Post on 18-Aug-2018
transcript
Pro-environmentalism: Environmentalist Social Identity, Environmentalist Stereotypes, and Green Consumerism
Engagement
by
Annamaria Klas B.A. (Psych, Media) (Psych, Hons)
Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy (Psychology)
Deakin University
October, 2016
iv
Acknowledgements
Although this PhD is a culmination of my hard work and dedication, I could not
have achieved this milestone without the help and guidance of many others. Therefore it
is with great pleasure I offer a number of people with much deserved gratitude and
thanks.
First and foremost I begin by thanking my current supervision team of Dr Lucy
Zinkiewicz and Dr Jin Zhou who although came on to this project late in the game, still
treated me like I was with them from the beginning. Thanks especially to Lucy for her
guidance and assistance, for her infinite enthusiasm and support, and for her extremely
detailed feedback (which only helped me become a better writer). Thanks also to Jin for
being so welcoming and friendly, for offering much emotional support and practical
advice, and for reading multiple drafts at once (which is a feat in itself).
Special thanks also goes to Dr Gery Karantzas who may have not been an
‘official’ supervisor still took me under his wing from the start, and provided me with
much support, wisdom, and honesty. Thanks also to Professor Ben Richardson for
always making time to provide me with statistical, professional, and common sense
advice, even when he moved on to greener pastures. Further thanks to Dr Janine
McGuinness, who originally begun this project with me, and to all the academics I have
met through SASP. They all helped to nurture my love for social psychology and
continuously offered me new and interesting insights for my research. And of course,
thanks to the School of Psychology at Deakin for making this project possible, including
providing me the funds pursue it. I’ve been blessed to be able to learn so much from
such a diverse and talented range of academics and researchers.
I must also thank the many PhD students who I have met along the way,
especially those from Deakin and SASP, who have only improved this experience. There
are too many to personally name each one but I must single out Gemma, Meaghan,
Morgana, Michael, the other Michael, and Gill who all provided me with much laughter,
kindness, and support. Thanks also to my fellow social psych PhD candidates at Deakin
Mathew and Eddie who were always willing to provide me with theoretical and
statistical advice. And of course an extra special mention to Jacquie who went through
every stage of this PhD with me. She has been a wonderful friend through it all, being
both my biggest supporter and constant confidant.
v
I also cannot forget to thank my family and friends. Firstly, sincere thanks to my
mum, dad and brother, for their continuous encouragement, support, and love. My mum
and dad’s tenacity provided me the opportunities to pursue this, and looking back on my
childhood, their knowledge of politics and social issues begun my love affair with social
psychology, long before I even knew what it was. This is their achievement as much as
mine. Thanks also to the Gilbert family (including the Males and Wallaces) for being
forever helpful, kind, and understanding. Finally, thanks to all my close and cherished
friends – especially Adelle, Hayley, Bec, Emma, Michelle, Eloise, Jess, Amy, and Kate
– who have been so thoughtful and considerate, and have constantly checked in with me,
especially near the end. Your belief in me to get this done was often what I needed the
most.
Finally, heartfelt thanks and love goes to my partner of 10 years, Seán. I feel that
anything I write will never truly convey how much Seán has had to put up with,
especially during this PhD, and often with no compliant at all. I don’t feel I could have
gotten to this point without his never-ending support, and his pragmatic and down-to-
earth attitude. His kind and encouraging words, and his warm and loving gestures, have
all been so valued and appreciated, and will never be forgotten.
vi
I’d like to dedicate this thesis to all those individuals who work tirelessly to
make this earth a better place for this generation and for those generations to come.
vii
Table of Contents
Title Page ........................................................................................................................... i
Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................... iv
Table of Contents ........................................................................................................... vii
List of Tables ................................................................................................................ xiii
List of Figures ............................................................................................................... xiv
Thesis Abstract ................................................................................................................ xv
Chapter 1 General Introduction and Thesis Overview ............................................... 1
Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 1
Aims and Scope of the Present Thesis .............................................................................. 3
Definitions of Major Constructs Used within the Present Thesis ..................................... 7
Structure of the Present Thesis and Organisation of its Studies ...................................... 11
Chapter 2 Literature Review ........................................................................................ 13
Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 13
Pro-environmental Behaviour: A General Overview ...................................... 14
Current Conceptualisations of Green Consumerism Within the Pro-
environmental Behaviour Literature ............................................................... 17
Clarifying what behaviours are considered to be a part of green
consumerism. ............................................................................................... 17
Exploring the mechanisms by which green consumerism is effective in
protecting the natural environment. ............................................................. 20
Predictors of Green Consumerism .................................................................. 22
Demographic variables. ............................................................................... 23
Perceptions of green branding and marketing. ............................................ 23
Individual-level psychological variables. .................................................... 24
‘Green’ or ‘environmental’ identity. ............................................................ 28
Chapter 3 Theoretical Framework: The Social Identity Approach ......................... 34
Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 34
viii
The Social Identity Approach and its Central Tenets ...................................................... 35
Consequences of Social Identification ............................................................ 43
Employing the Social Identity Approach to Explore the Relationship between Social
Identity Processes and Green Consumerism ................................................................... 45
Evidence Supportive of the Role of Social Identification in Pro-Environmental
Behaviour ........................................................................................................ 47
Evidence Supportive of the Role of Social Identification in Green
Consumerism ................................................................................................... 49
The Importance of the Social Context to Environmentalist Social Identity and
Green Consumerism ........................................................................................ 51
The Present Research ...................................................................................................... 54
Chapter 4 Study 1: Making Sense of Green Consumerism and its Relationship to
Environmentalism and Social Identity ........................................................................ 58
Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 58
Extending Current Conceptualisations of Green Consumerism by Exploring
Individuals’ Perceptions .................................................................................. 59
Social Identity Processes and their Relationship to Individuals’
Conceptualisations of Green Consumerism .................................................... 60
The Current Study ........................................................................................... 62
Method ............................................................................................................................. 62
Participants ...................................................................................................... 62
Data Collection ................................................................................................ 63
Data Analysis .................................................................................................. 66
Results ............................................................................................................................. 67
Theme 1: Multiple dimensions of green consumerism. .................................. 69
Theme 2: Green Consumerism as a Strategy to Reduce Environmental
