An Examination of the Values That Motivate Socially Conscious and Frugal Consumer Behaviours Miriam Pepper1, Tim Jackson1 and David Uzzell2

International Journal of Consumer Studies ISSN 1470-6423

An examination of the values that motivate socially conscious and frugal consumer behaviours Miriam Pepper1, Tim Jackson1 and David Uzzell2

1Centre for Environmental Strategy, University of Surrey, UK 2Department of Psychology, University of Surrey, UK

Keywords Abstract Consumer behaviour, frugality, sustainable consumption, values. This article extends social psychological research on the motivations for sustainable consumption from the predominant domain of ecologically conscious consumer behaviour Correspondence: Tim Jackson, Centre for to socially conscious and frugal consumer behaviours. A UK-based survey study examines Environmental Strategy, University of Surrey, relationships between socially conscious and frugal consumer behaviours and Schwartz’s Guildford, Surrey GU2 7XH, UK. value types, personal and socio-political materialism, and demographics among the general E-mail: [email protected] public. Socially conscious consumer behaviour, like its ecological counterpart, appears to be an expression of pro-social values. In contrast, frugal consumer behaviour relates doi: 10.1111/j.1470-6431.2009.00753.x primarily to low personal materialism and income constraints. As such, it does not yet represent a fully developed moral challenge to consumerism.

Introduction behaviour (Roberts, 1993). This is consumer behaviour undertaken with the intention of having a positive (or less negative) ‘Sustainable consumption’ as a discourse, a field of enquiry and a effect on other people, and relates to issues such as labour rights course of action, has arisen within a context of growing awareness and the impacts of businesses on the communities in which they of the ecological limitations on human activity. Sustainable con- operate (e.g. Cowe and Williams, 2000). sumption is a broad and contested concept that concerns the inter- Key to sustainable consumption debates is the extent to which action of social and ecological issues such as environmental sustainability requires consuming less or merely consuming ‘dif- protection, human needs, quality of life, and intra-generational ferently’ (Jackson and Michaelis, 2003, p. 15). Aside from the and inter-generational equity (see Jackson and Michaelis, 2003, ecological pressures and growing social inequalities that charac- p. 14 for a range of definitions). Its development marks an expan- terize global consumption, some critics maintain that consumerism sion of the sustainability agenda from production issues like eco- fails to improve human well-being, even for its apparent beneficia- logical efficiency into the realm of consumption and the consumer. ries (e.g. Kasser, 2002). There is evidence that substantial numbers Social scientific research into sustainable consumption has of people in affluent societies are questioning continued consump- become a burgeoning field across many perspectives, including in tion growth, and are choosing to make changes in their lifestyles economics, anthropology, psychology, sociology, human geogra- that entail earning less money (e.g. Schor, 1998; Hamilton, 2003). phy and marketing (for overviews, see e.g. Princen et al., 2002; This opens the way for sustainable consumption research that Reisch and Røpke, 2004; Jackson, 2006b). Considering psycho- examines frugal consumer behaviour, regardless of whether such logical approaches, a large body of research has examined the behaviour is undertaken with pro-social or pro-environmental factors that influence ecologically conscious consumer behaviour, intent. Frugal consumer behaviour (frugality) is defined as the that is, consumer behaviour undertaken with the intention of limiting of expenditures on consumer goods and services, and is having a positive (or less negative) effect on the environment characterized by both restraint in acquiring possessions and (Roberts, 1993). Among these influences, much is now known resourcefulness in using them (Lastovicka et al., 1999). Research about factors and processes considered to be internal to the indi- into more frugal lifestyles is an emerging field, particularly in the vidual (albeit socially acquired and/or influenced), such as world- case of voluntary simplicity (e.g. McDonald et al., 2006). views, values, personal norms, beliefs and attitudes, as well as The aim of this article is to extend psychological research on external forces, for example, social norms, financial incentives the internal motivations for socially conscious and frugal con- and infrastructural constraints (for an overview, see e.g. Jackson, sumer behaviours. These domains are under-researched by com- 2005). Another much smaller, although rapidly growing, body of parison with the domain of ecologically conscious consumer research (e.g. Harrison et al., 2005) concerns a distinct but related behaviour. Yet, such behaviours are key to understanding sustain- form of consumption known as socially conscious consumer able consumption. The article starts with an overview of values as

126 International Journal of Consumer Studies 33 (2009) 126–136 © The Authors Journal compilation © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd M. Pepper et al. Values and sustainable consumer behaviours motivators of consumer behaviour, and refers specifically to Table 1 Motivational value types Schwartz’s value theory and to the particular values of personal Value type Description Example values and socio-political materialism. Next, hypotheses relating socially conscious consumer behaviour and frugal consumer behaviour Power Social status and prestige, control Social power to the values are developed and tested by means of a quantita- or dominance over people and Authority tive UK-based survey of the general public. Finally, the implica- resources tions, limitations and potential extensions of the research are Achievement Personal success through Successful discussed. demonstrating competence Capable according to social standards Hedonism Pleasure and sensuous gratification Pleasure Value theory and consumer behaviour for oneself Enjoying life Stimulation Excitement, novelty and challenge Daring Values provide ‘guides for living the best way possible’ for in life Exciting life individuals, social groups and cultures (Rohan, 2000, p. 263). Self-direction Independent thought and action – Creativity More specifically, values are defined as enduring beliefs that choosing, creating, exploring Freedom pertain to desirable end states or behaviours, transcend specific Universalism Understanding, appreciation, Social justice situations, guide selection or evaluation of behaviour and events, tolerance and protection for the Protecting the and are ordered by importance (Schwartz and Bilsky, 1987, welfare of all people and for environment p. 551). Individuals are understood to acquire values through nature socialization and learning experiences (e.g. Rokeach, 1973, Benevolence Preservation and enhancement of Helpful pp. 23–24), and the particular relevance of values to ecologically the welfare of people with Forgiving conscious consumer behaviour is said to be because of the nature whom one is in frequent of environmental issues as ‘social dilemmas’, where short-term personal contact narrow individual interests conflict with the longer term social Tradition Respect, commitment and Humble interest (e.g. Osbaldiston and Sheldon, 2002). Accordingly, acceptance of the customs and Devout researchers have consistently demonstrated the importance of ideas that traditional culture or values that transcend selfishness and promote the welfare of religion provide others (including nature) for this behavioural domain (e.g. Karp, Conformity Restraint of actions, inclinations Politeness 1996; Stern et al., 1999; Milfont et al., 2006). While most of and impulses likely to upset or Obedient these studies are correlational, the presumption that causality harm others and violate social proceeds predominantly from values through to behaviour is expectations or norms given support by Thøgerson and Ölander’s (2002) longitudinal Security Safety, harmony and stability of National security society, of relationships and of Social order study. self Values are fairly distal influences on consumer behaviour; their impact is mediated and moderated by factors such as worldviews, Adapted from Schwartz (1994, p. 22). personal norms, the self-concept, attitudes, and situational or con- textual influences (see Rohan, 2000 for an overview). As such, the predictive power of values for ecologically conscious consumer In terms of the content of human values, the theory specifies 10 behaviour is often low, ranging between just a few percent (e.g. motivational value types (see Table 1), which are operationalized Thøgerson and Grunert-Beckmann, 1997) up to approximately by a battery of 56 or 57 individual values contained in the 20% (e.g. Karp, 1996). This so-called ‘value-action gap’ (Verplan- Schwartz Value Survey (SVS). The value structure (i.e. the set of ken and Holland, 2002) does not, however, invalidate the use of relationships between values) is theoretically grounded in the value theory for understanding behavioural motivations. Ignoring compatibility of and conflicts between values. Multidimensional mediating and moderating constructs is justified when examining scaling of respondents’ ratings of the importance of the values more general patterns of behaviour, and is helpful for a first yields a circular structure known as a circumplex (see Fig. 1). approximation and for reasons of parsimony (Thøgerson and Value types whose pursuit is compatible appear adjacent in the Ölander, 2002, pp. 608–609). Furthermore, when comparing dif- circumplex, whereas conflicting values appear opposite each ferent types of behaviour, the relative strengths of the influence of other. The polarities of the axes of the circumplex denote four values can be compared. higher order value types. The first dimension is openness to change (consisting of self-direction, stimulation and hedonism) vs. conservation (consisting of security, conformity and tradition), Schwartz’s value theory relating to the conflict between the motivation for people to follow Shalom Schwartz’s (1992, 1994) theory of universal aspects of the their own interests in unpredictable directions, and the motivation content and structure of human values represents a significant to preserve the status quo and the certainty it provides in relation- advance on previous value theories, enabling the systematic study ships with others. Self-enhancement (power, achievement and of relationships between the full spectrum of human values and hedonism) and self-transcendence (universalism and benevolence) other constructs such as self-reported behaviour. As such, the form the second dimension, representing the extent to which theory continues to be widely used among psychologists. It has values motivate people to enhance their own interests even at the been empirically validated in at least 65 countries (Schwartz, expense of others, vs. transcending them and promoting the 2003, p. 266). welfare of others (Schwartz, 1992, pp. 43–44).

