientation, V31, with a predicted desirable decrease in model chisquared of 3.45 for a reduction in 2 model degrees of freedom. A further 6 paths were

in Figure 2.

TE D

removed sequentially using the same justification, yielding a final theoretical model, shown

Insert Figure 2

EP

The final theoretical model displayed acceptable overall model fit statistics: a GFI of 0.93, a CFI of 0.92, a standardized root mean square residual of 0.045 and a RMSEA of 0.55

AC C

(Gerbing and Anderson 1992, Hu and Bentler 1999). For details of final measurement items and standardized item loadings for each of the 5 latent traits see Appendix C, Figures 3, 4, and 5.

The final model shows a direct negative relationship between F2, binding moral foundations, and a liberal political orientation. Thus we find strong evidence supporting H1. Liberal political orientation, V31, mediates the effect of the binding in-group, authority and purity moral orientation, F2, on V56 political action. Thus we find strong evidence supporting H3. V56 political action mediates the positive predictive effects of both F1, individualising concern for harm and care and V31, liberal political orientation, on F3, light green behaviour. Thus we find strong support for H2. F5, mid green lifestyle behaviour, is fully mediated by 11

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT both political action and F4, dark-green selective choice. F3, light green consumption, is only moderated by political orientation, involvement and the two ‘darker’ shades of green consumption behaviour, as there is strong support for additional direct predictive paths for the two main moral foundations, F1 and F2. The increased likelihood of consumers exhibiting this type of light-green behaviour over and above that predicted by their political orientation,

RI PT

is determined by a predominance of individualising, as opposed to binding moral foundation, that is, a moral orientation which tends towards concern for harm and fairness and away from concerns for in-group behaviour, authority and purity. Thus we find further evidence supporting H2.

SC

5. Discussion

The research results summarised here provide an understanding of the relationship between

M AN U

individual moral foundations, political orientation, sustainable consumption and political involvement in sustainability issues. They show that an individualising moral foundation is positively related to sustainable consumption behaviours while a binding moral foundation shows a negative relationship to both a sustainable behaviours and a liberal political orientation. A liberal political orientation is positively related to political involvement in

TE D

sustainability issues and indirectly to green behaviours in a hierarchical fashion, suggesting that consumers to the left of the political spectrum are more strongly committed to sustainable social change. This commitment is motivated by an individualising moral foundation that is characterised by a concern with fairness and social justice. Our results

EP

show that liberals are more directly involved in collective political action to achieve these ends than their conservative counterparts and more committed to their own sustainable

AC C

consumption to enact them.

The factor analysis of 24 sustainable consumption behaviours suggests three levels of commitment to sustainable behaviour. The first, which we term light green, includes consumption behaviours which are relatively easy to enact and which require little personal sacrifice, such as recycling and reducing energy use. The second level, medium green, places greater emphasis on consumption that is more socially-orientated, such as fair trade and boycotting. The final level we term dark green, and is characterised by consumption behaviour that demonstrates both an individual commitment such as vegetarianism and wider environmental concerns such as reducing ones carbon footprint by flying less. The SEM (see Figure 2) shows a direct path from individualising moral foundations to light green 12

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT behaviours and subsequent paths to mid and deep green behaviours. The ‘levels’ or interconnected ‘types’ of sustainable behaviour found in this study align with recent research suggesting consumers engage in similar types of sustainable behaviour on a continuum from less committed through to more committed forms of sustainable behaviour as they progress up a hierarchy of ethical consumption choices (Wooliscroft, Ganglmair-Wooliscroft and

RI PT

Noone 2013). The present study suggests that as liberals engage in more ‘light green’ sustainable consumption behaviours they may be more likely to progress through further sustainable behaviours on the continuum, whilst this may be more difficult to initiate for

conservatives. However, if conservatives can be encouraged to participate in relatively ‘easy’

SC

behaviours that align with their moral worldview, Wooliscroft et al’s (2013) theory of hierarchical progression would suggest they too will gradually adopt more committed

M AN U

sustainability behaviours. This is an interesting avenue for further research. As liberals are more inclined to call for change in an effort to achieve greater social equality and justice, and conservatives more resistant given the advantages they see in the status quo, encouraging sustainable ways of living must begin by understanding the ways in which these different positions can be reconciled. If political change is required to achieve greater social justice and to mitigate the effects of consumption on the depletion of resources, the

