Leading the way: Motivating environmental action through perceived marketplace influence

Journal of Business Research 79 (2017) 79–89

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Business Research journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jbusres

Leading the way: Motivating environmental action through perceived marketplace influence

MARK

R. Bret Learya,⁎, Richard J. Vannb,1, John D. Mittelstaedtc,2 a b c

University of Nevada, Reno, United States Penn State Erie, The Behrend College, United States University of Wyoming, United States

A R T I C L E I N F O

A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Perceived marketplace influence Marketplace beliefs Efficacy beliefs Environmental behavior Prosocial behavior Consumer empowerment

This research explores the perceived marketplace influence (PMI) belief and its role in explaining behavior. Across three studies, we show PMI to be distinct from other efficacy-based constructs and a powerful predictor of pro-environmental and socially-motivated behavior. Specifically, consumers are motivated to act when they believe their behavior influences other marketplace actors. We develop a ten-item scale for PMI and display its predictive and incremental validity in explaining environmental behavior before showing its power to translate environmental concern into corresponding behavior. We then find that PMI predicts social environmentalism and environmental citizenship behaviors, and that these effects are attenuated by consumer skepticism of marketing. While complementing existing efficacy-related beliefs with its explicit marketplace focus, PMI provides an important tool for marketers operating in environmental and prosocial niches by allowing them to understand and target the consumers most likely to adopt their products or attempt to recruit others in environmentally-motivated efforts.

1. Introduction Do the actions we take lead others to change what they do? Is the belief that our actions influence the behavior of others motivating enough to change our own behavior? When faced with complex environmental and social challenges like climate change and environmental degradation, consumers understandably question whether or not their daily actions carry enough weight to make a positive change in their world. However, if our actions represent an opportunity to influence others, these small, daily behaviors transform from isolated acts into a vehicle for triggering collective effort and change. Seen from this perspective, an individual's behavior contributes to solving complex societal issues while indirectly influencing others to do the same, thus amplifying the impact of and offering a rationale for one's actions. This research seeks to better understand and measure how perceived influence affects consumer preference and decision-making for environmentally-friendly consumption and activism behavior. Most experts agree that a more equitable and sustainable future rests on the collective actions of society (see Stern, 2000 and Peattie, 2010 for reviews of the sustainable behavior literature). In interdependent fashion, however, the ability of this collective to positively ⁎

impact social and environmental issues relies on a consumer's inclination to engage in environmental and socially-motivated marketplace behavior, and vice versa. In support of this interdependent relationship, recent research shows that consumers act on their environmental concerns in the marketplace when they believe their actions influence other consumers and organizations to work for the same changes (Leary et al., 2014). In short, some consumers believe their behavior positively influences the actions of other marketplace actors. This perceived marketplace influence motivates consumers to follow through on their prosocial and pro-environmental inclinations when they judge their behaviors to provide immediate value for social change and instigate long-term collective effort. Defined as “the belief that one's efforts in the marketplace can influence the marketplace behavior of other consumers and organizations, and inasmuch serve as a motivation for one's own behavior” (Leary et al., 2014, p. 1954), perceived marketplace influence (PMI) falls into a broader category of existing efficacy-based beliefs including self-efficacy (SE; Bandura, 1997), perceived consumer effectiveness (PCE; Ellen et al., 1991; Roberts, 1996), and collective efficacy (CE; Bandura, 2000; Illia et al., 2011). In general, these efficacy-related beliefs function as domain-specific cognitions that determine if

Corresponding author at: 1664 N. Virginia St., Reno, NV 89557-0028, United States. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (R. Bret Leary), [email protected] (R.J. Vann), [email protected] (J.D. Mittelstaedt). 4701 College Dr., Erie, PA, 16,563. 2 1000 E. University Ave., Laramie, WY, 82071. 1

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.05.028 Received 31 January 2016; Received in revised form 23 May 2017; Accepted 26 May 2017 0148-2963/ © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Journal of Business Research 79 (2017) 79–89

R. Bret Leary et al.

that their actions are likely to make a difference in one context, but not in other situations. This domain specificity is an important attribute of beliefs, with Ajzen and Fishbein (1980) noting that situation specific cognitions and beliefs directly determine particular behavior in a domain. Building from the foundational role that situation specific beliefs play in determining behavior, Leary et al. (2014) introduced the concept of perceived marketplace influence (PMI), suggesting that the belief of influence on other marketplace actors motivates and justifies a consumer's decision to begin or continue behaving in an environmentally-friendly manner. As such, PMI is conceptualized as an efficacy-based expectancy belief with applications to any number of different consumer domains where consumers make judgments about the potential marketplace influence of a particular behavior. If a consumer views his or her behavior as leading to the desired outcome of influencing others, he or she is motivated to act upon that belief through behavior in the domain for which their influence is deemed operative. Given this domain specificity of the PMI motivation, the two dimensions of PMI (Consumer and Organization) could potentially differ in their effects on motivation and behavior depending upon context. It is important to note that this perception of influence is just that: a perception of the individual. Whether or not one's behavior actually changes what others do is largely inconsequential, as long as a consumer believes her or his actions do so. While Leary et al. (2014) confined their work to environmental behavior, we expand the scope of PMI to explore how one's belief of perceived influence on others operates within a broader domain of environmental and social behaviors. Specifically, the outward-facing nature of PMI (e.g.. people believe they are actively influencing other consumers and organizations) implies that its impact goes beyond conservation and purchasing behavior to other actions specifically intended to change the behavior of other marketplace actors, an implication supported by prior research. For example, Alexandrov et al. (2013) show that marketplace behavior is a socially embedded process and the result of a series of interactions among individuals. Consumers derive a number of personal and social benefits from these interactions and are likely to engage in social behavior, like word-of-mouth, when they believe their actions will benefit others (Sundaram et al., 1998). Similarly, we propose that when consumers believe their marketplace behavior will influence the actions of other consumers and organizations, they will be motivated to follow through on that behavior, as higher perceived influence increases the desire to engage in behaviors that spread opinion and influence to others. For this research, we investigate PMI's influence on the behaviors of environmental citizenship and social environmentalism, whereby individuals use socially motivated behavior to influence the actions of other marketplace actors. With current social and environmental issues requiring collective action (Stern, 2000), this belief of perceived influence helps to connect individual level motivation with consumer behavior intended to impact the collective. It is also possible that this perceived influence is affected by other consumer traits that would heighten or lessen its impact on behavior. In the current research we investigate the impact of consumer skepticism on perceived marketplace influence. As a more stable and less domainspecific marketplace belief, consumer skepticism plays a large role in shaping consumers' thoughts on how the marketplace operates and their subsequent marketplace behavior (Obermiller and Spangenberg, 1998). Indeed, research has found that consumers who are highly skeptical toward marketing activities are more distrustful of and less likely to attend to and rely on marketing information in their decisionmaking process (Obermiller et al., 2005). As such, increased skepticism regarding the underlying motives of marketing activities inhibits the effectiveness of marketing efforts (Vanhamme and Grobben, 2009), leading to unfavorable word-of-mouth and decreased firm equity (e.g. Skarmeas and Leonidou, 2013). When investigating perceived marketplace influence, it is possible