Self-Transcendence Openness to Change Self- Universalism Direction

Stimulation Benevolence

Hedonism Conformity Tradition

Achievement Security Conservation Power Self-Enhancement

Figure 1 Schwartz value circumplex (adapted from Schwartz, 1994, p. 24).

Because of the pattern of compatibilities and conflicts among understands materialism as a focus on ‘lower order’ needs for values, ‘every hypothesis that specifies the association of one material comfort and physical safety over ‘higher order’ needs for value type with an outside variable has clear implications for the self-expression, affiliation, aesthetic satisfaction and quality of life associations of the other value types as well’ (Schwartz, 1992, (Inglehart, 1990, pp. 66–68). Postmaterialism is the converse of p. 54). In brief, correlations between the priority given to the value materialism. Socio-political materialists view economic growth, types and an outside variable should follow a (roughly) sinusoidal low crime rates and strong national defence as important social pattern. That is, if one commences from the most positively cor- priorities, whereas postmaterialists place greater emphasis on related value type (e.g. universalism, in the case of ecologically freedom of speech, giving people more of a say in government conscious consumer behaviour) and moves around the circumplex, decisions, and enhancing the natural environment. Inglehart (1977, the correlations should decrease to the most negatively correlated 1990) and Inglehart and Welzel (2005) document a large-scale shift value type (power), and increase again as one completes the full in western society from materialist to postmaterialist values over cycle to the most positively correlated type. recent decades. According to Inglehart’s theory, materialist and postmaterialist values are mutually exclusive. However, various other researchers have empirically demonstrated that materialism/ Materialist values postmaterialism may in fact be multidimensional, and that it is The question of consuming less is central to sustainable consump- possible to endorse both types of values simultaneously (e.g. Bean tion debates, whether framed as individuals’ choices to downshift and Papadakis, 1994; Braithwaite et al., 1996). or a societal focus on curbing economic growth. Consequently, Theoretical consideration and empirical research suggest that an examination of the motivational importance of specific (anti-) personal and socio-political materialism relate somewhat differ- materialist values for socially conscious and frugal consumer ently to the SVS (e.g. compare the results of Richins and behaviours is warranted. Dawson, 1992, Sharpe, 1999 and Burroughs and Rindfleisch, Research on materialist values has followed two strands. The 2002 with Braithwaite et al., 1996 and Wilson, 2005). In addi- first is concerned with personal values, that is, with values that tion, socio-political materialism and postmaterialism do not ap- relate to an individual’s own behaviour and goals (Mueller and pear to be directly opposed on the value circumplex (Zavestoski, Wornhoff, 1990). Richins and Dawson’s (1992) and Richins’ 1998). Personal materialism aligns along the self-enhancement– (2004) Material Values Scale (MVS) is the most widely used self-transcendence dimension, correlating most positively with construct of ‘personal materialism’ (Ahuvia and Wong, 2002), and power and most negatively with universalism. In comparison, is defined as ‘the importance ascribed to the ownership and acqui- socio-political materialism is more about maintaining stability sition of material goods in achieving major life goals or desired and the status quo. It is essentially a security value, and aligns states’ (Richins, 2004, p. 10). along both dimensions of the value circumplex; positively with The second strand of materialist values research concerns ‘socio- self-enhancement and conservation values, and negatively with political materialism’ (Ahuvia and Wong, 2002), and employs the self-transcendence and openness to change values. Socio-political notion of social values, that is, the goals an individual holds for postmaterialism is about universalism, and exhibits essentially society (Mueller and Wornhoff, 1990). Sociologist Ronald Ingle- the reverse pattern of correlations with the SVS to personal hart, drawing on Maslow’s hierarchy of needs (Maslow, 1970), materialism.