TE D

competing moral foundations underlying the two political orientations described above seem irreconcilable. This irreconcilability, then, is compounded not only by different (or absent) motivations for change but also by characteristic predispositions to it (Carney et al. 2008, Jost 2006). However, by recognising these differences, and better understanding the relationship

EP

between political orientation, moral foundations and consumers’ sustainable consumption choices, it may be possible to encourage more sustainable forms of consumption consistent

AC C

with the moral beliefs and political orientations of those consumers. The results presented here offer support for the argument that communication regarding sustainable consumption should resonate with consumers on the basis of their moral and other foundational attitudes and beliefs, thus a single approach or message may not achieve the desired change for different groups of consumers. While some work has been done on the efficacy of messages intended to affect the sustainable consumption practices of citizens (Kidwell et al. 2013), our work adds a core and powerful message factor (moral foundations) that can be utilised to deliver the right message in the right way to encourage consumers to engage in more sustainable consumption practices; if messages and public discourses can be

13

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT linked to underlying moral foundations there is a better chance that both groups of consumers can be engaged in ongoing debate related to the need for change. Liberal consumers whose sense of harm/care and fairness naturally leads them to wider concerns with the environment already express these preferences through acts of consumption. For conservatives, encouragement to feel a duty as a citizen to promote a

RI PT

sustainable consumption future may act as a much stronger message than appeals to

environmental concern and equality per se. Liberals are already ‘active consumers and citizens’ in addressing moves towards a sustainable future, both in their personal

consumption behaviour and, as suggested by Willis and Schor (2009), through their active

SC

political involvement in these issues. On the other hand, the consumption behaviour of

conservatives is bounded by a strong sense of responsibility and loyalty to their in-groups.

M AN U

However, they may be mobilized by calls to responsibility and duty if this is framed in their own moral terms. While conservatives tend to under-emphasise environmental concerns they may be motivated by concerns with the social and political consequences of continuing increases in the inequitable distribution of wealth. Appeals to ‘doing more with less’ and traditional values such as frugality may also connect with conservatives’ underlying respect for tradition while public policy can go some way to encouraging change when governments

TE D

and their agencies are seen to be endorsing the principles of sustainable consumption. On a cautionary note, recent research by Brewer, Chilton, and Kasser (2010) suggests that, in the case of conservatives, for example, behaviour that is motivated by self-enhancement

EP

values, such as saving money, may produce short-term gains but at the expense of longerterm ones. The authors argue that by emphasising individual values, such as those related to self-enhancement, other values, particularly those related to self-transcendence, may be

AC C

compromised. This has significant implications for the adoption of communication strategies that need to recognise both competing moral foundations and the potential consequences of appealing to them. Of further note, while every effort has been made to minimise social desirability bias in this study, we would like to recognise as a limitation that different perceptions of change, different community norms and cognitive dissonance experienced by individuals in relation to their sustainable consumption behaviours may have all impacted on responses to the sustainable consumption items. 6. Conclusions

14

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT For both conservatives and liberals, consumption is a reflection of different belief systems and their consequences, or not, for change. The results of this study show a direct relationship between consumers’ moral foundations, political orientation and their individual and collective commitment to sustainable consumption as an agent for change. For researchers, industry and government agencies concerned with the role of moving towards a more

RI PT

sustainable consumption future, it is necessary to understand the moral foundations that provide the basis upon which different consumption decisions are made. Consumers on the political left, judge ethical behaviour in relation to its consequences for society in general and its impact on the most vulnerable members in particular. Given that, characteristically,

SC

liberals regard the present distribution of wealth as inequitable and unfair they may be

motivated to more readily change behaviours to redress this balance. One expression of this motivation is to consume more sustainably themselves and to engage in collective political

M AN U

actions encouraging sustainable change. For those on the right, present patterns of wealth distribution are more likely to be seen as an acceptable consequence of existing power relationships and ones which afford appropriate advantage. Accordingly, motivations to change these existing patterns are less likely for this group who are characteristically more content with the status quo.