Problems .......................................................................................................... 72
Subtheme 2a: Employing green consumerism as an individual, private
sphere behaviour to help the environment. ................................................. 72
Subtheme 2b: Employing green consumerism as a collective, activist
strategy. ........................................................................................................ 74
Theme 3: Reluctance to Identify as an Environmentalist ................................ 75
Subtheme 3a: To be an environmentalist is to be ‘active’. .......................... 77
ix
Subtheme 3b: Negative perceptions of environmentalists. ......................... 77
Discussion ....................................................................................................................... 79
Limitations ....................................................................................................... 83
Concluding Remarks ....................................................................................... 84
Chapter 5 Study 2: “Not all environmentalists are like that…”: Exploring How
Outgroup Members Perceive the Environmentalist Social Category ...................... 86
Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 86
Stereotypical Outgroup Perceptions of Environmentalists ............................. 87
The Current Study ........................................................................................... 90
Method ............................................................................................................................. 91
Participants ...................................................................................................... 91
Materials .......................................................................................................... 93
Procedure ......................................................................................................... 94
Data Analysis .................................................................................................. 95
Thematic analysis. ....................................................................................... 96
Qualitative content analysis. ........................................................................ 97
Results ............................................................................................................................. 98
Thematic Analysis: Exploring Outgroup Members Broad Perceptions of the
Environmentalist Social Category ................................................................... 98
Theme 1: Environmentalists are active in protecting, conserving, and
improving nature. ...................................................................................... 100
Theme 2: Environmentalists may all care about nature but they do not all
do the same things. .................................................................................... 103
Theme 3: Environmentalists are evaluated positively due to their
perceived altruism. .................................................................................... 104
Theme 4: Not all environmentalists are extreme and aggressive, but many
act that way. ............................................................................................... 107
Content Analysis: Traits Perceived by Outgroup Members to be
Stereotypical of Environmentalists ............................................................... 109
Discussion ..................................................................................................................... 112
Limitations ..................................................................................................... 116
Concluding Remarks ..................................................................................... 118
x
Chapter 6 Study 3: Investigating Whether Environmentalist Social Identity is
Predictive of Green Consumerism in Members of the General Public .................. 119
Introduction ................................................................................................................... 119
The Relationship Green Consumerism has with Individualistic Pro-
environmental Behaviours and Environmental Collective Action ................ 120
Environmentalist Social Identity and its Relationship to Green
Consumerism ................................................................................................. 122
The Current Study ......................................................................................... 125
Method ........................................................................................................................... 127
Participants .................................................................................................... 127
Measures ........................................................................................................ 128
Procedure ....................................................................................................... 130
Results ........................................................................................................................... 131
Preliminary Analyses and Manipulation Checks .......................................... 131
Environmental organisation membership. ................................................. 131
Group salience check. ................................................................................ 134
Confirmatory Factor Analysis of Variables Used in Path Analysis .............. 134
Environmentalist social identity ................................................................ 135
Political consumerism ............................................................................... 135
Environmental activism ............................................................................. 135
Pro-environmental behaviour .................................................................... 136
Green consumerism ................................................................................... 136
Path Analysis: Model Fit ............................................................................... 136
Model 1. ..................................................................................................... 137
Model 2. ..................................................................................................... 139
Path Analysis: Direct and Indirect Effects .................................................... 141
Discussion ..................................................................................................................... 142
Limitations ..................................................................................................... 146
Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 147
Chapter 7 Study 4: The Contribution of Social Identity and Group Stereotypes
to Engagement in Green Consumerism among Non-Environmentalists ............... 148
Introduction ................................................................................................................... 148
xi
Environmentalist Stereotypes and Reluctance to Identify as an
Environmentalist ........................................................................................... 149
The Present Study .......................................................................................... 153
Method ........................................................................................................................... 156
Participants .................................................................................................... 156
Measures ........................................................................................................ 157
Procedure ....................................................................................................... 158
Results ........................................................................................................................... 159
Preliminary Analyses and Manipulation Checks .......................................... 160
Environmental organisation membership. ................................................. 160
Group salience manipulation check. ......................................................... 162
Regression Analysis ...................................................................................... 162
Mediation Analysis ........................................................................................ 164
Discussion ..................................................................................................................... 169
Limitations ..................................................................................................... 173
Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 174
Chapter 8 General Discussion and Concluding Remarks ....................................... 175
Introduction ................................................................................................................... 175
Summary of the Empirical Findings ............................................................................. 176
Study 1: Making Sense of Green Consumerism and its Relationship to
Environmentalism and Social Identity .......................................................... 176
Study 2: “Not all environmentalists are like that…”: Exploring How
Outgroup Members Perceive the Environmentalist Social Category ............ 178