Study hypotheses and security values, and likewise relating frugality and socio- political materialism. Little research has examined socially conscious consumer behav- These studies suggest that frugal consumption should be posi- iour in the context of social psychological value theory. Nonethe- tively influenced by values along an arc of the Schwartz circum- less, given that such behaviour is directed towards safeguarding plex from conformity and tradition [because of the association of and improving the welfare of others, it should align with the value these values with religiosity (Saroglou et al., 2004)], through self- circumplex in a similar manner to ecologically conscious transcendence values, to self-direction. Clearly, people who value consumer behaviour. Individuals who strongly value self- the enhancement of the self (power, achievement) should be less transcendence values, particularly universalism, and who dis- likely to consume frugally, given that frugality is about self- favour self-enhancement values would be more likely to engage restraint and not self-promotion, and while frugality may foster in socially conscious consumer behaviour. In agreement with this pleasure and enjoyment of the simple things in life [see Soper and hypothesis, Shaw et al. (2005) found that universalism was the Thomas’ (2006) discussion of ‘alternative hedonism’], in a society most important value type involved in fair trade grocery shopping, in which the dominant perception of self-indulgence is associated and Cowe and Williams (2000) found that socio-political postma- with high levels of consumption, hedonism would also be terialists were more likely to report concern about ethical issues expected to relate negatively to frugality. Frugality should be unre- and to buy accordingly. lated to security and to socio-political materialism, however, to the H1: Socially conscious consumer behaviour will align strongly extent that frugality may correlate positively with universalism, it along the self-enhancement–self-transcendence dimension of may also be positively related to socio-political postmaterialism. the value circumplex (positively with self-transcendence values, H5: Frugal consumer behaviour will align along both dimen- and negatively with self-enhancement values) and weakly along sions of the value circumplex, positively with conservation the conservation–openness to change dimension. The most values (except for security) and self-transcendence values, positive correlation will be with universalism. as well as with self-direction, and negatively with self- H2: Socially conscious consumer behaviour will be negatively enhancement values. related to personal materialism. H6: Frugal consumer behaviour will be negatively related to H3: Socially conscious consumer behaviour will be negatively personal materialism. related to socio-political materialism. H7: Frugal consumer behaviour will be unrelated to socio- H4: Socially conscious consumer behaviour will be positively political materialism. related to socio-political postmaterialism. H8: Frugal consumer behaviour will be positively related to In contrast, within an undifferentiated sample, it is more dif- socio-political postmaterialism. ficult to ascertain the value antecedents of frugal consumer To test these hypotheses, selected findings of a UK-based behaviour. If a frugal lifestyle is not voluntarily chosen, then the survey study on religion and sustainable consumer behaviours in relationships with values may be weak. As Tatzel (2002, p. 120) the context of value theory (Pepper, 2007) are now presented. The notes, a ‘non-spender’ lifestyle can be both an adaptation to study included questions on consumer behaviours, values, demo- involuntary poverty as well as a deliberate choice. To that extent, graphics, religion and well-being, however, the results concerning frugality should be expected to reflect income. It is also possible religion and well-being are not relevant to the present article and that, even if freely chosen, similar lifestyle outcomes may are not presented here. express very different purposes and meanings (McDonald et al., 2006). Voluntarily curtailing personal consumption may be Method linked with altruistic motivations for some (e.g. Etzioni, 1998; Shaw and Newholm, 2002). However, research suggests that it is Sample and procedure most often driven by more self-interested desires such as to reduce stress, to achieve more balance in life, to spend more In March and April 2006, 2000 questionnaires were hand- time with family (e.g. Schor, 1998; Hamilton, 2003) and to attain delivered to approximately every second house in six localities in an authentic sense of self (Zavestoski, 2001). In addition, some Woking, a large affluent town (population approximately 90 000) people say they live simply because of their religious beliefs in south-east England. These localities represented a diversity of (Huneke, 2005). Further, striving for self-determination and self- areas in terms of socio-economic classification. sufficiency are also central to the philosophy of voluntary sim- Respondents were informed that they were taking part in an plicity (e.g. Elgin, 1993). anonymous survey study about lifestyles and values, and a prize Empirical work on the value priorities of voluntary simplifiers draw for four £50 gift vouchers was offered as an incentive to indicates that they are more concerned with personal growth, participate. Two hundred and sixty complete and valid question- community interactions, social and environmental issues, and reli- naires were returned, corresponding to a 13% response rate. This gion or spirituality, and less concerned with the importance of is not an atypically low response (see e.g. Frazer and Lawley, work, security, health, financial success and popularity (Craig- 2000, p. 74), and a depressed response rate was also to be expected Lees and Hill, 2002; Brown and Kasser, 2005), and that they in Woking, which is surveyed relatively frequently because of its disfavour personal materialism (Richins and Dawson, 1992) and relative affluence and proximity to a university. socio-political materialism (Zavestoski, 1998). However, frugal There were gender and education biases in the samples. Sixty- consumer behaviour may be positively associated with security six per cent of respondents were female, and 59% held a level four concerns among people who do not voluntarily choose a frugal or five qualification, compared with 27% of the town’s population lifestyle. Thus, there may be opposing processes relating frugality at the time of the 2001 English Census. The mean age of the