circumstances support expending effort (Bamberg, 2003); when consumers believes their actions will lead to a desired outcome, they act on these beliefs. Though it shares some overlap with other efficacy-related beliefs, PMI uniquely focuses on the relevance of social influence in consumer action by connecting the self to both collective and organizational interests. In so doing, PMI provides a more comprehensive account of how consumers' ethical values and beliefs relate to marketplace behavior. While the work on PMI from Leary et al. (2014) introduced the PMI construct and conceptually distinguished it from other efficacy-based beliefs, this initial foray into perceived influence left several important questions unanswered that the current work seeks to address. First, the current work moves beyond conceptual distinctions by empirically establishing the nomological relationship between PMI and related efficacy beliefs. Second, while the definition for PMI clearly outlines two distinct dimensions of the construct (i.e. one's perceived influence on other consumers and one's perceived influence on organizations), the three-item measurement for PMI in Leary et al. (2014) only indirectly captures these dimensions. We address this issue by developing and validating a scale to measure PMI and its two sub-dimensions: five items measuring the perception of influence on other consumers (PMI Consumer) and five items measuring the perception of influence on corporations and organizations (PMI Organization). Lastly, the current work assesses PMI's impact on a greater set of environmental and socially-motivated behaviors, offering a more generalizable account of its importance for understanding behaviors in these domains. Across three studies, PMI is established as distinct from other efficacy-related beliefs and a powerful predictor beyond these beliefs for environmental and socially driven behavior. It is further shown that, when compared with other efficacy beliefs, PMI provides a more complete account for translating environmental values (i.e. environmental concern) into corresponding behavior. Finally, the current research establishes an initial boundary condition for perceived marketplace influence by exploring the attenuating effect of consumer skepticism. Accordingly, this paper serves as a replication and extension of the initial work on perceived marketplace influence from Leary et al. (2014). Combining scale validation with theory development and empirical prediction, the present work addresses calls for research exploring how marketplace beliefs drive behavior (Dunning, 2007) while advancing our understanding of PMI in the family of efficacy-based beliefs, and its consequences for explaining, describing, and predicting consumer behavior. Building on these findings, the door opens for future research that digs even further into PMI's influence on general ethical behavior and the context-specific effects of the dual PMI dimensions. 2. Perceived marketplace influence Beliefs serve as a key motivating factor for behavior. Indeed, several prevalent behavioral theories include beliefs as critical parts of their models. For example, the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB; Ajzen, 1991) states that one's expectancy beliefs about a particular behavior inform attitudes toward that behavior, ultimately informing intention and behavior. These expectancy beliefs rely on personal assessments of subjective probability that the behavior in question will result in a particular consequence. When people believe that their behavior will produce a given outcome, they experience greater levels of personal efficacy, motivating them to act upon these beliefs. In this regard, individuals determine that acting upon a belief is worth the cost associated with that behavior, leading to greater action tendencies (Ertz et al., 2016). Bamberg (2003) states that the behavioral beliefs held by an individual are driven in part by the context in which she or he operates; efficacy beliefs depend upon the situation and behavior in question (i.e. situation specific beliefs). Stated differently, individuals might believe 80

Journal of Business Research 79 (2017) 79–89

R. Bret Leary et al.

Table 1 PMI items (Study 1 EFA loadings) and Study 1 CFA model fit comparison. Factora

Item

1 If I purchase environmentally friendly products or express my views and opinions to others… 1. …my behavior (i.e. purchasing environmental products or expressing my views and opinions to others) guides other individuals to act in a similar manner. 2. …I feel what I do sways what others around me do. 3. …what I choose to do or say impacts what other consumers choose to do. 4. …my behavior will not cause other consumers to act similarly. (RC) 5. …I know that my behavior motivates others to act similarly. 6. …I feel what I buy encourages companies to make and sell environmentally friendly products. 7. …my behavior does not guide organizations to provide similar products. (RC) 8. …what I do influences the actions of a company. 9. …the choices I make persuade companies to offer specific products to consumers. 10. …my behavior causes companies to change their product offerings and corporate practices.

Model

χ2

1 Factor 2 Factor uncorrelated 2 Factor correlated

χ2(35) χ2(35) χ2(34)

a

= 610.36 = 150.68 = 76.89

2

0.96 0.91 0.94 0.74 0.89 0.89 0.75 0.83 0.89 0.93

χ2/df

Δχ2

CFI

TLI

RMSEA

SRMR

17.44 4.31 2.20

N/A 459.68⁎⁎⁎ 73.79⁎⁎⁎

0.69 0.94 0.98

0.60 0.92 0.97

0.31 0.14 0.085

0.17 0.34 0.04

Factor 1: PMI_Consumer (α = 0.95); Factor 2: PMI_Organization (α = 0.94); r = 0.60 Significant at the p < 0.001 level

⁎⁎⁎

this larger group of consumers. Finally, self-efficacy (SE) refers to people's beliefs in their ability to influence the events affecting their lives (Bandura, 1997). Self-efficacy suggests that consumers are unlikely to act upon their environmental concern unless they believe that the environmental problem is directly affecting them, and that their actions are going to positively impact the environmental problem. Similar to the distinction between PMI and PCE, however, PMI is distinguishable from self-efficacy in that it looks at whether an individual believes that his/her actions are directly responsible for changing the behavior of others, rather than solving a problem individually. In the coming sections, we describe the results of three studies aimed at extending previous research on PMI. We begin by developing a reliable and valid PMI scale before displaying its ability to predict various environmental and socially-motivated behaviors while adding to the predictive power of these related constructs.

that the general trait of marketplace skepticism (Obermiller and Spangenberg, 1998) could affect one's inclination to act on this perception of influence. For instance, when a consumer is highly skeptical of how the marketplace operates, it may heighten a consumer's focus on whether their actions influence other marketplace actors or shift focus away from personal influence to more general beliefs (e.g. collective efficacy). While making no a priori assumption as to the direction of the relationship, we explore the potential effect of consumer skepticism on perceived marketplace influence and environmental citizenship and social environmentalism to ascertain if skepticism amplifies or attenuates these relationships. As noted in the introduction, PMI falls into a broader category of efficacy-based motivational beliefs identified in prior literature, all of which are based in the belief that one's actions make a difference. We conceptually and empirically distinguish between PMI and the related constructs of perceived consumer effectiveness, collective efficacy, and self-efficacy. For a review of efficacy beliefs in motivation, see Schunk and Usher (2012).

4. Study 1 3. Related efficacy-based motivational constructs

4.1. Item generation and refinement

Perceived consumer effectiveness (PCE) is defined as the belief that the efforts of an individual can make a difference in the solution to a problem (Ellen et al., 1991). Within the context of environmentally responsible behavior, PCE has been shown to influence a variety of actions, including environmental action (Ellen et al., 1991) and ecologically conscious behavior (Roberts, 1996). Although similar in that both are measuring operative capability to influence a situation through action, PMI is conceptually distinct from PCE in that PMI captures an individual's belief that their actions are actively influencing the behavior of others, rather than solely making a difference on a problem. Collective efficacy (CE) refers to a consumers' belief in the ability of a group to solve problems (Bandura, 1997; Illia et al., 2011). Building on collective action, CE suggests that when a group of individuals work together to produce results, they can achieve goals and accomplish desired tasks. Within an environmental context, CE investigates how people view the ability of a large group of consumers to solve societal issues (Hernandez, 2008). The individual orientation of PMI distinguishes it from CE. Rather than looking at the ability of the group to solve problems, PMI captures the ability of the individual to influence