Study 3: Investigating Whether Environmentalist Social Identity is
Predictive of Green Consumerism in Members of the General Public ......... 180
Study 4: The Contribution of Social Identity and Group Stereotypes to
Engagement in Green Consumerism among Non-Environmentalists ........... 181
Theoretical Implications for the Pro-Environmental Behaviour Literature .................. 183
Theoretical Implications for the Social Identity Approach ........................................... 187
Practical Implications for Fostering Green Consumerism and Other
Pro-Environmental Behaviour ....................................................................................... 190
Limitations of the Research and Directions for Future Research ................................. 194
xii
Concluding Remarks ..................................................................................................... 199
References ..................................................................................................................... 201
Appendix A Ethics Approval for Studies ...................................................................... 240
Appendix B Plain Language Statements and Consent Forms for Studies .................... 244
Appendix C Study 1: Interview Materials ..................................................................... 261
Appendix D Study 2: Qualitative Survey Materials ...................................................... 263
Appendix E Study 3: Stimulus Materials and Measures ............................................... 265
Appendix F Study 3: Data Screening and Assumption Testing .................................... 273
Appendix G Study 3: Green Consumerism Exploratory Factor Analysis ..................... 274
Appendix H Study 3: Confirmatory Factor Analyses – Additional Information .......... 278
Appendix I Study 3: Re-specifications of Model 1 Predicting Green Consumerism ... 281
Appendix J Study 3: Initial Path Model for Model 2 Predicting Green Consumerism . 285
Appendix K Study 4: Stimulus Materials and Measures .............................................. 286
Appendix L Study 4: Piloting of Prototypical Traits .................................................... 293
Appendix M Study 4: Data Screening and Assumption Testing for Study 4 ................ 296
Appendix N Study 4: Additional Descriptive Information ........................................... 297
xiii
List of Tables
Table 4.1 Demographic Characteristics of Participants ............................................... 64
Table 4.2 Interview Schedule ....................................................................................... 65
Table 4.3 Inductively Developed Thematic Categories ............................................... 68
Table 5.1 Demographic Information for Participants Included in Data Analysis ........ 93
Table 5.2 Open-ended Questions Employed in Section 1 of the Qualitative Survey .. 94
Table 5.3 Inductively Developed Thematic Descriptions of Environmentalists .......... 99
Table 5.4 Positive and Negative Trait Terms Used To Describe Environmentalists . 110
Table 5.5 Clusters of Positive and Negative Trait Categories Emerging in the Data 111
Table 6.1 Participants’ Demographic Characteristics ................................................ 127
Table 6.2 Bivariate Pearson’s Correlations, Means, Standard Deviations, and Ranges
for Variables Included in the Path Analysis ................................................................. 132
Table 6.3 Univariate F-Tests for Environmentalist Social Identity, Pro-environmental
Behaviour, Collective Action, and Green Consumerism by Environmental Organisation
Membership ................................................................................................................... 133
Table 6.4 Fit Indices for Confirmatory Factor Analyses of Scales ............................ 135
Table 6.5 Specific Indirect Effects for Re-specified Path Model 2 ............................. 141
Table 7.1 Demographics of Participants .................................................................... 156
Table 7.2 Descriptive Statistics, Bivariate Pearson’s Correlations, and Cronbach
Alphas for Major Variables ........................................................................................... 160
Table 7.3 Univariate F-Tests for Environmentalist Social Identity, Green
Consumerism and Stereotypical Traits by Environmental Organisation Membership . 162
Table 7.4 Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis Predicting Environmentalist
Social Identity ................................................................................................................ 163
Table 7.5 Total Effect of Environmentalist Stereotypical Traits on Green
Consumerism ................................................................................................................. 165
Table 7.6 Regression Coefficients, Confidence Intervals, and Effect Sizes for
Paths in the Mediation Model ....................................................................................... 166
xiv
List of Figures
Figure 6.1 Model 1, with environmental citizenship included, predicting green
consumerism .................................................................................................................. 138
Figure 6.2 Final re-specified Model 2, without environmental citizenship,
predicting green consumerism ....................................................................................... 140
Figure 7.1 Theoretical model for indirect effects of positive and negative stereotypical
traits on green consumerism through environmentalist social identity ........................ 155
Figure 7.2 Standardised regression coefficients (β) for the indirect effects of positive
and negative stereotypical traits on green consumerism through environmentalist social
identity ............................................................................................................................ 168
xv
Thesis Abstract
Given that much of the world’s current environmental damage can be attributed to
unsustainable consumption behaviour, green consumerism can be employed as a means
to decrease the severity of these environmental issues. However, although many
individual-level psychological variables have emerged as related to green consumerism,
there has been little focus within the current literature on how group-level variables
contribute to green consumerism, including such variables as social identity and group
stereotypes. Thus, the central aim of the present thesis was to explore how
environmentalist social identity and environmentalist stereotypes each contributed to
green consumerism amongst individuals who were not members of environmental
organisations (i.e., ‘environmentalist outgroup members’ or ‘non-environmentalists’).
Drawing upon a review of the relevant literature and the social identity approach
(Chapters 2 and 3), four research questions were developed. These were: 1) what do
environmentalists and non-environmentalists perceive to be involved in green
consumerism; 2) what is the content of the stereotypes that non-environmentalists hold
of the superordinate environmentalist social category; 3) is environmentalist social
identity predictive of green consumerism amongst non-environmentalists; and 4) does
environmentalist social identity mediate the relationship between outgroup stereotypes
of environmentalists and green consumerism for non-environmentalists. As these
research questions focused on broadly exploring the relationship between social identity
processes and green consumerism in non-environmentalists, the present thesis employed
a mixed methods research approach, and primarily used samples of individuals who did
not belong to environmental organisations, rather than self-identified environmentalists.
xvi
The empirical work in this present thesis consisted of four studies, each
exploring one of the research questions. Chapter 4 presents Study 1 (N = 28), where a
qualitative analysis of one-on-one interviews demonstrated that self-identified
environmentalists and non-environmentalists alike perceived green consumerism to be
both an individual and collective pro-environmental behaviour that involved a number of
environmentally friendly consumption actions. Study 1 also presented potential reasons
as to why some individuals of the general public may fail to identify with the
environmentalist social category, with participants suggesting that those who did not
consistently engage in pro-environmental behaviours, or who were not ‘active’ enough,
could not be labelled an environmentalist. Furthermore, participants also suggested that
there were too many negative perceptions surrounding the environmentalist social
category, which would decrease the likelihood of some identifying as environmentalists.
In Chapter 5, Study 2 (N = 89), an inductive, open-ended qualitative survey was
employed to further explore how the environmentalist social category was broadly
perceived by non-environmentalists. This study demonstrated that non-environmentalists
held a stereotype of the environmentalist social category that incorporated both positive
traits (caring, informed, and dedicated) and negative traits (pushy, stubborn, and
arrogant). Furthermore, non-environmentalists saw all environmentalists as protective
and concerned for the natural environment, yet also acknowledged that
environmentalists would not engage in all the same pro-environmental behaviours.