Table 2 Standardized confirmatory factor loadings of self-reported consumer behaviour items Schwartz value types Respondents rated the importance of each value in the SVS (a Factor version provided by Schwartz in February 2006), as a guiding Item 12 principle in their life, using a nine-point scale (-1 = opposed to my Socially conscious purchasing values, 0 = not important, 7 = of supreme importance). Ten cases Consider the ethical reputation of businesses 0.81 were excluded through the application of specified screening cri- when you shop teria, and mean-centred scores on indices for the 10 value types Deliberately avoid buying products on the basis of 0.72 were then calculated as directed by Schwartz (1992, 1994, 2005). a company’s unethical behaviour After checking the indices by means of smallest space analysis When clothes shopping, deliberately buy clothes 0.71 (using MicrOsiris Statistical Analysis and Data Management from manufacturers who provide fair working System 9.0, Van Eck Computer Consulting, Derry, PA, USA) and conditions by reliability analysis, two modifications were made. Firstly, Buy bananas with a fair trade label rather than 0.52 because of the absence of a clear tradition type in the smallest without one space analysis plot, and a poor reliability for the index (a = 0.59), Buy tea or coffee with a fair trade label rather than 0.52 a combined conformity–tradition value type was constructed without one (a = 0.74). It consisted of all four conformity values and two of the When buying presents for people, buy them from 0.27 tradition values (‘humble’ and ‘accepting my portion in life’). charity shops or charity catalogues Secondly, substitution of the value ‘healthy’ for ‘reciprocation of Frugal purchasing favours’ in the security value type resulted in improved reliability Buy things without thinking about whether you -0.79 (a = 0.58–0.62). Reliabilities for the value types ranged from 0.62 need them (R) to 0.76, and were consistent with those reported by Schwartz Replace your clothes before they are worn out (R) -0.70 (1992, p. 52). Buy only the things you need 0.67 Purchase something on impulse when out -0.65 shopping (R) Personal materialism Make the things you buy last as long as possible 0.49 Participants indicated their extent of agreement on a five-point Replace household appliances when they are still -0.38 scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree) with the 15 state- functioning (R) ments from the recently improved MVS (Richins, 2004). An (R) indicates reverse scored items. example statement is ‘I admire people who own expensive homes, cars and clothes’. The MVS was constructed as directed by Richins (2004), taking the average score of the component items. The scale demonstrated good reliability (a = 0.84). sample (M = 50 years, SD = 16 years) was very similar to the census figures for the adult population. The median reported Socio-political materialism and annual income was £30 0000–£40 000, as compared with the postmaterialism Neighbourhood Statistics data estimate of approximately £42 200 The 12-item version of Inglehart’s postmaterialism construct, as in 2001–2002. contained in the 1995 and 2000 World Values Survey (World Values Survey, 2006), was used. Example goals are ‘a high level of economic growth’ (materialism) and ‘trying to make our cities and Consumer behaviours countryside more beautiful’ (postmaterialism). However, rather Respondents indicated how often they engaged in 14 consumer than employing Inglehart’s ranking approach, respondents rated behaviours on a seven-point scale (1 = never, 7 = always). Twelve how important they thought each of the 12 goals should be for the of these behaviours were used to form six-item ‘socially con- UK on a five-point scale (1 = not at all important, 5 = extremely scious purchasing’ and ‘frugal purchasing’ scales, by taking the important) (after Bean and Papadakis, 1994). This approach average score of the component items. Details of a preliminary allowed for a factor analysis on all 12 items. Principal axis fac- study on the development of these scales are available upon toring with varimax rotation yielded two factors, corresponding request from the authors. A confirmatory factor analysis on the to materialism and postmaterialism, and explaining 39.8% of scale items (using LISREL 8.71, maximum likelihood method) the variance in the items. The calculated six-item socio-political demonstrated an acceptable fit. All standard fit indices met materialism and postmaterialism scales exhibited good reliabili- Hu and Bentler’s (1999) criteria for measurement models ties (a = 0.78 for both scales) and were moderately correlated [c2(52) = 80.58, P < 0.01, standardized root mean square (r = 0.29, P < 0.001). residual = 0.053, root mean square error of approximation = 0.046, comparative fit index = 0.97, Tucker-Lewis Socially desirable responding index = 0.97]. The scale items and standardized factor loadings are contained in Table 2. The scales displayed good reliability Socially desirable responding (SDR), the tendency to give answers

(asocially conscious purchasing = 0.78, afrugal purchasing = 0.77) and were not sig- that make the respondent look good, is considered one of the niﬁcantly correlated [r = 0.12, not signiﬁcant (NS)]. most pervasive forms of response bias in self-report measures

(Paulhus, 1991, p. 17). Behaviours to do with fulfilling moral and tion (r =-0.17, P < 0.01). IM and frugal purchasing were moder- social responsibilities (e.g. giving to charity) are susceptible to ately correlated (r = 0.26, P < 0.001). The correlations between over-reporting (Sudman and Bradburn, 1982, p. 33). Furthermore, frugal purchasing and values were attenuated somewhat when there is a general lack of research on the effect of SDR on pro- controlling for IM, losing statistical significance in the case of social and pro-environmental consumer behaviour (Mick, 1996, universalism. Thus, there was only partial confirmation of H5. p. 117), although the results of Kaiser et al. (1999) suggest that Regressing the value types on frugal purchasing explained an pro-environmental behaviour may be only marginally susceptible additional 9% of the variance [Fchange(9, 239) = 2.95, P < 0.01]. to SDR. Therefore, a measure of SDR was included in the ques- The impact of benevolence, the strongest predictor (b =-0.23, tionnaire to enable response bias to be partialled from correlations P < 0.01), is interesting, because there was no significant relation- between values and behaviours. The instrument chosen was the ship at the bivariate level, and the regression coefficient was in 12-item short form of the impression management (IM) subscale the opposite direction to that predicted. When other values are of Paulhus’ Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding (D.L. controlled, frugal people value benevolence less, suggesting a Paulhus, unpublished). The scale reliability was adequate connection between frugality and a lack of generosity. (a = 0.66). Materialism Demographics Socially conscious purchasing correlated negatively with the MVS (r =-0.24, P < 0.001), and positively with socio-political postma- Finally, respondents indicated their sex, age (in years), education terialism (r = 0.24, P < 0.001), in accordance with H2 and H4 (highest qualification), marital status, working status and annual respectively. These relationships were retained when controlling gross household income (measured on an 11-point summary scale, for IM. The correlation with socio-political materialism was nega- 0 = £9999 or less, 10 = £100 000 or more). The inclusion of demo- tive but not significant, therefore, H3 was unconfirmed. Addition graphics enabled a comparison of the relationships between values of materialism to the regression added 10% to the variance and consumer behaviour on the one hand, and demographics and explained in socially conscious purchasing [Fchange(3, 245) = 9.31, consumer behaviour on the other. P < 0.001], and postmaterialism was the strongest predictor (b = 0.25, P < 0.001). Both socio-political and personal material- Results ism were weak negative predictors (b =-0.16, P < 0.05 and b =-0.14, P < 0.05 respectively). Zero-order correlations, correlations with IM controlled, and Frugal purchasing was negatively correlated with personal regressions between the consumer behaviours and three sets of materialism (r =-0.37, P < 0.001), and the relationship was independent variables: value types, materialism, and demograph- retained when IM was controlled, thus, supporting H6. Frugal ics, were performed. The correlation analysis (Table 3) was con- purchasing was not significantly correlated with socio-political ducted in order to test H1–8. The regressions (Table 4) indicated materialism or postmaterialism. Thus, H7 was confirmed but not the extent to which the sets of variables predicted consumer behav- H8. The materialism variables increased the variance explained in iours over and above IM. A separate sequential regression was frugal purchasing by 10% [Fchange(3, 245) = 9.59, P < 0.001]. conducted for each set, with IM entering the model first (step 1), followed by the independent variables (step 2A = value types, step Demographics 2B = materialism, step 2C = demographics). Socially conscious purchasing did not relate significantly to any of the demographic variables. Frugal purchasing was negatively Schwartz value types correlated with working (r =-0.24, P < 0.001) and income < Socially conscious purchasing correlated most positively with (r =-0.30, P 0.001), and positively correlated with age (r = 0.28, < universalism (r = 0.37, P < 0.001), positively with benevolence P 0.001). When IM was controlled, the association with gender < (r = 0.19, P < 0.01), and negatively with power (r =-0.20, (female) became significant (r =-0.17, P 0.01). Regressing P < 0.01) and achievement (r =-0.17, P < 0.01) as expected. Of demographics on frugal purchasing explained an additional 16% < the openness to change and conservation value types, only security of the variance [Fchange(6, 242) = 8.28, P 0.001], and income was < was a significant correlate (r =-0.24, P < 0.001). Socially con- the strongest predictor (b =-0.35, P 0.001). Marital status was < scious purchasing was not significantly correlated with IM also a significant predictor (b = 0.20, P 0.01), perhaps reflecting (r = 0.12, NS), and all significant correlations with the values that incomes must stretch further to support a second adult. Finally, types were retained when controlling for IM. Thus, H1 was con- to test whether income depresses the influence of values on frugal- firmed. The value types were relatively strong predictors of ity, income was partialled from the correlations between values socially conscious purchasing, explaining an additional 19% of the and frugal purchasing. However, no enhancement of the correlations was observed, and thus the results are not shown. variance [Fchange(9, 239) = 6.47, P < 0.001]. Universalism was the < strongest predictor (b = 0.33, P 0.001). Discussion and conclusions Frugal purchasing correlated positively with conformity– tradition (r = 0.21, P < 0.001) and universalism (r = 0.14, Review and theoretical significance of P < 0.05) as expected, but not with benevolence or self-direction. our findings Power and hedonism were negative correlates as expected (r =-0.21, P < 0.001 and r =-0.28, P < 0.001 respectively). This study has made a unique contribution to research on the There was also an unexpected negative correlation with stimula- motivations for sustainability-related consumer behaviour by