TE D

Each of these groups is characterised by fundamentally different moral foundations and therefore notions of what constitutes ‘ethical’ consumption behaviour; for this reason we would argue against the continued use of the label ‘ethical consumer’ which immediately suggests one shared ethical or moral basis. A more inclusive term is ‘conscious consumer’

EP

used by Schor and Willis (2009) to draw attention to a level of awareness which characterises consumers’ concerns with wider issues related to consumption. However, we would like to

AC C

suggest that ‘conscientious consumers’ is a more useful term to describe consumers, like those identified in the current study, who are not only conscious of issues related to consumption but who are conscientiously acting privately and publicly to address them. Clearly, given the multiplicity and complexity of motives that drive sustainable consumption behaviour (Schudson 2007, Wells, Ponting and Peattie 2011, Moisander 2007, Howell 2013), encouraging change may not be simple. Consumers at both ends of the political spectrum conscientiously use consumption for different purposes and to achieve different ends. However, there are commonalities in some sustainable consumption behaviours such as recycling and reducing energy use, which, although motivated by different intentions, might provide the basis upon which further synergies could be developed. This paper expands our 15

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT understanding of the interconnection between moral foundations, political involvement, political orientation and sustainable practices, opening new insights into driving forward change towards a more sustainable consumption future. References

RI PT

Aitken, R. & Watkins, L. (2014). Sustainability, Silence and Social Responsibility. The Fourth Annual Asian Conference on Sustainability, Energy and the Environment, Osaka, Japan. Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, G. W. (1988). Structural Equation Modelling in Practice: a Review and Recommended Two-step Approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 411-423.

M AN U

SC

Ansolabehere, S., & Schaffner, B. F. (2011). Re-Examining the Validity of Different Survey Modes for Measuring Public Opinion in the US: Findings from a 2010 multi-mode Comparison. Paper presented at the 66th Annual Conference of the American Association for Public Opinion Research, Phoenix, AZ. Auger, P., & Devinney, T. M. (2007). Do What Consumers Say Matter? The Misalignment of Preferences with Unconstrained Ethical Intentions. Journal of Business Ethics, 76(4), 361383. Bajde, D. (2007). Consuming a Political Figure: a Post-Structuralist Reading of Four "Political Products, in E - European Advances in Consumer Research Volume 8, eds. Stefania

TE D

Bentler, P. M. (1995). EQS Structural Equations Program Manual: Multivariate Software Carney, D.R., Jost, J.T., Gosling, S.D., & Potter, J. (2008). The Secret Lives of Liberals and Conservatives:Personality Profiles, Interaction Styles, and the Things they Leave Behind. Political Psychology,29(6), 807-840.

AC C

EP

Cromption, T., Brewer, J. Chilton, and Kasser, T. (2010). Common Cause–The case for Working with our Cultural Values. Report published in partnership by: WWF, Friends of Earth, Oxfam, Climate Outreach and Information Campaign, Campaign to Protect Rural England. Available online: http://assets. wwf. org. uk/downloads/common_cause_report. pdf. Crockett, D., & Wallendorf, M. (2004). The Role of Normative Political Ideology in Consumer Behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(3), 511-528. Doane, D. (2001). Taking Flight: The Rapid Growth of Ethical Consumerism. London: New Economics Foundation. Farmer, A. (2014). Political Ideology and Consumer Preferences. Theses and DissertationsMarketing and Supply Chain. Paper 2. http//uknowledge.uky.edu/marketing_etds/2 Feinberg, M., & Willer, R. (2012). The Moral Roots of Environmental Attitudes. Psychological Science 24, 56-62. DOI: 10.1177/0956797612449177.

16

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Gerbing, D. W., & Anderson, J. C. (1992). Monte Carlo Evaluations of Goodness of Fit Indices for Structural Equation Models. Sociological Methods & Research, 21(2), 132-160. Gert, B. (2005). Moral Arrogance and Moral Theories. Philosophical issues, 15(1), 368-385. Glickman, L. B. (2009). Buying Power: A History of Consumer Activism in America. University of Chicago Press.

RI PT

Gotlieb, M.R., & Wells, C. (2012). From Concerned Shopper to Dutiful Citizen: Implications of Individual and Collective Orientations toward Political Consumerism. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences, 644, 207-219. DOI: 10.1177/0002716212453265.

SC

Graham, J., Haidt, J., & Nosek, B. A. (2009). Liberals and Conservatives Rely on Different Sets of Morals Foundations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(5), 1029. DOI: 10.1037/a0015141

M AN U

Graham, J., Nosek, B. A., Haidt, J., Iyer, R., Koleva, S., & Ditto, P. H. (2011). Mapping the Moral Domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(2), 366. DOI: 10.1037/a0021847 Howell, R. A. (2013). It's not (just)“the Environment, Stupid!” Values, Motivations, and Routes to Engagement of People Adopting Lower-Carbon Lifestyles. Global Environmental Change, 23(1), 281-290.