The purpose of Study 1 was to develop a valid and reliable scale for perceived marketplace influence that better captures the dimensions of the construct than the three-item measure from Leary et al. (2014), and can be used across market-related domains. Based on the definition for PMI in Leary et al. (2014) and this paper, we developed a battery of 28 items to reflect the two dimensions of consumer and organizational influence (PMI Consumer and PMI Organization; 14 items per dimension). With the conceptualization of PMI as a situation-specific efficacy belief, subscales for each dimension are important to determine if there are certain domains in which one dimension of PMI carries more influence than the other. All items were measured on a 7-point scale (Strongly Disagree – Strongly Agree). For content validity, we followed the method recommended by Bearden et al. (1989). Five marketing academics with expertise in the psychology of motivation were provided with the definition of perceived marketplace influence and its two dimensions, and asked to assign each of the 28 items to one of the dimensions. There was agreement across all five individuals for all items. Further, four other scholars were provided the construct definition and instructed to rate 81

Journal of Business Research 79 (2017) 79–89

R. Bret Leary et al.

Table 2 Study 2 & 3 correlations. Study 2 Construct 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

Environmental concern PMI consumer PMI organization Perceived consumer effectiveness Collective efficacy Self efficacy Environmental behavior

Study 3 Construct 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. ⁎

Environmental concern PMI consumer PMI organization Perceived consumer effectiveness Collective efficacy Self efficacy Optimism Social environmentalism Environmental citizenship

1 1.0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1.0 0.32⁎ 0.33⁎ 0.45⁎ 0.24⁎ 0.27⁎ 0.54⁎

1.0 0.40⁎ 0.31⁎ 0.16⁎ 0.20⁎ 0.37⁎

1.0 0.41⁎ 0.10⁎ 0.22⁎ 0.39⁎

1.0 0.17⁎ 0.29⁎ 0.41⁎

1.0 0.26⁎ 0.23⁎

1.0 0.22⁎

1.0

2

3 ⁎

0.36 1.0

4 ⁎

0.29 0.53⁎ 1.0

5 ⁎

− 0.16 − 0.17⁎ − 0.13⁎ 1.0

6 ⁎

0.26 0.25⁎ 0.18⁎ − 0.003 1.0

7 ⁎

0.26 0.29⁎ 0.19⁎ − 0.15⁎ 0.36⁎ 1.0

0.08 − 0.08 − 0.04 0.21⁎ − 0.09 − 0.20⁎ 1.0

8

9 ⁎

0.44 0.52⁎ 0.40⁎ −0.11⁎ 0.34⁎ 0.31⁎ 0.04 1.0

0.37⁎ 0.39⁎ 0.39⁎ 0.05 0.29⁎ 0.21⁎ −0.001 0.76⁎ 1.0

Significant at the p < 0.001 level.

fit (χ2(34) = 76.89, CFI = 0.98, TLI = 0.97, RMSEA = 0.085, SRMR = 0.04), indicating the dimensions of PMI to be correlated (r = 0.60) and representative of a two-factor PMI construct (see Table 1). The high RMSEA is likely due to the lower number of degrees of freedom, which leads to greater sampling error and artificially high RMSEA values (Kenny et al., 2015).

the items as “not at all representative,” “somewhat representative,” and “clearly representative” of the definition. All items were subsequently rated as “clearly representative” by at least three of the four individuals, with the fourth individual not rating any single item below “somewhat representative.” Thus all items were retained for further analysis. Participants recruited from Amazon's Mechanical Turk (n = 175) completed the 28 PMI items. Prior work suggests that Mechanical Turk data compares favorably with other academic data sources such as student samples and consumer panels for behavioral research, as long as proper attention checks and controls are implemented (Buhrmester et al., 2011; Goodman et al., 2012; Paolacci and Chandler, 2014). Respondents had an average age of 39.4 years, with 84 men (48%) and 91 women (52%) participating.

4.3. Convergent and discriminant validity Finally, we sought to test the convergent and discriminant validity of the two PMI dimensions, between one another and also other conceptually-related constructs. Using the two-factor correlated model from above, convergent validity between the two dimensions of PMI was supported as all items load onto their respective latent factor at 0.79 or greater with Average Variance Extracted (AVE) values greater than 0.5. Discriminant validity was supported with the absence of cross loading and AVEs greater than the squared interfactor correlations (Hair et al., 2006). Thus, the subscales for the two dimensions of PMI are related to one another but distinct in their ability to measure one's perceived influence on other consumers and organizations. To test whether the two dimensions of PMI are also different from other conceptually-related constructs like perceived consumer effectiveness (PCE) and environmental concern, we had our participants complete 4 PCE items (α = 0.76) items from Roberts' (1996) and Ellen et al. (1991) and the four item (α = 0.89) environmental concern measure from Leary et al. (2014). See Appendix 1 for all items. An EFA with these measures and PMI items was run and simple structure was achieved (R2 = 0.74). We next ran a CFA model with the two dimensions of PMI, environmental concern, and PCE. The resulting model fit was good (χ2(129) = 274.35, CFI = 0.97, TLI = 0.96, RMSEA = 0.06, SRMR = 0.06), with all items loading onto their respective latent factor at 0.65 or greater. Convergent validity among the four constructs was supported with all AVE values greater than 0.5. Additionally, discriminant validity was supported with no cross loadings and AVE values greater than the squared interfactor correlations, showing PMI to be distinct from PCE and environmental concern. Based on these findings, these ten items (shown in Table 1) offer an improved and flexible measure for perceived marketplace influence. Building from the results showing PMI to be a two-factor construct consisting of the correlated but distinct dimensions of PMI Consumer and PMI Organization, our

4.2. Item reduction and second order factor We first submitted the 28 items to an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) using Maximum Likelihood extraction with Oblimin rotation, taking into account the anticipated relatedness of the items for the two subscales. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) value of 0.962 indicated that factor analysis was appropriate for the data. Deleting items that crossloaded between factors or did not have a factor loading above 0.6, a final set of 10 items loaded with simple structure (one factor for each scale [Eigenvalues > 1] and no cross loadings above 0.30) onto two factors corresponding with the two PMI dimensions (5 items per dimension; see Table 1), with all items loading onto their respective factor at a value greater than 0.74 and 79.1% of the total variance explained (R2 = 0.79). The two factors were highly reliable (PMI Consumer: α = 0.95; PMI Organization: α = 0.94). Because we earlier conceptualized the two dimensions of PMI as related but distinct, we expected that the subscales for these dimensions would correlate to form a two-factor PMI construct. In order to examine this relationship, we analyzed a series of alternative confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) models, including a one-factor model where all PMI items were forced to load on a single factor, a two-factor uncorrelated model, and a two-factor correlated model (Napoli et al., 2014). Based on the domain specificity of beliefs for different marketplace decision contexts, we anticipated that the two-factor correlated model would provide the best fit for the ten items based on the relatedness of the dimensions. The two-factor correlated model indeed exhibited the best 82

Journal of Business Research 79 (2017) 79–89

R. Bret Leary et al.

Table 3 Study 2 hierarchical linear regression results. Model

a

1 β (S.E.)

2 β (S.E.)

3 β (S.E.)