Table 3 Summary statistics and correlations for study variables

Mean SD 1 1a 22a 34567891011121314151617181920

1 SCP 3.00 1.07 0.78 2 FP 5.19 0.87 0.12 0.77 3 IM 4.52 2.56 0.11 0.26 0.66 4 Universalism 0.52 0.77 0.37 0.36 0.14 0.10 0.16 0.75 5 Benevolence 1.02 0.74 0.19 0.16 0.05 -0.03 0.30 0.09 0.66 6 COTR -0.07 0.87 0.01 -0.02 0.21 0.16 0.23 -0.12 0.24 0.74 7 Security 0.87 0.81 -0.24 -0.24 -0.06 -0.06 -0.01 -0.23 -0.08 0.16 0.62 8 Power -2.36 1.05 -0.20 -0.18 -0.21 -0.15 -0.27 -0.49 -0.44 -0.14 0.04 0.72 9 Achievement -0.20 0.91 -0.17 -0.16 -0.11 -0.09 -0.10 -0.32 -0.22 -0.26 -0.08 0.28 0.69 10 Hedonism -0.61 1.22 -0.12 -0.09 -0.28 -0.20 -0.36 -0.26 -0.39 -0.45 -0.03 0.32 0.25 0.76 11 Stimulation -0.96 1.18 -0.06 -0.04 -0.17 -0.12 -0.19 -0.14 -0.30 -0.46 -0.30 0.14 0.29 0.39 0.69 12 Self-direction 0.32 0.85 -0.06 -0.04 -0.07 -0.04 -0.11 0.22 -0.26 -0.48 -0.26 -0.12 0.10 0.13 0.27 0.65 13 Full MVS 2.51 0.54 -0.24 -0.21 -0.37 -0.32 -0.31 -0.38 -0.34 -0.18 0.23 0.51 0.25 0.38 0.15 0.01 0.84 14 SP MV 3.88 0.54 -0.11 -0.12 0.01 0.01 0.03 -0.17 -0.13 0.19 0.51 0.06 -0.13 -0.07 -0.24 -0.16 0.18 0.78 15 SP PMV 3.81 0.59 0.24 0.22 0.09 0.06 0.13 0.35 0.09 0.05 -0.01 -0.34 -0.22 -0.28 -0.19 0.08 -0.21 0.29 0.78 16 Sex NA NA 0.12 0.11 -0.12 -0.17 0.15 -0.05 0.24 0.03 -0.03 -0.05 -0.13 0.00 -0.10 -0.19 -0.14 -0.02 0.08 NA nentoa ora fCnue Studies Consumer of Journal International 17 Age 49.49 15.47 0.08 0.06 0.28 0.24 0.17 0.20 0.01 0.19 0.24 -0.10 -0.22 -0.33 -0.34 -0.09 -0.13 0.33 0.19 -0.27 NA 18 Marital status NA NA 0.01 0.01 0.08 0.09 -0.03 0.00 -0.07 -0.07 0.03 0.06 0.20 0.03 0.03 0.06 -0.04 -0.09 0.05 -0.05 -0.01 NA 19 Education NA NA 0.06 0.06 -0.03 -0.03 0.03 -0.03 -0.02 -0.14 -0.26 0.07 0.20 0.03 0.14 0.17 -0.09 -0.29 -0.13 -0.01 -0.24 0.13 NA 20 Working status NA NA -0.04 -0.03 -0.24 -0.23 -0.09 -0.19 0.00 -0.11 -0.08 0.09 0.23 0.20 0.15 0.01 0.09 -0.19 -0.14 0.09 -0.49 -0.02 0.12 NA 21 Income 3.84 2.59 -0.06 -0.06 -0.30 -0.30 -0.05 -0.10 0.01 -0.25 -0.04 0.11 0.29 0.15 0.23 0.07 -0.01 -0.14 -0.13 0.08 -0.42 0.38 0.38 0.36

aIndicates IM is partialled from the correlation.

ora oplto 09BakelPbihn Ltd Publishing Blackwell 2009 © compilation Journal SD, standard deviation; IM, impression management; SCP, socially conscious purchasing; FP, frugal purchasing; COTR, conformity–tradition; MVS, material values scale; SP (P)MV, socio-political (post)materialism; SVS, Schwartz Value Survey; NA, not applicable. Demographic variables (except for age and income) were dichotomized as follows: sex (0 = male, 1 = female), marital status (0 = not married, 1 = married/living as married), education (0 = no level 4/5 qualiﬁcation, 1 = level 4/5 qualiﬁcation) and working status (0 = not working, 1 = working). n = 250. The 10 cases excluded during SVS scale construction were excluded from all analyses. Other missing values were imputed by mean substitution (one each on IM, SP MV, age and

33 education; two on SP PMV; and five on income). > < < > < < > < < 20)1616©TeAuthors The © 126–136 (2009) Correlations 0.12 or -0.12 are significant at P 0.05; correlations 0.16 or -0.16 are significant at P 0.01; and correlations 0.21 or -0.21 are significant at P 0.001. Reliability coefficients are on the diagonal. .Pepper M. tal. et M. Pepper et al. Values and sustainable consumer behaviours

Table 4 Summary of sequential regression analysis for values and demographics predicting consumer behaviours