Study 3 (N = 275), presented in Chapter 6, used a quantitative survey to
investigate whether environmentalist social identity, as well as both individualistic pro-
environmental behaviours and collective environmental actions, were predictive of green
consumerism in non-environmentalists. A path analysis demonstrated that
xvii
environmentalist social identity, willingness to sacrifice, environmental activism, and
political consumerism were all predictive of green consumerism, with environmentalist
social identity found to be the strongest predictor of the four. Willingness to sacrifice,
environmental activism and political consumerism were also found to partially mediate
the relationship between environmentalist social identity and green consumerism,
suggesting that environmentalist social identification was the mechanism that
underpinned engagement in numerous pro-environmental behaviours including green
consumerism.
Chapter 7 presents Study 4 (N = 248) which employed a quantitative survey to
investigate whether environmentalist social identity mediated the relationship between
the endorsement of environmentalist stereotypes and green consumerism for non-
environmentalists. Findings of this study revealed that perceptions of positive and
negative stereotypical traits of environmentalists directly contributed to non-
environemtnalists strength of environmentalist social identity. A mediation analysis also
demonstrated that environmentalist stereotypes exerted an indirect effect on green
consumerism through environmentalist social identity. Non-environmentalists who
endorsed positive traits as stereotypical of environmentalists were more likely to identify
as an environmentalist, and subsequently engage in higher rates of green consumerism.
By contrast, non-environmentalists who endorsed negative traits as stereotypical of
environmentalists were less likely to identify as an environmentalist, and engage in
lower rates of green consumerism.
The thesis contributes to the research literature by confirming that
environmentalist social identity and environmentalist stereotypes do indeed play a role
in green consumerism, at least for those individuals in the general public who are not
xviii
already members of environmental organisations (i.e., non-environmentalists). The
findings of these four studies also contribute to broader discussions concerning how
researchers, policy makers, and environmentalists alike can encourage non-
environmentalists to engage in pro-environmental behaviour, by demonstrating the
importance of social identity processes for these behaviours. Chapter 8 therefore
concludes the thesis by not only summarising and integrating its findings, but by making
suggestions based on these empirical findings, and on the social identity approach, for
ways to encourage non-environmentalists to identify with the environmentalist social
category and to engage in green consumerism.
CH. 1. GENERAL INTRO AND THESIS OVERVIEW 1
Chapter 1
General Introduction and Thesis Overview
“Every time you spend money, you’re casting a vote for the kind of world you want”
Anna Lappé (Leiber, 2003, p. 72).1
“I’m not a greenie but… I want a clean, safe future for my kids” (Environment Victoria,
2014).2
Introduction
A number of environmental issues facing the global community – such as
anthropogenic climate change, deforestation, and the warming of the ocean – are seen to
result at least partly from unsustainable human behaviour (Clayton & Brook, 2005;
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2013; Laffoley & Baxter, 2016;
Swim, Clayton, & Howard, 2011a; Swim et al., 2011b). Unsurprisingly, then,
researchers, policy makers, and environmentalists alike have increasingly turned their
attention to encouraging individuals to engage in behaviours that conserve and protect
the natural environment (e.g., Gifford, 2014; Girod, van Vuuren, & Hertwich, 2014;
Osbaldiston & Schott, 2012; Oskamp, 2000; Pelletier, Lavergne, & Sharp, 2008; Steg &
Vlek, 2009; Vlek & Steg, 2007; Stern, 2011). Indeed, much focus within WEIRD3
1 Anna Lappé is an environmentalist and research expert on food systems and sustainable agriculture. 2 A slogan used during Environment Victoria’s advertising campaign in the 2014 Victorian State Election.
Environment Victoria is an independent, environmental organisation in the state of Victoria, Australia,
which campaigns for legislative change whilst also providing resources for individuals to become more
environmentally friendly. 3 WEIRD is an acronym used to describe westernised, educated, industrialised, rich, and democratic
societies (see Henrich, Heine, & Norenzayan, 2010; Jones, 2010).
CH. 1. GENERAL INTRO AND THESIS OVERVIEW 2
nations has been upon the benefits of increasing green consumerism – those
consumption practices that are ‘environmentally friendly’ (Connor, 2012; Erickson,
2011; Jackson, 2005; Ölander & Thøgersen, 1995; Niva & Timonen, 2001;
Papaoikonomou, Ryan, & Valverde, 2011; Peattie, 2010; Reisch & Thøgersen, 2015).
This is because, as Anna Lappé’s opening quote above aptly illustrates, for many
consumption is no longer a private act that is used to fulfil personal desires and needs.
Instead, green consumerism can be a public and collective way in which individuals can
‘vote’ with their money to create positive environmental change, whilst also reducing
their own personal impact on the natural environment.
However, despite the increased availability ‘green’ products and services
(FoodDrinkEurope, 2012; Mintel, 2014; Nielsen, 2011), as well as the growing
availability of resources that help individuals to enact green consumerism (e.g., The
Shop Ethical! smartphone application and the advent of the Green Consumer Guide),
much of the general public still fails to engage in the behaviour (Peattie, 2010). Whilst
this failure may often be due to the cost or availability of green products and services
(Carrington, Neville, & Whitwell, 2010; D’Souza, Taghian, & Khosla, 2007), it may
also be due to a perception that green consumerism is something that environmentalists
do, and should do (Horton, 2004; Holland, Tesch, Kitchell, & Kempton, 2000). Non-
environmentalists may therefore be unwilling to engage in green consumerism because,
as the quote above from Environment Victoria succinctly shows, they do not identify
themselves as an environmentalist, and therefore do not want to engage in behaviours
that such ‘greenies’ do. Also hinted at by the quote, this lack of identification may
perhaps be due to negative stereotypes that they have of environmentalists.
CH. 1. GENERAL INTRO AND THESIS OVERVIEW 3
These points so far illustrate a number of interesting tensions and questions that
have yet to be fully explored in the pro-environmental behaviour literature. For one,
these points suggest that green consumerism may not only be an individual act but a
collective, political action, and therefore perceived as a strategy by individuals to
minimise the severity of current environmental issues. These points also suggest that
perceived group membership, and the resulting psychological processes that arise from
this membership, may also contribute to individuals’ green consumerism. In particular,
negative perceptions surrounding the environmentalist social category may limit green
consumerism if these negative perceptions lead individuals to avoid identifying as an
environmentalist. This last point in particular has important implications when
encouraging members of the general public to engage in green consumerism, as it
suggests that social identity and social context, not just individual-level variables, are
important to consider when attempting to understand and increase pro-environmental
behaviour. These issues and tensions thus form the basis of the present thesis.