Gender Age Education Race Marital status Household income EC PCE CE SE PMI consumer PMI organization

0.14 (0.15)⁎ 0.14 (0.07)⁎ 0.04 (0.06) 0.08 (0.07) −0.05 (0.11) 0.03 (0.06)

0.05 (0.13) 0.11 (0.06)⁎ 0.03 (0.05) 0.06 (0.06) − 0.09 (0.09) 0.01 (0.05) 0.42 (0.06)⁎⁎⁎ 0.19 (0.05)⁎⁎⁎ 0.1 (0.05) 0.03 (0.07)

0.02 (0.13) 0.11 (0.05)⁎ 0.01 (0.05) 0.06 (0.06) − 0.07 (0.09) 0.01 (0.05) 0.37 (0.06)⁎⁎⁎ 0.13 (0.05)⁎ 0.08 (0.05) 0.01 (0.07) 0.15 (0.05)⁎⁎ 0.12 (0.06)⁎

Model statistic

Modela 1

2

3

(6,289) 2.09 2.09 0.04 0.04 p > 0.05

(10,285) 15.72 34.69 0.36 0.31 p < 0.001

(12,283) 16.65 8.54 0.39 0.04 p < 0.001 r = 0.16

Variables

df F – value F – change R2 ΔR2 ΔR2 Significance PMI Consumer semipartial r PMI Organization semipartial r

r = 0.13

a

Dependent Variable: Ecologically Conscious Consumer Behavior. Significant at the p < 0.05 level. Significant at the p < 0.01 level. ⁎⁎⁎ Significant at the p < 0.001 level. ⁎

⁎⁎

correlations (see Table 2). We next ran a CFA to validate our measure of PMI as distinct from these related constructs. The model produced acceptable fit (χ2(685) = 1297.10, CFI: 0.93, TLI: 0.92, RMSEA: 0.055, SRMR = 0.05), although the CFI and TLI values are slightly below the recommended 0.95 value. Convergent validity was supported with all AVE values greater than 0.5 and all items loading onto their latent factor at 0.67 and above. Discriminant validity was also supported with the absence of cross loadings and AVE values greater than the squared correlations between factors. These results further show PMI to be distinct from a greater number of other efficacy-related constructs often utilized to explain environmental and social behavior.

analysis in the following studies presents results from these individual subscales unless otherwise noted. 5. Study 2 The purpose of Study 2 was to further assess PMI's construct validity and place it within a nomological network consisting of a greater number of related constructs, now including collective efficacy (CE), and self-efficacy (SE) in addition to environmental concern and perceived consumer effectiveness (PCE). We also sought to determine the predictive validity of PMI by assessing its ability to significantly predict environmental behavior by itself and incrementally add to the prediction of behavior when added into a model with other predictors.

5.2. Predictive validity 5.1. Exploratory factor analysis and convergent and discriminant validity Our next goal for Study 2 was to establish the predictive validity of PMI and its ability to add to the predictive power of the other constructs discussed so far in this study. Our first test of predictive validity was conducted by creating average-based index scores for each subscale of PMI and regressing these onto the behavioral measure from Roberts (1996). Analysis of the standardized residuals showed no deviation from normality or multicollinearity (VIFs < 1.10). After controlling for gender, age, race, marital status, education, and income level, results show PMI to predict behavior (PMI Consumer: β = 0.26 [t = 4.48], p < 0.001; PMI Organization: β = 0.26 [t = 4.35], p < 0.001), with a significant portion of behavioral variance explained by the two PMI components (R2 = 0.22 [F (8287) = 9.94], p < 0.001). Results were confirmed by a two-factor correlated (r = 0.40) AMOS model (χ2(186) = 425.92, CFI = 0.95, TLI = 0.94,

Participants were recruited from Amazon Mechanical Turk, with a final sample of 296 individuals. There were 121 men (40.9%) and 174 women (58.8%) in the sample, with one respondent choosing not to disclose gender. Attention checks and control measures were used. Respondents completed the 10 items for the two dimensions of PMI (PMI Consumer: α = 0.92; PMI Organization: α = 0.91), and the same environmental concern (α = 0.87) and perceived consumer effectiveness (α = 0.76) measures from Study 1. We also had them complete new measures of collective efficacy (CE; 3 items; α = 0.83) from Illia et al. (2011), self-efficacy (SE; 8 items; α = 0.94) from Chen et al. (2001), and a subset of behavioral items from the Ecologically Conscious Consumer Behavior (ECCB; 11 items; α = 0.94) scale (Roberts, 1996). All factors were highly reliable with significant, positive 83

Journal of Business Research 79 (2017) 79–89

R. Bret Leary et al.

RMSEA = 0.066, SRMR = 0.05; PMI Consumer: β = 0.26, p < 0.001; PMI Organization: β = 0.31, p < 0.001). As a more powerful test of the predictive nature of PMI, we ran a series of hierarchical linear regression (HLR) models to determine the incremental predictive power that PMI adds to the related constructs of EC, PCE, CE, and SE on environmental behavior (VIFs < 1.50). The combination of EC, PCE, CE, and SE accounted for a 0.31 change in R2 (ΔR2 = 0.31, p < 0.001) from the control variables. Entering PMI into the HLR model also produced a significant change in R2 (ΔR2 = 0.04 [F (2283) = 8.54], p < 0.001), with the final regression model including EC, PCE, CE, SE, and PMI significantly predictive of behavior (F (12,283) = 15.21 p < 0.001). Specifically, we find that both PMI Consumer (β = 0.15 [t = 2.72], p < 0.01) and PMI Organization (β = 0.12 [t = 2.20], p < 0.05) both positively predict environmental behavior in the HLR model. Importantly, PMI Consumer and PMI Organization have semipartial correlations of 0.16 and 0.13 in the final regression model, respectively, which are above the cutoff recommended by Hunsley and Meyer (2003) when testing incremental validity in hierarchical regression. Thus we find that, in addition to predicting environmental behavior, PMI also significantly adds to the variance explained above that of EC, PCE, CE, and SE. See Table 3.

efficacy-based beliefs. 6. Study 3 Study 3 extends the predictive power of PMI to the socially-motivated behaviors of environmental citizenship and social environmentalism while controlling for trait optimism and investigating the moderating effect of consumer skepticism. 6.1. Method and measures Participants were recruited from Qualtrics Consumer Panels with a final sample size of 418 individuals. The sample was representative of the general U.S. population, with 200 males (47.8%) and 218 females (52.2%) proportionally spread across demographic factors. Respondents filled out the 10 items for the two dimensions of PMI (PMI Consumer: α = 0.84; PMI Organization: α = 0.87) and the same environmental concern (EC; α = 0.84), perceived consumer effectiveness (PCE; α = 0.81), self-efficacy (SE; α = 0.94), and collective efficacy (CE; α = 0.82) measures. Participants also filled out the revised Life Orientation Test from Scheier, Carver, and Bridges (1994; α = 0.82) to assess outlook on life. We developed 7 items for consumer skepticism based on previous work from Obermiller and Spangenberg (1998; α = 0.88). To measure Social Environmentalism, we developed a set of 7 behaviors (α = 0.95) that inquired how often participants talked about and shared their opinions on environmental issues and company environmental practices with other consumers. Similarly, we gauged how often consumers participated in Environmental Citizenship behaviors by developing a set of 5 behaviors (α = 0.90) measuring one's tendency to support environmentally friendly causes through donating time and money, and participating in the political process through actions impacting corporations and organizations.