Socially conscious purchasing Frugal purchasing

Beta t-score P-value Beta t-score P-value

Step 1a IM 0.11 1.82 0.07 0.26 4.31 0.00 Step 2A (Schwartz Value Survey)b IM 0.02 0.35 0.73 0.18 2.82 0.01 Universalism 0.33 4.11 0.00 -0.05 -0.59 0.56 Benevolence 0.10 1.29 0.20 -0.23 -2.95 0.00 Conformity–tradition -0.04 -0.44 0.66 0.05 0.54 0.59 Security -0.20 -3.00 0.00 -0.14 -2.04 0.04 Power 0.01 0.08 0.94 -0.21 -2.50 0.01 Achievement -0.06 -0.89 0.37 -0.02 -0.31 0.76 Hedonism 0.02 0.30 0.76 -0.17 -2.26 0.02 Stimulation -0.01 -0.08 0.94 -0.10 -1.37 0.17 Self-direction -0.16 -2.23 0.03 -0.08 -1.07 0.28 Step 2B (materialism)c IM 0.05 0.72 0.47 0.16 2.62 0.01 Full MVS -0.14 -2.12 0.03 -0.34 -5.28 0.00 SP MV -0.16 -2.43 0.02 0.08 1.22 0.23 SP PMV 0.25 3.75 0.00 -0.03 -0.44 0.66 Step 2C (demographics)d IM 0.25 4.22 0.00 Sex -0.10 -1.60 0.11 Age 0.05 0.71 0.48 Marital status 0.20 3.24 0.00 Education 0.09 1.48 0.14 Working status -0.07 -0.98 0.33 Income -0.35 -4.75 0.00 aFor socially conscious purchasing: F = 3.31, R 2 = 0.01, NS; for frugal purchasing: F = 18.60, R 2 = 0.07, P < 0.001. bFor socially conscious purchasing: F = 6.22, R 2 = 0.21, P < 0.001; for frugal purchasing: F = 4.65, R 2 = 0.16, P < 0.001. cFor socially conscious purchasing: F = 7.89, R 2 = 0.11, P < 0.001; for frugal purchasing: F = 12.33, R 2 = 0.17, P < 0.001. dRegression was not conducted for socially conscious purchasing because all zero-order correlations were insigniﬁcant. For frugal purchasing: F = 10.24, R 2 = 0.23, P < 0.001. IM, impression management; MVS, material values scale; SP (P)MV, socio-political (post)materialism; NS, not signiﬁcant. Demographic variables dichotomized as for Table 3. n = 250. The 10 cases excluded during SVS scale construction were excluded from all analyses. Other missing values were imputed as for Table 3.

conducting a systematic survey of the value antecedents of two uncorrelated. The negative relationship between socially con- relatively under-researched behavioural domains, evidencing scious purchasing and personal materialism indicates that socially marked differences between these motivations within the general conscious purchasing is linked somewhat with anti-consumerist public. The particular importance of universalism and socio- motivations on a personal level. In addition, socio-political mate- political postmaterialism for socially conscious purchasing sug- rialism was a negative predictor of socially conscious purchasing, gests that socially conscious consumer behaviour, like its however, its influence was weak, suggesting that socially con- ecological counterpart, is an expression of people’s pro-social and scious purchasing does little to challenge people’s perceptions of pro-environmental values. The reported post-World War II shift the importance of consumption growth at the macro scale. from socio-political materialist to postmaterialist values, which In comparison with socially conscious purchasing, frugal pur- has purportedly led to growing public concern about ‘New Poli- chasing related more strongly (negatively) to personal material- tics’ issues like the environment and gender equality (e.g. Ingle- ism. And although personal materialism relates negatively to hart, 1977, 1990; Inglehart and Welzel, 2005), plays itself out in universalism and to postmaterialism, these latter two values did socially conscious buying choices. Socially conscious consumer not relate significantly to frugal purchasing (in the case of univer- behaviour addresses social justice critiques of consumerism to a salism, once IM was controlled). Frugal purchasing was not degree. However, as defined and operationalized in this research, related to socio-political materialism either, but it was negatively this type of behaviour may, to some extent, be consistent with associated with power. The strongest (negative) predictors of consumerism in that it does not necessarily entail consuming less. frugal purchasing were income and personal materialism. There- Indeed, socially conscious purchasing and frugal purchasing were fore, as has also been reported for voluntary simplicity, ecological