TE D

Hu, L. t., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff Criteria for Fit Indexes in Covariance Structure Analysis: Conventional Criteria Versus New Alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1-55.

EP

Jackson, T. (2005). Motivating Sustainable Consumption. Report for the Sustainable Development Research Network, available at: http://www.sd-research.org.uk/wpcontent/uploads/motivatingscfinal_000.pdf. James, L. R., Mulaik, S. A., & Brett, J. M. (1982). Causal Analysis: Assumptions, Models, and Data. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

AC C

Jost, J. T. (2006). The End of the End of Ideology. American Psychologist, 61(7), 651. Karp, D. G. (1996). Values and their Effects on Pro-Environmental Behavior. Environment & Behavior, 28(1), 111-133. Khan, R., Misra, K., & Singh, V. (2013). Ideology and Brand Consumption. Psychological Science, DOI: 0956797612457379. Kidwell, Farmer, & Hardesty. (2013). Getting Liberals and Conservatives to Go Green: Political Ideology and Congruent Appeals. Journal of Consumer Research, 40, 350367.

17

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT McDonagh, P., & Prothero, A. (2014). Sustainability Marketing Research: Past, Present and Future. Journal of Marketing Management, 30(11-12), 1186-1219. doi: 10.1080/0267257X.2014.943263. Micheletti, M. (2003). Political Virtue and Shopping: Individuals, Consumerism and Collective Action. New York: Palgrave Macmillan

RI PT

Micheletti, M., Follesdal, A., & Stolle, D. (2004). Politics, Products, and Markets. Exploring Political Consumerism Past and Present. New Brunswick. Moisander, J. (2007). Motivational Complexity of Green Consumerism. International journal of Consumer Studies, 31(4), 404-409.

SC

Newman, B. J., & Bartels, B. L. (2010). Politics at the Checkout Line: Explaining Political Consumerism in the United States. Political Research Quarterly.

M AN U

Nielson, L.A., & Paxton, P. (2010). Social Capital and Political Consumerism: A Multilevel Analysis. Social Problems, 57(1), 5-24. Schor, J. B., & Willis, M. (2009). Conscious Consumption: Results from a survey of New Dream members. Center for a New American Dream. http://205.153.117.210/consumption/survey.pdf Schudson, M. (2007). Citizens, Consumers, and the Good Society. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 611(1), 236-249.

TE D

Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the Content and Structure of Values: Theoretical Advances and Empirical Tests in 20 Countries. Advances in experimental social psychology, 25(1), 1-65.

EP

Shah, D. V., McLeod, D. M., Kim, E., Lee, S. Y., Gotlieb, M. R., Ho, S. S., & Breivik, H. (2007). Political Consumerism: How Communication and Consumption Orientations Drive “Lifestyle Politics”. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 611(1), 217-235.

AC C

Singer, P. (2011). Practical Ethics. Cambridge University Press. Stolle, D., Hooghe, M., & Micheletti, M. (2005). Politics in the Supermarket: Political Consumerism as a Form of Political Participation. International Political Science Review, 26(3), 245-269. Stolle, D., & Hooghe, M. (2004). The Roots of Social Capital: Attitudinal and Network Mechanisms in the Relation Between Youth and Adult Indicators of Social Capital. Acta Politica, 39(4), 422-441. Triandis, H. C. (1993). Collectivism and Individualism as Cultural Syndromes. CrossCultural Research, 27(3-4), 155-180.

18

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Vermeir, I., & Verbeke, W. (2006). Sustainable Food Consumption: Exploring the Consumer “Attitude–Behavioral Intention” Gap. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 19(2), 169-194. doi: 10.1007/s10806-005-5485-3. Wells, V. K., Ponting, C. A., & Peattie, K. (2011). Behaviour and Climate Change: Consumer Perceptions of Responsibility. Journal of Marketing Management, 27(7-8), 808833.

RI PT

Willis, M. M., & Schor, J. B. (2012). Does Changing a Lightbulb Lead to Changing the World? Political Action and the Conscious Consumer. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences, 644, 160-190. DOI 10.1177/0002716212454831

AC C

EP

TE D

M AN U

SC

Wooliscroft, B., Ganglmair-Wooliscroft, A., & Noone, A. (2013). The Hierarchy of Ethical Consumption Behaviour: The Case of New Zealand. Journal of Macromarketing, 34, 57-72. DOI: 10.1177/0276146713508560.