5.3. Translating environmental concern into behavior Values are the most abstract of all social cognitions (Homer and Kahle, 1988). As such, values should not be considered to have a direct effect on behavior but, rather, intervening processes and situation specific beliefs should influence this association (Bamberg, 2003). Building from this knowledge, Leary et al. (2014) found PMI to mediate the relationship between the value of environmental concern and environmental behavior. We seek to replicate the results of Leary et al. (2014) with the new measure for PMI. Utilizing the Process bootstrapping procedure with 5000 resamples and bias corrected confidence intervals from Hayes (2013), we ran a mediation model with environmental concern as the independent variable, PMI as mediator, and environmental behavior as the dependent variable. Following the Zhao et al. (2010) protocol, results suggested complementary mediation, as the total indirect effect of environmental concern on behavior through the mediator of PMI is positive and significant (0.077, p < 0.001) with a 95% CI excluding zero (0.031, 0.13). As such, there was the likelihood of an omitted mediator from the model of the relationship between environmental concern and environmental behavior (Zhao et al., 2010). In order to further assess this complementary mediation, we ran a mediation model with the additional variables of PCE, CE, SE included as possible mediators to determine if any of these variables were complementary to PMI in transforming environmental concern into corresponding behavior. Results show that, when the variables of PCE, PMI, CE, and SE were entered as mediators to the relationship between EC and behavior, the significance level of EC ➔ behavior dropped from p < 0.001 to p < 0.05, and the standardized coefficient value also decreased in size (β = 0.61 to β = 0.34), indicating partial mediation and an intervening variable(s). Further examination reveals that, of the four potential mediators entered into the model, PMI alone significantly predicts behavior (β = 0.35, p < 0.001) with zero excluded in a 95% CI (0.135, 0.572). The others variables of PCE (β = 0.091, p = 0.23; 95% CI: − 0.062, 0.241), CE (β = 0.071, p = 0.21; 95% CI: −0.041, 0.185), and SE (β = 0.008, p = 0.91; 95% CI: −0.10, 1.19) are not found to significantly influence behavior. These results suggest that, while there are potentially other omitted mediation variable(s) intervening in the relationship between EC and behavior, the PMI belief appears to have greater power in translating EC into environmental behavior than the related constructs of PCE, CE, and SE. This finding both replicates and extends the mediational relationship from Leary et al. (2014) by showing the role of PMI in expressing environmental concerns, even when added into a model with a number of other

6.2. Predictive validity Analysis of standardized residuals revealed no deviation from normality or multicollinearity (VIFs < 1.50). Regression results show that both PMI Consumer (β = 0.40 [t = 8.19], p < 0.001) and PMI Organization (β = 0.18 [t = 3.78], p < 0.001) impact social environmentalism. We find similar results for environmental citizenship (PMI Consumer: β = 0.24 [t = 4.68], p < 0.001; PMI Organization β = 0.25 [t = 4.88], p < 0.001). Results were confirmed by a twofactor correlated (r = 0.53) AMOS model: social environmentalism: PMI Consumer (β = 0.50, p < 0.001) and PMI Organization (β = 0.15, p < 0.001); environmental citizenship: PMI Consumer (β = 0.30, p < 0.001) and PMI Organization (β = 0.27, p < 0.001). Hierarchical linear regression (HLR) models again confirm that PMI is a factor adding to the predictive validity of other efficacy-based constructs. After controlling for the same factors as Study 2 and the new measure of trait optimism, the data show that the factors of EC, PCE, SE, and CE (VIFs < 1.40) contribute a to a significant change in variance explained in predicting social environmentalism (ΔR2 = 0.25 [F (4406) = 36.89], p < 0.001). The data further show that the inclusion of PMI Consumer (β = 0.29 [t = 5.97], p < 0.001; semipartial r = 0.23) and PMI Organization (β = 0.13 [t = 2.95], p < 0.01; semipartial r = 0.11) also produce a positive and significant change in R2 from these efficacy-based factors (ΔR2 = 0.11 [F (4406) = 37.54], p < 0.001) for a total variance explained of R2 = 0.42. As expected, the final regression model including all factors significantly predicted social environmentalism (F (13, 404) = 22.55, p < 0.001). See Table 4. We find similar results for environmental citizenship, with the EC, PCE, SE, and CE accounting for a 0.17 change in variance explained (ΔR2 = 0.17 [F (4406) = 23.18], p < 0.001) from the control variables. The addition of the PMI to the regression model also produce a significant (ΔR2 = 0.08 [F (2404) = 24.78], p < 0.001) change in 84

Journal of Business Research 79 (2017) 79–89

R. Bret Leary et al.

Table 4 Study 3 HLR results.

Variable Gender Age Education Race Marital status Income Optimism EC PCE CE SE PMI consumer PMI organization

Modela 1 β (S.E.) − 0.09 (0.10) − 0.17 (0.03)⁎⁎ 0.04 (0.03) 0.08 (0.05) 0.20 (0.07)⁎⁎⁎ 0.11 (0.05)⁎ − 0.01 (0.06)

Modela 1 Model statistic df (7,410) F – value 3.93 F – change 3.93 R2 0.06 2 ΔR 0.06 ΔR2 Sig. p < 0.001 PMI consumer semipartial r PMI organization semipartial r

2 β (S.E.) − 0.08 (0.10) − 0.13 (0.03)⁎ − 0.01 (0.03) 0.06 (0.05) 0.18 (0.07)⁎⁎⁎ 0.14 (0.04)⁎ − 0.01 (0.06) 0.32 (0.05)⁎⁎⁎ 0.05 (0.03) 0.16 (0.04)⁎⁎⁎ 0.04 (0.05)

3 β (S.E.) − 0.07 (0.09) − 0.07 (0.03) − 0.02 (0.03) 0.07 (0.04) 0.16 (0.06)⁎⁎⁎ 0.14 (0.04)⁎ 0.01 (0.05) 0.22 (0.05)⁎⁎⁎ 0.08 (0.03) 0.15 (0.04)⁎⁎ 0.005 (0.05) 0.16 (0.05)⁎⁎ 0.21 (0.04)⁎⁎⁎

2

3

(11,406) 11.47 23.18 0.24 0.17 p < 0.001

Variable Gender Age Education Race Marital status Income Optimism EC PCE CE SE PMI consumer PMI organization

Modelb 1 β (S.E.) − 0.06 (0.10) − 0.26 (03)⁎⁎⁎ − 0.01 (0.03) 0.06 (0.05) 0.17 (0.07) ⁎ 0.01 (0.05) − 0.01 (0.06)

Modelb 1 Model statistic df (7,410) F – value 3.94 F – change 3.94 R2 0.06 2 ΔR 0.06 ΔR2 Sig. p < 0.001 PMI consumer semipartial r PMI organization semipartial r

(13,404) 14.66 24.78 0.32 0.08 p < 0.001 r = 0.13 r = 0.18

2 β (S.E.) − 0.08 (0.09) − 0.21 (0.03)⁎⁎ − 0.05 (0.03) 0.04 (0.04) 0.14 (0.06)⁎⁎ 0.05 (0.04) 0.03 (0.05) 0.33 (0.04)⁎⁎⁎ − 0.07 (0.03) 0.20 (0.04)⁎⁎⁎ 0.13 (0.05)⁎⁎

3 β (S.E.) − 0.05 (0.08) − 0.13 (0.03)⁎⁎ − 0.06 (0.03) 0.06 (0.04) 0.11 (0.06)⁎ 0.05 (0.04) 0.07 (0.05) 0.22 (0.04)⁎⁎⁎ − 0.03 (0.03) 0.16 (0.04)⁎⁎⁎ 0.09 (0.04)⁎ 0.29 (0.04)⁎⁎⁎ 0.13 (0.04)⁎⁎

2

3

(11,406) 16.80 36.89 0.31 0.25 p < 0.001

(13,404) 22.55 37.54 0.42 0.11 p < 0.001 r = 0.23 r = 0.11

a

Dep. Variable: Environmental Citizenship. Dep. Variable: Social Environmentalism. ⁎ Sig: p < 0.05. ⁎⁎ Sig: p < 0.01. ⁎⁎⁎ Sig: p < 0.001. b

variance explained for a total variance explained of R2 = 0.32. Both PMI Consumer (β = 0.16 [t = 3.08], p < 0.05; semipartial r = 0.13) and PMI Organization (β = 0.21 [t = 4.29], p < 0.001; semipartial r = 0.18) positively contributed to this addition in variance. The final regression model containing all predictor variables was significant (F (13, 404) = 14.66, p < 0.001; Table 4). Thus across two studies and three outcomes, we find the two PMI components significantly predict environmental behavior both in isolation and in addition to related efficacy-based constructs.