International Journal of Consumer Studies 33 (2009) 126–136 © The Authors 133 Journal compilation © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd Values and sustainable consumer behaviours M. Pepper et al. and social justice considerations do not appear to be the main grounds for complacency. On the basis of the demographic and motivations for frugal consumption among the general public. value antecedents of frugal consumer behaviour, the factors that Frugality is not primarily an ‘ethically conscious’ choice, ‘inten- may most strongly facilitate the adoption of more frugal ways of tionally responsive to social and ecological conditions’ of ‘exces- living seem to be a decrease in personal materialism and/or a sive and unfair consumption and production’, as championed by decrease in household income – whether voluntarily (e.g. down- Nash (2000, p. 169). As such, frugality is yet to be fully developed shifting) or involuntarily (e.g. a recession). Given that values are as a moral challenge to consumerism. purported to be a product (although not exclusively) of socializa- There are some parallels between these findings and social tion, a values shift may take some years. Other options are the psychological research on energy consumption. Household energy development of community discourses that link frugality more use is primarily related to income and household size, rather than strongly with the value priorities of a particular culture or cultural to psychological variables such as pro-environmental attitudes group. In the present case, these include high benevolence, secu- and obligations (Gatersleben et al., 2002; Abrahamse, 2007). As rity and universalism, and low power value priorities. Using other Jensen (2002, p. 171) has noted, ‘environmental awareness in theoretical frameworks, one could also invoke the ways in which everyday life is not achieved through a small consumption of consumption practices may symbolize identification with particu- energy and water, but from demonstrating a respect for the envi- lar social groups (e.g. Dittmar, 1994), and/or simply be socially ronmental agenda, e.g., by buying green products...[making it] normative in particular socio-historical contexts (e.g. Shove, possible for the light saving bulb to give far more social recogni- 2003). For example, Bekin et al. (2007) have examined how, in tion than cancelling the holiday, or moving to a smaller house alternative consumption communities, frugality is valued and col- in the name of the environment, which would instantly stamp lectively facilitated and promulgated, even to the point of serving the family as “sanctimonious” or “strange” ’. Likewise, Connolly as a means of social distinction. and Prothero (2003) found that consumers understand pro- While it may be possible for shifts such as these to occur more environmental activities in terms of practices such as recycling and broadly than just among the radical few, in a culture in which purchasing green products, and not in terms of reducing levels of people are perhaps more reliant than ever before on consumption consumption. Lastovicka et al. (1999) and Fujii (2006) also found for the fulfilment of various social and psychological goals (e.g. that resource-saving behaviours were predicted by positive atti- Jackson, 2006a), the barriers to negotiating such changes in tudes towards frugality rather than by environmental concern. meaning are marked. As Campbell (1994, p. 518) has noted, ‘consumerism probably reflects the moral nature of contemporary existence as much as any other widespread moral practice; signifi- Limitations and future research cant change here would therefore require no minor adjustment to The low response rate and the educational bias in the sample our way of life, but the transformation of our entire civilization’. In notwithstanding, confirmation of the majority of the study hypoth- the final analysis, in a world of finite limits, sustainability may eses gives confidence in the findings of the research. Further well entail forced or voluntary restraints on consumption. Explor- studies with a broader range of respondents would build confi- ing the motivational basis for restraint thus remains a challenge to dence in the generalizability of the results. all who seek to understand consumer behaviour. As is well known, self-reported behaviours are not actual behaviours. Rather, they reflect people’s perceptions and beliefs about their behaviours (Gatersleben et al., 2002). Thus, for example, the References frugal purchasing scale is really about the extent to which people Abrahamse, W. (2007) There is more to it than meets the eye: what consider (and represent) themselves to be frugal. The study find- makes households reduce their energy use and why? PhD Thesis, ings suggest that frugal consumer behaviour is somewhat suscep- University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands. tible to social desirability bias. In contrast, socially conscious Ahuvia, A.C. & Wong, N.Y. (2002) Personality and values based materi- consumer behaviour, like ecologically conscious consumer behav- alism: their relationship and origins. Journal of Consumer Psychol- iour (Kaiser et al., 1999), appears to be largely uncontaminated by ogy, 12, 389–402. Bean, C. & Papadakis, E. (1994) Polarized priorities or flexible alterna- SDR. Despite the shortcomings of the socially conscious and tives? Dimensionality in Inglehart’s materialism–postmaterialism frugal purchasing scales (and self-reported behaviour measures in scale. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 6, 264–288. general, e.g. Schwarz, 1999), the results of the study clearly under- Bekin, C., Carrigan, M. & Szmigin, I. (2007) Beyond recycling: score the importance of understanding the motivations for pro- ‘commons-friendly’ waste reduction at new consumption communi- social intention-orientated behaviour in order to encourage it ties. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 6, 271–286. (Stern, 2000, p. 408). An extension of the research could be to Braithwaite, V., Makkai, T. & Pittlekow, Y. (1996) Inglehart’s examine actual consumption patterns and their relationships to materialism-postmaterialism concept: clarifying the dimensionality self-reported behaviours. Future research could also develop more debate through Rokeach’s model of social values. Journal of Applied complex models of socially conscious and frugal consumer behav- Social Psychology, 26, 1536–1555. iours, such as Stern et al. (1999) have done in the case of ecologi- Brown, K.W. & Kasser, T. (2005) Are psychological and ecological well-being compatible? The role of values, mindfulness, and lifestyle. cally conscious consumer behaviour. Social Indicators Research, 74, 349–368. Burroughs, J.E. & Rindfleisch, A. (2002) Materialism and well-being: Broad implications of the research a conflicting values perspective. Journal of Consumer Research, 29, 348–370. If sustainable consumption requires not just consuming differently Campbell, C. (1994) Consuming goods and the good of consuming. but also consuming less, the findings of this research provide little Critical Review, 8, 503–520.

Connolly, J. & Prothero, A. (2003) Sustainable consumption: consump- Maslow, A.H. (1970) Motivation and Personality, 2nd edn. Harper & tion, consumers and the commodity discourse. Consumption, Markets Row, New York. and Culture, 6, 275–291. McDonald, S., Oates, C.J., Young, C.W. & Hwang, K. (2006) Toward Cowe, R. & Williams, S. (2000) Who are the ethical consumers? The sustainable consumption: researching voluntary simplifiers. Psychol- Cooperative Bank, Manchester. ogy and Marketing, 23, 515–534. Craig-Lees, M. & Hill, C. (2002) Understanding voluntary simplifiers. Mick, D.G. (1996) Are studies of dark side variables confounded by Psychology and Marketing, 19, 187–210. socially desirable responding? The case of materialism. Journal of Dittmar, H. (1994) Material possessions as stereotypes: material images Consumer Research, 23, 106–119. of different socio-economic groups. Journal of Economic Psychology, Milfont, T.L., Duckitt, J. & Cameron, L.D. (2006) A cross-cultural 15, 561–585. study of environmental motive concerns and their implications for Elgin, D. (1993) Voluntary Simplicity, revised edn. William Morrow, proenvironmental behavior. Environment and Behavior, 38, 745–767. New York. Mueller, D.J. & Wornhoff, S.A. (1990) Distinguishing personal and Etzioni, A. (1998) Voluntary simplicity: characterization, select psycho- social values. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 50, 691– logical implications, and societal consequences. Journal of Economic 699. Psychology, 19, 619–643. Nash, J.A. (2000) Towards the revival and reform of the subversive Frazer, L. & Lawley, M. (2000) Questionnaire Design and Administra- virtue: frugality. In Consumption, Population and Sustainability: Per- tion. Wiley, Milton. spectives from Science and Religion (ed. by A.R. Chapman, R.L. Fujii, S. (2006) Environmental concern, attitude toward frugality, and Petersen & B. Smith-Moran), pp. 167–190. Island Press, Washington, ease of behavior as determinants of pro-environmental behavior inten- DC. tions. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 26, 262–268. Osbaldiston, R. & Sheldon, K.M. (2002) Social dilemmas and sustain- Gatersleben, B., Steg, L. & Vlek, C. (2002) Measurement and determi- ability: promoting peoples’ motivation to ‘cooperate with the future’. nants of environmentally significant consumer behavior. Environment In Psychology and Sustainable Development (ed. by P. Schmuck & and Behavior, 34, 335–362. W.P. Schultz), pp. 37–57. Kluwer Academic, Boston, MA. Hamilton, C. (2003) Downshifting in Britain: A Sea-Change in the Paulhus, D.L. (1991) Measurement and control of response bias. In Pursuit of Happiness. The Australia Institute, Canberra. Measures of Personality and Social Psychological Attitudes (ed. by Harrison, R., Newholm, T. & Shaw, D. (Eds.) (2005) The Ethical Con- J.P. Robinson, P.R. Shaver & L.S. Wrightsman), pp. 17–59. Academic sumer. Sage, London. Press, San Diego, CA. Hu, L. & Bentler, P.M. (1999) Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covari- Pepper, M. (2007) Christianity and sustainable consumption: a social ance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. psychological investigation. PhD Thesis, University of Surrey, Structural Equation Modelling, 6, 1–55. Guildford. Huneke, M.E. (2005) The face of the un-consumer: an empirical exami- Princen, T., Maniates, M. & Conca, K. (2002) Confronting Consump- nation of the practice of voluntary simplicity in the United States. tion. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Psychology and Marketing, 22, 527–550. Reisch, L.A. & Røpke, I. (2004) The Ecological Economics of Con- Inglehart, R. & Welzel, C. (2005) Modernization, Cultural Change and sumption. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham. Democracy: The Human Development Sequence. Cambridge Univer- Richins, M.L. (2004) The material values scale: measurement properties sity Press, Cambridge. and development of a short form. Journal of Consumer Research, 31, Inglehart, R. (1977) Changing Values and Political Styles among 209–219. Western Republics. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ. Richins, M.L. & Dawson, S. (1992) A consumer values orientation for Inglehart, R. (1990) Culture Shift in Advanced Industrial Society. Princ- materialism and its measurement: scale development and validation. eton University Press, Princeton, NJ. Journal of Consumer Research, 19, 303–316. Jackson, T. (2005) Motivating Sustainable Consumption: A Review of Roberts, J.A. (1993) Sex differences in socially responsible consumers’ the Evidence on Consumer Behaviour and Behavioural Change. Sus- behavior. Psychological Reports, 73, 139–148. tainable Development Research Network, Policy Studies Institute, Rohan, M.J. (2000) A rose by any name? The values construct. Person- London. ality and Social Psychology Review, 4, 255–277. Jackson, T. (2006a) Consuming paradise? Towards a social and cultural Rokeach, M. (1973) The Nature of Human Values. Free Press, New psychology of sustainable consumption. In The Earthscan Reader in York. Sustainable Consumption (ed. by T. Jackson), pp. 367–395. Earth- Saroglou, V., Delpierre, V. & Dernelle, R. (2004) Values and religiosity: scan, London. a meta-analysis of studies using Schwartz’s model. Personality and Jackson, T. (ed.) (2006b) The Earthscan Reader in Sustainable Con- Individual Differences, 37, 721–734. sumption. Earthscan, London. Schor, J.B. (1998) The Overspent American: Why We Want What We Jackson, T. & Michaelis, L. (2003) Policies for Sustainable Consump- Don’t Need. HarperCollins, New York. tion. Sustainable Development Commission, London. Schwartz, S.H. (1992) Universals in the content and structure of values: Jensen, J.O. (2002) Lifestyle, dwelling and consumption, an English theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In Advances summary of livstil boform og ressourceforbrug. PhD Thesis, Aalborg in Experimental Social Psychology (ed. by M.P. Zanna), pp. 1–65. University, Hørsholm. Academic Press, San Diego, CA. Kaiser, F.G., Wölfing, S. & Fuhrer, U. (1999) Environmental attitude and Schwartz, S.H. (1994) Are there universal aspects in the structure and ecological behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 19, 1–19. contents of human values? Journal of Social Issues, 50, 19–45. Karp, D.G. (1996) Values and their effect on pro-environmental behav- Schwartz, S.H. (2003) A proposal for measuring value orientations ior. Environment and Behavior, 28, 111–133. across nations: chapter 7 in the questionnaire development package Kasser, T. (2002) The High Price of Materialism. The MIT Press, Cam- of the European social survey. [WWW document]. URL http://www. bridge, MA. europeansocialsurvey.org/index.php?option=com_docman&task= Lastovicka, J.L., Bettencourt, L.A., Hughner, R.S. & Kuntze, R.J. doc_view&gid=126&Itemid=80 (accessed on 3 October 2006). (1999) Lifestyle of the tight and frugal: theory and measurement. Schwartz, S.H. (2005) Draft user’s manual: proper use of the Schwartz Journal of Consumer Research, 26, 85–98. Value Survey. Compiled by R.F. Littrell. [WWW document].