19

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

AC C

EP

TE D

M AN U

SC

RI PT

Figure 1

1

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

AC C

EP

TE D

M AN U

SC

RI PT

Figure 2

2

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Appendix A: List of sustainable consumption behaviour factors and standardised

initial measurement item factor loadings Loading

Trait

v55 Purchased something made of recycled materials over something new (ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITYHave you made any of the following changes to your consumption for sustainability reasons?)

0.7469

F3 light green enviro-social consumption

v41 Conserved water (ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITYHave you made any of the following changes to your consumption for sustainability reasons?)

0.5933

F3 light green enviro-social consumption

v37 Driven less (combine errands, walk more, etc) (ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITYHave you made any of the following changes to your consumption for sustainability reasons?)

0.5914

F3 light green enviro-social consumption

v45 Purchased re-used (second hand) goods (ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITYHave you made any of the following changes to your consumption for sustainability reasons?)

0.6303

F3 light green enviro-social consumption

v53 Recycled materials such as cans, bottles, newspapers etc. (ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITYHave you made any of the following changes to your consumption for sustainability reasons?)

0.3713

F3 light green enviro-social consumption

v33 Discontinued purchases of plastic water bottles (ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITYHave you made any of the following changes to your consumption for sustainability reasons?)

0.6000

F3 light green enviro-social consumption

v42 Increased my use of DIY (ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITYHave you made any of the following changes to your consumption for sustainability reasons?)

0.6128

F3 light green enviro-social consumption

v38 Reduced energy usage (energy efficient house / windows, energy efficient appliances etc) (ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITYHave you made any of the following changes to your consumption for sustainability

0.6457

F3 light green enviro-social consumption

v44 Purchased locally made alternatives (ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITYHave you made any of the following changes to your consumption for sustainability reasons?)

0.7664

F3 light green enviro-social consumption

v50 Purchased local foods (ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITYHave you made any of the following changes to your consumption for sustainability reasons?)

0.6650

F3 light green enviro-social consumption

v32 Bought products labelled as environmentally friendly (ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITYHave you made any of the following changes to your consumption for sustainability reasons?)

0.6992

F3 light green enviro-social consumption

v39 Changed to energy efficient light bulbs (ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITYHave you made any of the following changes to your consumption for sustainability reasons?)

0.5216

F3 light green enviro-social consumption

v46 Used alternative energy sources (solar, wind) (ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITYHave you made any of the following changes to your consumption for sustainability reasons?)

0.5870

F4 mid-green enviro-social consumption

v43 Boycotted a business or a product (ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITYHave you made any of the following changes to your consumption for sustainability reasons?)

0.7246

F4 mid-green enviro-social consumption

v54 Not purchased products from companies that you believe don't treat their employees fairly (ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITYHave you made any of the following changes to your consumption for sustainabilit

0.6931

F4 mid-green enviro-social consumption

AC C

EP

TE D

M AN U

SC

RI PT

Item

3

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Loading

Trait

v52 Purchased from organizations because of their social and/or environmental commitment (ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITYHave you made any of the following changes to your consumption for sustainability rea

0.8076

F4 mid-green enviro-social consumption

v40 Purchased a hybrid car (ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITYHave you made any of the following changes to your consumption for sustainability reasons?)

0.4813

F4 mid-green enviro-social consumption

v49 Purchased Fair Trade alternatives (ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITYHave you made any of the following changes to your consumption for sustainability reasons?)

0.7348

F4 mid-green enviro-social consumption

v48 Raised your own animals for consumption (e.g. chickens) (ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITYHave you made any of the following changes to your consumption for sustainability reasons?)

0.4481

F4 mid-green enviro-social consumption

v34 Taken fewer airplane flights (ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITYHave you made any of the following changes to your consumption for sustainability reasons?)

0.5120

f5 deep green enviro-social consumption

v36 Have considered / have become a vegetarian (ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITYHave you made any of the following changes to your consumption for sustainability reasons?)

0.4835

f5 deep green enviro-social consumption

v51 Purchased food from farmers' market (ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITYHave you made any of the following changes to your consumption for sustainability reasons?)

0.5974

f5 deep green enviro-social consumption

v35 Commuted to work in a way other than a car (ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITYHave you made any of the following changes to your consumption for sustainability reasons?)

0.4442

f5 deep green enviro-social consumption

v47 Grown your own food (ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITYHave you made any of the following changes to your consumption for sustainability reasons?)