Aims and Scope of the Present Thesis
Adopting the view that green consumerism can help to mitigate current
environmental problems (Niva & Timonen, 2001; Peattie, 2010; Reisch & Thøgersen,
2015) and is normative for environmentalists (Horton, 2004; Holland et al., 2000), this
thesis employs the social identity approach (Tajfel & Turner, 1979; Turner, Hogg, Oakes,
Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987) to investigate whether social identity processes, especially
those related to social identification and group stereotyping, are predictive of green
consumerism. Therefore the central aim of the present thesis is to determine: Do
outgroup stereotypes of environmentalists and environmentalist social identity each
contribute to engagement in green consumerism, particularly amongst individuals’ in
CH. 1. GENERAL INTRO AND THESIS OVERVIEW 4
the general public who are not members of environmental organisations (i.e.,
‘environmentalist outgroup members’ or ‘non-environmentalists’)? This research
question itself connects to a much larger one recently discussed in the social identity
literature (Fielding & Hornsey, 2016) – that is, can social identity and group processes
be drawn upon as a means to encourage pro-environmental behaviour within the general
population?
Arising from the central aim, the present thesis has four research questions which
are to be investigated across four empirical studies. Firstly, this thesis aims to explore
what do environmentalists and non-environmentalists perceive to be involved in green
consumerism. Secondly, this thesis aims to explore and clarify the content of the
stereotypes that non-environmentalists hold of the superordinate environmentalist social
category. Thirdly, this thesis aims to examine whether environmentalist social identity is
predictive of green consumerism amongst non-environmentalists. Lastly, this thesis aims
to investigate whether social identity processes, such as the stereotypes non-
environmentalists hold of environmentalists, can also predict green consumerism, and
whether this relationship is mediated by strength of environmentalist social
identification.
As a consequence of the four research questions outlined above, the present
thesis takes on a broad and exploratory focus, rather than an experimental or
confirmatory one. That is, the studies presented in this thesis do not attempt to
experimentally manipulate environmentalist social identity, outgroup stereotypes of
environmentalists, or green consumerism. These studies also do not intend to determine
whether environmentalist social identity is a stronger predictor of green consumerism
when compared to other psychological variables seen in the pro-environmental
CH. 1. GENERAL INTRO AND THESIS OVERVIEW 5
behaviour literature. Instead, this thesis is specifically interested in exploring the
possible collective nature of green consumerism, and how the psychological processes
that arise from a group-based conceptualisation of ‘environmental’ or ‘green’ identity
contribute to engagement in green consumerism. Hence, a mixed methods research
approach is taken within the present thesis, wherein qualitative and quantitative methods
are combined in order to explore participants’ perceptions of the constructs under study
and their relationships to one another.
It must also be noted that the present thesis makes a number of assumptions
concerning the environmentalist social category and the accompanying social identity.
These assumptions are necessary to make explicit due to the direct consequences they
have on how environmentalist social identity is conceptualised and measured within the
present thesis. Firstly, this thesis assumes that the environmentalist social category can
be seen as a broad superordinate social category (Turner et al., 1987). This is because
although the political ideology of environmentalism can encompass varying perspectives
and subgroups (e.g., radical activists, eco-feminists, conservationists, ‘tree-huggers’,
‘hippies’, deep ecologists, etc.), all environmentalists share the same underlying belief
that the natural environment is to be protected (see Anderson, 2010; Brulle, 1996;
Dalton, Recchia, & Rohrschneider, 2003; Ogrodnik & Staggenborg, 2016). Furthermore,
individuals who hold a superficial understanding of environmentalism, as is the case
with most members of the general public, also typically view environmentalists as one
homogeneous social group (Holland et al., 2000; Tesch & Kempton, 2004; Tranter,
2010). Nevertheless, the implication of this assumption is that the present thesis
minimises the possible intragroup differences that may exist in the environmentalist
CH. 1. GENERAL INTRO AND THESIS OVERVIEW 6
social category, instead considering all those individuals who identify with any form of
environmentalism to be considered an environmentalist ingroup member.
Secondly, the present thesis also assumes that the superordinate environmentalist
social category is highly contentious and politicised because environmentalists are often
part of the political discourse, especially within western nations such as the US and
Australia (Connor, 2012; Dalton et al., 2003; Erickson, 2011; Huddy, 2001). Indeed,
oppositional groups who are in direct conflict with environmentalists often hold negative
evaluations of environmentalists as a result of such groups’ ideological beliefs and
promotion of social change (Balch, 2014; Bashir, Lockwood, Chasteen, Nadolny, &
Noyes, 2013; Hoffarth & Hodson, 2016; Opotow & Brook, 2003; Opotow & Weiss,
2000; Watt, 2014). A direct implication that arises from this assumption is that because
environmentalists are a politicised group, they are more likely to be viewed negatively
by outgroup members than those social groups who are not political in nature.
Finally, the present thesis assumes the superordinate environmentalist social
category is not only a fuzzy social category centring on a prototype, like other social
groups and categories, but also has much more fluid and permeable boundaries than do
categories possessing distinct physical characteristics, such as gender or ethnicity
(Reicher, 2004; Tajfel & Turner, 1979). This is because the defining feature of the
environmentalist social category is the shared ideology amongst group members (Brulle,
1996; Dalton, 2015; Ogrodnik & Staggenborg, 2016). This ideology can be easily
hidden in most circumstances, unlike the immediate markers of one’s gender or ethnicity.
The implication that arises from this assumption is that, due to the permeability and
choice-based nature of the category, environmentalists are seen in the present thesis to
have the ability to easily exit or dis-identify from the category if they feel there are too
CH. 1. GENERAL INTRO AND THESIS OVERVIEW 7
many unwanted consequences as a result of being an ingroup member, unlike with some
other social categories.