URL http://www.crossculturalcentre.homestead.com/ (accessed on 2 Tatzel, M. (2002) ‘Money worlds’ and well-being: an integration of February 2006). money dispositions, materialism and price-related behavior. Journal Schwartz, S.H. & Bilsky, W. (1987) Toward a universal psychological of Economic Psychology, 23, 103–126. structure of human values. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol- Thøgerson, J. & Grunert-Beckmann, S.C. (1997) Values and attitude ogy, 53, 550–562. formation towards emerging attitude objects: from recycling to Schwarz, N. (1999) Self-reports: how the questions shape the answers. general waste minimising behavior. In Advances in Consumer American Psychologist, 54, 93–105. Research (ed. by M. Brucks & D.J. MacInnis), pp. 182–189. Associa- Sharpe, J.P. (1999) A construct validation study of the Belk materialism tion for Consumer Research, Provo, UT. scale and the Material Values Scale. PhD Thesis, Southern Illinois Thøgerson, J. & Ölander, F. (2002) Human values and the emergence of University, Carbondale, IL. a sustainable consumption pattern: a panel study. Journal of Environ- Shaw, D., Grehan, E., Shiu, E., Hassan, L. & Thomson, J. (2005) An mental Psychology, 23, 605–630. exploration of values in ethical consumer decision making. Journal of Verplanken, B. & Holland, R.W. (2002) Motivated decision making: Consumer Behaviour, 4, 185–200. effects of activation and self-centrality of values on choices and Shaw, D. & Newholm, T. (2002) Voluntary simplicity and the ethics of behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 434–447. consumption. Psychology and Marketing, 19, 167–185. Wilson, M.S. (2005) A social-value analysis of postmaterialism. The Shove, E. (2003) Comfort, Cleanliness and Convenience. Routledge, Journal of Social Psychology, 145, 209–224. London. World Values Survey. (2006) World Values Survey. [WWW document]. Soper, K. & Thomas, L. (2006) ‘Alternative hedonism’ and the critique URL http://www.worldvaluessurvey.com/ (accessed on 22 January of ‘consumerism’, Working Paper No. 31, Cultures of Consumption 2006). and ESRC-AHRC Research Programme. [WWW document]. Zavestoski, S. (1998) The self-concept and values in the development of URL http://www.consume.bbk.ac.uk/working_papers/ environmental concern and concern for the problem of overconsump- SoperAHWorkingPaperrevised.doc (accessed on 30 January 2007). tion. PhD Thesis, Washington State University, Pullman, WA. Stern, P.C. (2000) Toward a coherent theory of environmentally signiﬁ- Zavestoski, S. (2001) Environmental concern and anti-consumerism in cant behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 407–424. the self-concept: do they share the same basis? In Exploring Sustain- Stern, P.C., Dietz, T., Abel, T., Guagnano, G.A. & Kalof, L. (1999) A able Consumption: Environmental Policy and the Social Sciences value-belief-norm theory of support for social movements: the case of (ed. by J. Murphy & M.J. Cohen), pp. 173–189. Pergamon Press, environmental concern. Human Ecology Review, 6, 81–97. Amsterdam. Sudman, S. & Bradburn, N.M. (1982) Asking Questions: A Practical Guide to Questionnaire Design. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.