[t = 9.34]; p < 0.001) rather than low (β = 0.42 [t = 8.44]; p < 0.001). These findings provide preliminary evidence that when consumers are skeptical of marketing activities, they might be more likely to believe in their ability to influence others through environmental action. 7. Discussion and conclusion Across three studies, we develop a valid and reliable instrument for the two dimensions of PMI (PMI Consumer and PMI Organization) and demonstrate PMI's importance in explaining consumer behavior. Taken together, these studies provide evidence that perceived marketplace influence acts as a “gate-keeping” belief for environmental actions in the marketplace. When consumers hold this situation-specific belief, they feel that their actions help solve environmental challenges by inspiring collective effort. The present work provides a number of theoretical and managerial contributions. Using the present research as a springboard, perceived marketplace influence presents an opportunity to reconsider efficacyrelated beliefs more generally. In light of a growing emphasis on evolutionary underpinnings of social and consumption behavior (Griskevicius et al., 2012; Kenrick et al., 2003), social motivations for behavior may largely rely on perceptions of influence. Bearing this in mind, PMI may be part of larger constellation of perceived influence beliefs that provide promising direction for additional theory explaining behaviors within organizations, relationships, and collective efforts. More specific to marketing theory, perceived marketplace influence extends and reasserts the centrality of beliefs to consumer behavior. PMI, as a situation-specific belief, assists in explaining and predicting if and what consumers will do when enacting their values. While distinct from other efficacy-based beliefs, PMI remains a complement to, rather than replacement for, existing efficacy-related beliefs. Different situations in the marketplace likely tap into a wide variety of efficacy-related beliefs in directing action. However, when investigating issues where

6.3. Moderation analysis In this study we also test for the impact of consumer skepticism on PMI. As a marketplace belief, consumer skepticism of marketing entails a general tendency toward disbelief of marketing claims and implicitly reveals one's perspective of how the marketplace operates (Obermiller and Spangenberg, 1998). Given that skeptical consumers are distrustful of the motives of marketers and the practices used to reach consumers, it is possible that they differ in their likelihood to believe in and utilize their perceived influence over other marketplace actors. Thus, we test for its potential moderating effect between PMI and social behavior. Using the Process macro with bias corrected confidence intervals (Hayes, 2013), we find skepticism provides moderating influence between PMI and environmental citizenship (β = 0.13 [t = 3.94], p < 0.001; 95% CI: 0.07, 0.20), with a significant addition to variance explained (ΔR2 = 0.03 [F (3403) = 15.54], p < 0.001). Consumer skepticism also moderates the relationship between PMI and social environmentalism at a marginally significant level (β = 0.06 [t = 1.81], p < 0.1; 95% CI: − 0.005, 0.12) while adding to the variance explained (ΔR2 = 0.01 [F (3403) = 3.28], p < 0.1). Additional analysis of the environmental citizenship moderation shows a stronger effect size for those high in consumer skepticism (β = 0.57 [t = 9.21]; p < 0.001) than those low in skepticism (β = 0.27 [t = 5.17]; p < 0.001). We find similar results for social environmentalism, with a greater effect size for those high in consumer skepticism (β = 0.55 85

Journal of Business Research 79 (2017) 79–89

R. Bret Leary et al.

predicting behavior. While the contexts of environmentally-friendly and socially-motivated behavior offer a useful starting point, research exploring different arenas for marketplace actions like brand loyalty and engagement in brand communities would assist in furthering the case for the generalizability of PMI's effects. Though we begin to explore the boundary conditions of PMI by introducing consumer skepticism, research should further examine the relationship between other marketplace beliefs and perceived influence. For instance, the domain specificity of one's perceived influence implies that other factors like product/domain category knowledge and involvement might attenuate the tendency for one to engage in behavior (Packard and Wooten, 2013), while also negatively influencing the expected outcome of the behavior. Future research can be used to discover other factors impacting the relationship between perceived influence and behavior. Finally, this research recognizes that PMI is a two-dimensional construct, but leaves open the question of whether (or how) the two dimensions of PMI distinctly influence behavior. While our evidence largely supports PMI as important in the explanation and prediction of ethical consumption, differing contexts and outcomes may show unique effects for one's perception of influence on other consumers or organizations. For example, the results of both Studies 2 and 3 suggest that, though correlated, the effects of the subscales may differ depending on context. These interesting findings should be further explored to determine under what contexts perceived influence on other consumers (or organizations) provides greater motivation for behavior. Such knowledge would enhance the ability of marketers to target specific consumers on the basis of their perceived influence. Further, direct comparison of ethical consumption contexts along theoretical lines (personal vs. public [Ratner and Kahn, 2002]; routine vs. novel [Moreau et al., 2001]; firm-produced vs. co-creation [Payne et al., 2008]) may also yield a clearer picture of the varying effects of the two dimensions of PMI. In sum, this research provides greater understanding of the motivations underlying consumer behavior, especially when facing collective challenges where a single consumer may rightfully question, “Why bother?” Reflecting on this question, journalist Michael Pollan shared the following (Pollan, 2008, p. 18): “…if you do bother, you will set an example for other people. If enough people bother, each one influencing yet another in a chain reaction of behavioral change, those who did change the way they live would…demand changes in behavior from others: from other people, other corporations…” (emphasis added). PMI mirrors the motivating power of influence captured in Pollan's sentiment. Individuals who care enough about societal issues and believe in the power of their actions to change the behavior of others act upon this belief. By advancing the conversation of environmental consumption, perceived marketplace influence provides a new lens for assessing and encouraging behavior that contributes to solving, rather than deepening, challenges facing our world today.