Definitions of Major Constructs Used within the Present Thesis
A number of conceptually similar constructs, utilised by numerous disciplines,
are widely discussed throughout this thesis. This following section therefore provides
clear and concise definitions of these constructs, in order to not only provide clarity to
the reader, but to elucidate the assumptions that are made throughout the present thesis.
Environmentalism: This thesis views environmentalism as a social and political
ideology that strongly emphasises the need to protect and conserve the natural
environment (Anderson, 2010; Ogrodnik & Staggenborg, 2016). Although it
encompasses varying perspectives regarding how exactly the environment should be
conserved (e.g., conservationism, ecocentrism, deep ecology, etc.), these orientations all
share the underlying belief that the natural environment is to be protected (Brulle, 1996;
Dalton, 2015; Holland et al., 2000; Tesch & Kempton, 2004).
Pro-environmental behaviour: Those behaviours that proactively attempt to
conserve and protect the natural environment (Pelletier et al., 2008; Steg, van den Berg,
& de Groot, 2012; Steg & Vlek, 2009). This wide range of behaviours can either be
intentional or unintentional, or individual or collective actions (Gatersleben, 2012; Stern,
2000).
Green consumerism: The tendency for individuals or groups to engage in
consumption behaviour that attempts to conserve the natural environment, which
includes the purchase, use and disposal of products and services that are perceived to be
CH. 1. GENERAL INTRO AND THESIS OVERVIEW 8
‘green’4 (Antil, 1984; Peattie, 2001; Roberts, 1996; Straughan & Roberts, 1999). This
thesis classifies green consumerism as a type of pro-environmental behaviour (as do
Stern, 2000; Reisch & Thøgersen, 2015; Thøgersen & Ölander, 2002, 2003).
Environmental activism: Those collective and public behaviours that groups
engage in to support and protect the natural environment (McFarlane & Boxall, 2003;
McFarlane & Hunt, 2006; Séguin, Pelletier, & Hunsley, 1998). These behaviours
typically aim to bring about positive institutional and policy change for the natural
environment, and can include protesting, rallying, and petitioning.
Political consumerism: A consumption process by which individuals use their
consumer choices to display their political or ethical concerns (Micheletti & Stolle,
2012; Stolle, Hooghe, & Micheletti, 2005). Political consumerism involves both
boycotting (actively refusing to purchase products or services that do not contain certain
political or ethical credentials) and buy-cotting (actively choosing to purchase products
or services that maintain political or ethical standards), and is seen as a type of consumer
activism that usually occurs within WEIRD societies (as argued by Bossy, 2014;
Friedman, 1995, 1996; Neilson, 2010).
Personal identity: The part of an individual’s self-concept that is derived from
their personal experiences and interpersonal relationships, as well as the idiosyncratic
characteristics of the self (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). Personal identity is distinct from
social identity, and individuals are able to possess multiple personal identities.
4 Although there is little agreement concerning which products or services are objectively ‘green’ (e.g.,
Stern, Dietz, Kalof, Guagnano, & Abel, 1999; Whitmarsh & O’Neill, 2010), in this thesis, as suggested by
Dangelico and Pontrandolfo (2010) a product is considered to be ‘green’ if it protects or improves the
natural environment at any stage of the product’s lifespan. This includes manufacturing and production,
transportation, use and disposal. Therefore green products may include recycled content or reduced
packaging, or use less toxic materials or chemicals, or are organic.
CH. 1. GENERAL INTRO AND THESIS OVERVIEW 9
Social identity: The “part of an individual’s self-concept which derives from his
[or her] knowledge of his [or her] membership of a social group (or groups) together
with the value and emotional significance attached to that membership” (Tajfel &
Turner, 1979, p. 63). Social identity is distinct from personal identity, with individuals
also able to possess multiple social identities.
Environmental identity: The part of an individual’s self-concept that arises
from their personal sense of connection to the nonhuman natural environment (Clayton,
2003, 2012; Clayton & Myers, 2015). Environmental identity “affects the way we
perceive and act toward the world; a belief that the environment is important to us and
an important part of who we are” (Clayton, 2003, pp. 45-46). The present thesis
conceptualises environmental identity as a type of personal identity, as its defining
feature is an individual’s perceived connection to the natural environment.
Environmental self-identity: The extent to which an individual perceives
themselves as a person who acts environmentally friendly (Sparks & Shepherd, 1992;
van der Werff, Steg, & Keizer, 2013a, 2013b, 2013c, 2014; Whitmarsh & O’Neill, 2010).
The present thesis views environmental self-identity as a type of personal identity, as the
focus here is on the way in which individuals perceive themselves and their own
behaviour.
Environmentalist social identity: The sense of self that is derived from a
psychologically meaningful group membership in the superordinate environmentalist
social category. Within this thesis, the environmentalist social category is conceptualised
as a type of opinion-based social category (Bliuc, McGarty, Reynolds, & Muntele, 2007;
McGarty, Bliuc, Thomas, & Bongiorno, 2009) that is extremely fluid and highly
politicised because its defining feature is the shared ideology of protection for the
CH. 1. GENERAL INTRO AND THESIS OVERVIEW 10
natural environment. Environmentalist social identity is also seen to be conceptually
distinct from environmental identity and environmental self-identity, as it arises from
perceived membership to a psychologically meaningful group, rather than an
idiosyncratic and personal relationship to the natural environment.
Environmentalist ingroup member (‘environmentalist’): Individuals who
perceive themselves as a member of the environmentalist social category. Therefore,
although someone may be concerned for the environment, this thesis only considers the
person to be an environmentalist if they also perceive themselves to be one.
Environmentalist outgroup member (‘non-environmentalist’): Any members
of the general public who do not perceive themselves to be members of the
environmentalist social category and who are not members of a environmental
organisation. This thesis acknowledges that non-environmentalists may be still
concerned for the environment, despite not identifying or perceiving themselves as a
ingroup member.
Environmentalist stereotypes: Widely shared and simplified evaluative images
of the superordinate environmentalist social category and its ingroup members (Haslam,
Oakes, Reynolds, & Turner, 1999; McGarty, Yzerbyt, & Spears, 2002; Tajfel, 1981).