0.4266

f5 deep green enviro-social consumption

AC C

EP

TE D

M AN U

SC

RI PT

Item

4

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Appendix B: List of measurement items, sources, derivation and role in initial measurement model Role

v1 Whether or not someone suffered emotionally

F1 individualising moral foundation

v11 Whether or not someone was cruel

F1 individualising moral foundation

RI PT

Label

v12 Whether or not someone was denied his or her rights

F1 individualising moral foundation

SC

v16 Compassion for those who are suffering is the most crucial virtue.

M AN U

v17 When the government makes laws, the number one principle should be ensuring that everyone is treated fairly.

F1 individualising moral foundation F1 individualising moral foundation F1 individualising moral foundation

v21 One of the worst things a person could do is hurt a defenseless animal.

F1 individualising moral foundation

v22 Justice is the most important requirement for a society.

F1 individualising moral foundation

TE D

v2 Whether or not some people were treated differently than others

F1 individualising moral foundation

v27 I think it's morally wrong that rich children inherit a lot of money while poor children inherit nothing.

F1 individualising moral foundation

v6 Whether or not someone cared for someone weak or vulnerable

F1 individualising moral foundation

v7 Whether or not someone acted unfairly

F1 individualising moral foundation

AC C

EP

v26 It can never be right to kill a human being.

v10 Whether or not someone did something disgusting

F2 binding moral foundation

v13 Whether or not someone showed a lack of loyalty

F2 binding moral foundation

v14 Whether or not an action caused chaos or disorder

F2 binding moral foundation

v15 Whether or not someone acted in a way that God would approve of

F2 binding moral foundation

v18 I am proud of my country's history.

F2 binding moral foundation

v19 Respect for authority is something all children need to learn.

F2 binding moral foundation

v20 People should not do things that are disgusting, even if no one is harmed.

F2 binding moral foundation

5

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Role

v23 People should be loyal to their family members, even when they have done something wrong.

F2 binding moral foundation

v24 Men and women each have different roles to play in society.

F2 binding moral foundation

v25 I would call some acts wrong on the grounds that they are unnatural.

F2 binding moral foundation

v28 It is more important to be a team player than to express oneself.

F2 binding moral foundation

RI PT

Label

v29 If I were a soldier and disagreed with my commanding officer's orders, I would obey anyway because that is my duty.

F2 binding moral foundation

v3 Whether or not someone's action showed love for his or her country

F2 binding moral foundation F2 binding moral foundation

v4 Whether or not someone showed a lack of respect for authority v5 Whether or not someone violated standards of purity and decency

M AN U

v8 Whether or not someone did something to betray his or her group

SC

v30 Chastity is an important and valuable virtue.

F2 binding moral foundation F2 binding moral foundation F2 binding moral foundation F2 binding moral foundation

Q54_1 (In political matters, people talk of 'the left' and 'the right'. How would you place your views on this scale, generally speaking?)

v31 original measure of political orientation

v31 liberal orientation

v31 political orientation manifest item reversed

v56 political involvement

TE D

v9 Whether or not someone conformed to the traditions of society

v56 political involvement manifest item derived v56 summed Binary Yes/No Political Activity

Q9New_2 Have you given money to groups committed to sustainability in the last 12 months?

v56 summed Binary Yes/No Political Activity

Q9New_3 In the last 12 months have you boycotted or avoided buying the products of a company because you felt that company was not behaving sustainably?

v56 summed Binary Yes/No Political Activity

Q9New_4 Have you voted for a candidate in a political election, at least in part, because he or she was in favour of sustainability issues?

v56 summed Binary Yes/No Political Activity

Q9New_5 Do you consider yourself a member of any group whose main aim is to encourage a more sustainable society?

v56 summed Binary Yes/No Political Activity

Q9New_6 Have you protested in any way in support of sustainability issues in the last 12 months?

v56 summed Binary Yes/No Political Activity

AC C

EP

Q9New_1 Have you signed a petition in support of sustainability issues in the last 12 months?

6

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Appendix C Figure 3

AC C

EP

TE D

M AN U

SC

RI PT

Final theoretical model - F1 & F2 moral foundation items

7

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Figure 4

M AN U

SC

RI PT

Final theoretical model - F3 light green behaviour and manifest items

TE D

Figure 5

AC C

EP

Final theoretical model - F4 & F5 mid- and deep-green behaviour items

8