collective efforts are essential to resolving a problem, the belief of influence on others becomes a particularly vital belief to explore and understand. Interestingly, this belief reflects a personal perception of influence, rather than an objective assessment. If a consumer believes their actions influence others, our findings suggest that such a belief motivates action. From a managerial standpoint, the results of Study 2 suggest that perceived marketplace influence may become an important tool for understanding market size and behavior for ethical product and service offerings. Profiling customer segments with PMI patterns should assist in better anticipating actual marketplace behavior for segments previously identified as likely adopters of environmentally-friendly and ethical products (Ginsberg and Bloom, 2004). Specifically, this perceived influence provides an important segmentation tool for marketers operating in environmental and ethical consumption domains by allowing them to understand and target consumers more likely to utilize their products or attempt to recruit others in environmental or ethically-motivated efforts. This implication is important, given the low market share for ethical products compared to their alternatives. Indeed, even in light of increasing awareness, the sales of ethical products still represent a small fraction of overall demand for consumer goods (Luchs et al., 2010). By tapping into the perceived influence of a target market through PMI-relevant communications, organizations might be able to increase the likelihood that consumers follow through on their ethical attitudes with corresponding behavior. Additionally, the results of Study 3 speak to the social nature of perceived influence by showing that consumers high in perceived influence are not only more likely to engage in environmental behavior themselves, but also to participate in environmental causes and encourage others to do the same. This finding is especially important for environmental organizations that have fewer marketing resources and thus rely on the generosity of consumers to build support for their cause. The current research suggests that, by first gaining the backing of donors high in perceived influence, such organizations can enhance their opportunity of attracting like-minded individuals in support of a cause through the social influence generated by those high in PMI. Taken together, the findings of this research provide a clearer perspective of the impact of PMI on both personal and social environmental behavior. Beyond its contributions, this work also contains some limitations that point to useful avenues for further research. First, we focus on efficacy-related, situation-specific beliefs for benchmarking the predictive validity of PMI. While appropriate for establishing the validity of PMI, further work should look beyond efficacy-related beliefs and compare perceived marketplace influence to other situation-specific beliefs such as those operationalized in the motivation-opportunityability framework (Gruen et al., 2007; MacInnis et al., 1991). Taking these additional beliefs into account may offer greater insight into situational factors influencing when PMI best helps to explain behavior. Future work should also include the PMI measures from Leary et al. (2014) to properly establish the new measure's effectiveness in Appendix 1. Items and means (standard deviations)

Construct and item

PMI consumer My behavior guides other individuals to act in a similar manner I feel what I do sways what others around me do What I choose to do or say impacts what other consumers choose to do My behavior will not cause other consumers to act similarly (RC) 86

Study 1 μ (S.D)

Study 2 μ (S.D)

Study 3 μ (S.D)

4.02 (1.49) 4.01 (1.45) 3.89 (1.48) 4.26

3.81 (1.50) 3.59 (1.49) 3.67 (1.49) 3.46

4.46 (1.47) 4.27 (1.46) 4.21 (1.51) 3.88

Journal of Business Research 79 (2017) 79–89

R. Bret Leary et al.

(1.54) 3.95 (1.49)

(1.39) 3.72 (1.53)

(1.55) 4.41 (1.50)

4.85 (1.34) 4.91 (1.34) 4.77 (1.42) 4.80 (1.36) 4.93 (1.29)

4.63 (1.41) 4.42 (1.47) 4.65 (1.41) 4.61 (1.42) 4.70 (1.31)

4.49 (1.58) 3.93 (1.61) 4.03 (1.64) 4.33 (1.58) 3.86 (1.61)

Environmental concern (EC; Leary et al., 2014) Individuals should balance what is in their own interest with what is in the best interest of the environment and 5.49 society (1.15) Individuals should consider the environment as one of their stakeholders when making decisions 5.38 (1.23) Individuals need to make decisions that account for the earth's physical and social limits 5.41 (1.34) Those whose actions have the greatest environmental impact bear the greatest responsibility for protecting the 5.89 environment (1.20)

5.33 (1.34) 5.26 (1.29) 5.26 (1.33) 5.58 (1.29)

5.41 (1.37) 5.49 (1.25) 5.52 (1.30) 5.60 (1.34)

4.67 (1.68) 4.23 (1.80) 5.50 (1.41) 4.63 (1.41)

4.78 (1.68) 4.31 (1.79) 5.46 (1.49) 4.72 (1.42)

5.14 (1.39) 4.50 (1.38) 4.41 (1.55)

5.25 (1.34) 4.49 (1.36) 4.63 (1.40)

5.32 (1.14) 5.11 (1.19) 5.35 (1.11) 5.34 (1.13) 5.27 (1.17) 5.41 (1.11) 5.23 (1.16) 5.25 (1.17)

5.32 (1.24) 5.30 (1.22) 5.47 (1.18) 5.47 (1.25) 5.35 (1.22) 5.47 (1.20) 5.24 (1.26) 5.41 (1.23)

I know that my behavior motivates others to act similarly PMI organization I feel what I buy encourages companies to make and sell environmentally friendly products My behavior does not guide organizations to provide similar products (RC) What I do influences the actions of a company The choices I make persuade companies to offer specific products to consumers My behavior causes companies to change their product offerings and corporate practices

Perceived consumer effectiveness (PCE; Roberts, 1996 and Ellen et al., 1991) There is not much any one individual can do about the environment (RC) The conservation efforts of one person are useless as long as other people refuse to conserve (RC) It is worthless for any one individual to do anything about pollution (RC) I try to consider how the products I buy will affect the environment and other consumers Collective efficacy (CE; Illia et al., 2011) As a society we… …will be able to solve the most difficult environmental problems if we are committed …will be able to manage environmental issues since we depend on the help of others …will be able to manage whatever environmental problems come our way Self-efficacy (SE; Chen et al., 2001) When it comes to solving environmental problems… …I will be able to achieve most of the goals that I have set for myself …when facing difficult tasks, I am certain that I will accomplish them …in general, I think that I can obtain outcomes that are important to me …I believe that I can succeed at most any endeavor to which I set my mind …I will be able to successfully overcome many challenges …I am confident that I can perform effectively on many different tasks …compared to other people, I can do most tasks very well …even when things are tough, I can perform quite well Eco-conscious buyer behavior (Roberts, 1996) When there is a choice, I always choose the product that contributes the least amount of pollution I have switched brands or products for environmental reasons I make every effort to buy paper products made from recycled paper

87

5.34 (1.60) 4.96 (1.78) 5.92 (1.22) 4.61 (1.51)

4.59 (1.57) 4.55 (1.66) 4.49 (1.68)

Journal of Business Research 79 (2017) 79–89

R. Bret Leary et al.

I make a conscious effort to limit my use of products that are made of or use scarce resources I try not to buy products that have excessive packaging Whenever possible, I buy products packaged in reusable containers I usually weight the price of a product against its environmental impact When I have a choice between two equal products, I always purchase the one less harmful to other people and the environment I try only to buy products that can be recycled If I understand the potential damage to the environment that some products can cause, I do not purchase these products I try not to buy household products that harm the environment Consumer skepticism (adapted from Obermiller and Spangenberg, 1998) The goal of marketing is to inform the consumer I can depend on marketers to tell the truth I believe the information consumers receive about the quality and performance of products to be generally reliable I feel like I am accurately informed after viewing marketing material on products I generally believe the news when I hear reports about companies concerned about the well-being of the environment and society I believe companies typically tell the truth to consumers when they report on their environmentally-friendly practices I feel that most companies follow a high ethical standard Social environmentalism I talk to others about the benefits of purchasing and using more environmentally friendly products and services I share with others about brands, companies, and organizations that I feel make a difference on environmental issues I discuss my opinions with others about brands, companies, and organizations that harm the environment I describe to others tips and tricks to make it easier to be environmentally friendly products and use products more sustainably I participate in groups and movements encouraging others to purchase more environmentally friendly products and services I encourage others to support groups and movements that advocate for more environmentally friendly corporate practices I share my views on purchasing and using environmentally friendly products and services with people younger and older than me Environmental citizenship I participate in the political process to encourage more environmentally friendly rules and regulations in my community I vote in elections to support more environmentally-sensitive candidates and environmentally friendly laws I participate in petitions or letter-writing campaigns to encourage political leaders and companies to support more environmentally friendly laws and regulations I donate money to support causes and movements that advocate for more environmentally-friendly corporate practices I donate time to support causes and movements that advocate for more environmentally-friendly corporate practices