Following the theoretical framework of the social identity approach, it is assumed that
stereotypes are primarily an intergroup phenomenon (Haslam, Oakes, McGarty, Turner,
& Onorato, 1995a; Haslam, Oakes, Turner, & McGarty, 1995; Haslam, Oakes, McGarty,
Turner, Reynolds, & Eggins, 1996), although self-stereotyping is an intrinsic part of
self-categorisation as a group member (Oakes, Haslam, & Turner, 1994). There are two
types of environmentalist stereotypes, with one being those consensual beliefs held by
outgroup members about the environmentalist social category (i.e., outgroup stereotypes
CH. 1. GENERAL INTRO AND THESIS OVERVIEW 11
of environmentalists), and another being those shared beliefs environmentalists hold of
themselves and members of their ingroup (i.e., environmentalist self-stereotypes). This
thesis focuses on outgroup environmentalist stereotypes, and uses the term
environmentalist steretotypes through out the thesis when referring to these outgroup
stereotypes.
Structure of the Present Thesis and Organisation of its Studies
The present thesis aims to explore how green consumerism and the superordinate
environmentalist social category are perceived, and to investigate the relationships
between environmentalist social identity, environmentalist stereotypes, and green
consumerism. As such, the concept of environmentalist social identity is seen throughout
most of the studies within the present thesis, and is explicitly investigated in Studies 1, 3,
and 4 (Chapters 4, 6, and 7 respectively). Perceptions of green consumerism are
explored in Study 1 (Chapter 4), with further investigation of whether green
consumerism is related to other pro-environmental behaviours seen in Study 3 (Chapter
6). Finally, outgroup stereotypes of environmentalists are investigated in Studies 2 and 4
(Chapters 5 and 7 respectively).
Describing the chapters in this thesis one by one, Chapters 2 and 3 are
introductory and review chapters. Chapter 2 broadly reviews the pro-environmental
behaviour literature that has investigated green consumerism and is followed by Chapter
3, wherein the theoretical framework of this thesis – the social identity approach – is
introduced. The empirical work of the present thesis then begins in Chapter 4, with
Study 1 employing one-on-one interviews with environmentalists and non-
environmentalists to investigate whether self-identification as an environmentalist is
associated with the way in one perceives green consumerism. Study 2 (Chapter 5) then
CH. 1. GENERAL INTRO AND THESIS OVERVIEW 12
uses a qualitative open-ended survey to further explore and clarify the subjective
perceptions non-environmentalsits hold of the superordinate environmentalist social
category. Chapter 6 presents Study 3 which employs a quantitative survey methodology
to investigate the relationship between environmentalist social identity and green
consumerism for non-environmentalists. Finally, Study 4 (in Chapter 7) employs a
quantitative, survey methodology to investigate whether environmentalist social identity
mediates the relationship between environmentalist stereotypes (operationalised as traits
perceived to be stereotypical of the environmentalist social category) and green
consumerism for non-environmentalists. Chapter 8 then concludes this thesis, providing
a general discussion that summarises and integrates the results of all four studies with
the existing literature. Chapter 8 also considers the thereoretical and practical
implications of the overall findings of the thesis, as well as directions for future research
that arise from its findings.
CH. 2. LITERATURE REVIEW 13
Chapter 2
Literature Review
Introduction
This chapter focuses on reviewing and critically appraising research within the
pro-environmental behaviour literature that has investigated green consumerism. It first
begins with a brief overview of how green consumerism is often conceptualised as the
purchase of ‘green’ products that reduce an individual’s negative impact on the natural
environment. This chapter then goes on to argue that green consumerism may actually
be better conceptualised as extending beyond purchasing to instead include a range of
environmentally friendly consumption behaviours. This argument leads to the
suggestion that further research is needed to examine what consumers perceive to be
involved in green consumerism, in order to clarify this construct.
Following this, the present literature review goes on to briefly outline the
psychological variables found to be predictive of green consumerism. This overview
reveals that ‘green’ or ‘environmental’ identities are often just as strong predictors of
green consumerism as are other psychological variables such as environmental concern,
environmental attitudes, biospheric values, and personal norms. However, it is argued
that an individualised view of identity is predominantly taken within this research, and
this view is subsequently critiqued. This critique then leads to the argument that there is
a need to investigate how social identity processes may also predict engagement in green
consumerism.
CH. 2. LITERATURE REVIEW 14
Pro-environmental Behaviour: A General Overview
Given the need for humanity to mitigate current environmental problems (IPCC,
2013; Oskamp, 2000; Stern, 2011; Swim et al., 2011a, 2011b; Vlek & Steg, 2007), there
has been much empirical interest in pro-environmental behaviour5 – those behaviours
that individuals engage in that conserve and protect the natural environment (Pelletier et
al., 2008; Steg et al., 2012; Steg & Vlek, 2009). These behaviours may either directly or
indirectly improve the environment, and can be either intentional or unintentional, given
that individuals often engage in behaviours which inadvertently benefit the natural
environment (e.g., riding a bicycle to stay healthy also avoids the greenhouse gas
emissions produced when cars are driven) (Gifford, 2014; Kaiser & Wilson, 2000; Steg
& Vlek, 2009).
Due to this broad definition of pro-environmental behaviour, actions that fit the
definition range widely, from recycling and turning off lights to environmental activism
(Bamberg & Möser, 2007; Gatersleben, 2012; Stern, 2000). Given this variability, then,
attempts have been made to classify pro-environmental behaviours into categories, with
these classifications based on whether the behaviour occurs within the private or public
sphere, and whether it is individually or collectively employed (Bamberg & Möser,
2007; Gatersleben, 2012; Kaiser, 1998; Kaiser & Wilson, 2000; Larson, Stedman,
Cooper, & Decker, 2015; Markle, 2013; Stern, 2000). Indeed, Stern’s (2000) commonly
5 A number of terms have been employed to refer to those behaviours that have a positive impact on the
environment. These include ‘conservation behaviour’ (Schultz, Gouevia, Cameron, Schmuck, Franëk, &
Tankha, 2005), ‘ecological behaviour’ (Kaiser, 1998; Kaiser & Wilson, 2000), and environmentally
‘friendly’ (Dolnicar & Grün, 2008), ‘responsible’ (Hines, Hungerford, & Tomera, 1987) or ‘significant’
(Stern, 2000) behaviour. Given its relative clarity, and recent increase in use within environmental
psychology (e.g., Bamberg & Möser, 2006; Osbaldiston & Schott, 2012; Steg & Vlek, 2009), the term
‘pro-environmental behaviour’ is employed in this thesis.