4.60 (1.57) 4.16 (1.60) 4.82 (1.60) 4.16 (1.55) 4.85 (1.52) 4.28 (1.62) 4.90 (1.37) 4.20 (1.57) 4.71 (1.77) 3.06 (1.52) 4.03 (1.42) 3.88 (1.31) 4.03 (1.41) 3.91 (1.47) 3.85 (1.51) 2.78 (1.16) 2.89 (1.18) 2.84 (1.18) 2.74 (1.18) 2.26 (1.16) 2.64 (1.19) 2.75 (1.21) 2.35 (1.24) 3.01 (1.34) 2.17 (1.23) 2.23 (1.17) 2.17 (1.17)

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Alexandrov, A., Lilly, B., & Babakus, E. (2013). The effects of social- and self-motives on the intentions to share positive and negative word of mouth. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 41, 531–546. Bamberg, S. (2003). How does environmental concern influence specific environmentally related behaviors? A new answer to an old question. Journal of Environmental

References Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211. Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior.

88

Journal of Business Research 79 (2017) 79–89

R. Bret Leary et al.

Changing the marketplace one behavior at a time: Perceived marketplace influence and sustainable consumption. Journal of Business Research, 67(9), 1953–1958. Luchs, M. G., Naylor, R. W., Irwin, J. R., & Raghunathan, R. (2010). The sustainability liability: Potential negative effects of ethicality on product preference. Journal of Marketing, 74, 18–31. MacInnis, D. J., Moorman, C., & Jaworski, B. J. (1991). Enhancing and measuring consumers' motivation, opportunity, and ability to process brand information from ads. Journal of Marketing, 55, 32–53. Moreau, P., Markman, A. B., & Lehmann, D. R. (2001). “What is it?” categorization flexibility and consumers' responses to really new products. Journal of Consumer Research, 27, 489–498. Napoli, J., Dickinson, S. J., Beverland, M. B., & Farrelly, F. (2014). Measuring consumerbased brand authenticity. Journal of Business Research, 67, 1090–1098. Obermiller, C., & Spangenberg, E. R. (1998). Development of a scale to measure consumer skepticism toward advertising. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 7, 159–186. Obermiller, C., Spangenberg, E. R., & MacLachlan, D. L. (2005). Ad skepticism: The consequences of disbelief. Journal of Advertising, 34, 7–17. Packard, G., & Wooten, D. B. (2013). Compensatory knowledge signaling in consumer word-of-mouth. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 23, 434–450. Paolacci, G., & Chandler, J. (2014). Inside the Turk: Understanding Mechanical Turk as a participant pool. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23, 184–188. Payne, A. F., Storbacka, K., & Frow, P. (2008). Managing the co-creation of value. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36, 83–96. Peattie, K. (2010). Green consumption: Behavior and norms. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 35, 195–228. Pollan, M.. Why bother. (2008). www.nytimes.com/2008/4/20/magazine/20wwln-lede-t. html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 (Accessed 12.1.15). Ratner, R. K., & Kahn, B. E. (2002). The impact of private versus public consumption on variety-seeking behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 29, 246–257. Roberts, J. A. (1996). Green consumers in the 1990s: Profile and implications for advertising. Journal of Business Research, 36, 217–231. Scheier, M. F., Carver, C. S., & Bridges, M. W. (1994). Distinguishing optimism from neuroticism (and trait anxiety, self-mastery, and self-esteem): A re-evaluation of the life orientation test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 1063–1078. Schunk, D. H., & Usher, E. L. (2012). Social cognitive theory and motivation. In R. M. Ryan (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Human Motivation (pp. 13–27). Oxford University Press. Skarmeas, D., & Leonidou, C. N. (2013). When consumers doubt, watch out! The role of CSR skepticism. Journal of Business Research, 66, 1831–1838. Stern, P. C. (2000). Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 407–424. Sundaram, D. S., Mitra, K., & Webster, C. (1998). Word-of-mouth communications: A motivational analysis. Advances in Consumer Research, 25, 527–531. Vanhamme, J., & Grobben, B. (2009). “Too good to be true!” the effectiveness of CSR history in countering negative publicity. Journal of Business Ethics, 85, 273–283. Zhao, X., Lynch, J. G., Jr., & Chen, Q. (2010). Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and truths about mediation analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 37 (197–20).

Psychology, 23, 21–32. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman. Bandura, A. (2000). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9(3), 75–78. Bearden, W. O., Netemeyer, R. G., & Teel, J. E. (1989). Measurement of consumer susceptibility to interpersonal influence. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(4), 139–168. Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2011). Amazon's Mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 3–5. Chen, G., Gully, S. M., & Eden, D. (2001). Validation of a new general self-efficacy scale. Organizational Research Methods, 4, 62–83. Dunning, D. (2007). Self-motives and consumer behavior: How sancrosanct self-beliefs sway preferences in the marketplace. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 17, 237–249. Ellen, P. S., Weiner, J. L., & Cobb-Walgren, C. (1991). The role of perceived consumer effectiveness in motivating environmentally conscious behavior. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 10, 102–117. Ertz, M., Karakas, F., & Sarigöllü, E. (2016). Exploring pro-environmental behaviors of consumers: An analysis of contextual factors, attitudes, and behaviors. Journal of Business Research, 69(10), 3971–3980. Ginsberg, J. M., & Bloom, P. N. (2004). Choosing the right green marketing strategy. MIT Sloan Management Review, 46, 79–84. Goodman, J. K., Cryder, C. E., & Cheema, A. (2012). Data collection in a flat world: The strengths and weaknesses of Mechanical Turk samples. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 26, 213–224. 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, 115–128. Gruen, T. W., Osmonbekov, T., & Czaplewski, A. J. (2007). Customer-to-customer exchange: Its MOA antecedents and its impact on value creation and loyalty. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 35, 537–549. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2006). In U. Saddle (Ed.), Multivariate analysis(6th ed.). River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc. Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York: The Guilford Press. Hernandez, M. (2008). Promoting stewardship in organizations: A leadership model. Journal of Business Ethics, 80, 121–128. Homer, P. M., & Kahle, L. R. (1988). A structural equation test of the value-attitudebehavior hierarchy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 638–646. Hunsley, J., & Meyer, G. J. (2003). The incremental validity of psychological testing and assessment: Conceptual, methodological, and statistical issues. Psychological Assessment, 15, 446–455. Illia, L., Bónaiuto, M., Pugliese, E., & van Rekom, J. (2011). Managing membership threats through collective efficacy. Journal of Business Research, 64, 631–639. Kenny, D. A., Kaniskan, B., & McCoach, D. B. (2015). The performance of RMSEA in models with small degrees of freedom. Sociological Methods & Research, 44, 486–507. Kenrick, D. T., Li, N. P., & Butner, J. (2003). Dynamical evolutionary psychology: Individual decision rules and emergent social norms. Psychological Review, 110, 3–28. Leary, R. B., Vann, R. J., Mittelstaedt, J. D., Murphy, P. E., & Sherry, J. F., Jr. (2014).

89