CH. 2. LITERATURE REVIEW 15
used classification system categorises pro-environmental behaviours into four main
categories:
private sphere environmentalism (individual actions that have a positive
environmental impact, such as green consumerism, purchasing major household
goods that reduce energy use, or household waste disposal);
organisational environmentalism (environmentally friendly behaviours or
policies that organisations employ to decrease their employees’ individual waste
and energy use);
nonactivist behaviours that occur in the public sphere (individuals’ support and
acceptance of pro-environmental government policies); and
environmental activism (collective involvement in public displays of
environmental concern such as protesting or petitioning).
Following this classification system, then, a pro-environmental behaviour that is said to
be a clear example of private sphere environmentalism is green consumerism6 (Peattie,
2010; Stern, 1999, 2000; Thøgersen, 2009, 2011). Despite varying perspectives
regarding what constitutes green consumerism (which are discussed in more detail
below), green consumerism is often described as the tendency to engage in consumption
behaviour that attempts to conserve and protect the natural environment, especially the
purchase of green products (Antil, 1984; Barr & Gilg, 2005; Gatersleben, Steg, & Vlek,
6 A variety of terms have been used to refer to green consumerism, including ‘sustainable consumption’
(Connolly & Prothero, 2003; Reisch & Thøgersen, 2014); ‘environmentally responsible purchasing
behaviour’ (Follows & Jobber, 2000); ‘socially responsible consumption’ (e.g., Antil, 1984; Webb, Mohr,
& Harris, 2008); ‘environmentally friendly consumer behaviour’ (Thøgersen & Ölander, 2003); and ‘pro-
environmental consumer behaviour’ (Stern, 1999). Due to its wide use across a number of disciplines, this
thesis employs the term ‘green consumerism’.
CH. 2. LITERATURE REVIEW 16
2002; Peattie, 2001, 2010; Polonsky, Vocino, Grau, Garma, & Ferdous, 2012; Stern,
2000; Straughan & Roberts, 1999).
As individuals’ excessive and unsustainable consumption is one of the leading
behavioural causes of current environmental problems, green consumerism is of
particular interest to investigate in order to mitigate these environmental issues (Girod et
al., 2014; IPCC, 2013; Jackson, 2005; Niva & Timonen, 2001; Stern, 1999; Thøgersen,
2011). Yet the green consumerism construct is seen by many as inherently problematic
given that the term ‘green’ implies protection and conservation of the environment,
whilst ‘consumerism’ often involves the overuse of environmental resources (Peattie,
2010; Reisch & Thøgersen, 2014). Indeed, some sociologists argue that green
consumerism is a reflection of western consumerist and capitalist ideologies, and debate
whether it is actually beneficial to the environment in the long term (Akenji, 2014;
Dauvergne & Lister, 2010; Muldoon, 2006; Spaargaren, 2003).
However, the majority of researchers within the pro-environmental behaviour
and marketing literatures argue that green consumerism is still effective in reducing
environmental problems because it results in individuals reducing their unsustainable
consumption practices overall (Girod et al., 2014; Jackson, 2005; Peattie, 2010; Reisch
& Thøgersen, 2015; Steg, 2015; Stern, 1999; Thøgersen, 2011), and this is the stance
taken in the present thesis. In fact, green consumerism provides a low-cost and small-
scale behavioural intervention that can help to reduce individuals’ personal negative
impact on the environment (Bamberg & Möser, 2007; Carrington et al., 2010;
Osbaldiston & Schott, 2012; Pelletier et al., 2008; Steg & Vlek, 2009; Stern, 2011),
whilst also ensuring that environmental improvements that result from large-scale
technological innovations do not become undermined by increases in unsustainable
CH. 2. LITERATURE REVIEW 17
consumption (as suggested by Dauvergne & Lister, 2010; Gifford, 2014; Peattie, 2010).
Due to these considerations, then, the rest of this literature review will not attempt to
provide a comprehensive review of the broad pro-environmental behaviour literature,
with its focus instead upon the specific pro-environmental behaviour of green
consumerism.
Current Conceptualisations of Green Consumerism Within the Pro-environmental
Behaviour Literature
Whilst green consumerism may be a useful strategy to reduce current
environmental problems arising from unsustainable consumption practices (Carrington
et al., 2010; Girod et al., 2014; Jackson, 2005; Peattie, 2010; Stern, 1999), the construct
remains ill-defined within the pro-environmental behaviour literature. As a result the
following sections summarise how green consumerism is currently conceptualised,
including outlining what behaviours have been considered to be a part of the construct,
whilst also noting the mechanisms by which green consumerism is seen to be effective
in dealing with environmental problems.
Clarifying what behaviours are considered to be a part of green
consumerism. Currently, of the studies that have investigated green consumerism
within the pro-environmental behaviour literature, many do not provide a definition of
the construct, even when it is a major variable in their study (e.g., Barr & Gilg, 2006;
Ellen, 1994; Tanner & Kast, 2003). Others present vague or unspecified definitions of
green consumerism, failing to provide an explanation of what the term ‘green’ refers to,
or exactly what types of behaviours can be considered to fall under the construct of
consumerism (e.g., Gatersleben et al., 2002; Paladino, 2005; Thøgersen & Ölander,
2003).
CH. 2. LITERATURE REVIEW 18
Of the studies that do define green consumerism, it appears there is no clear
consensus on how to define the construct. For example, some researchers see green
consumerism as an example of individualised purchasing (Dembkowski & Hanmer-
Lloyd, 1994; Fisher, Bashyal, & Bachman, 2012; Griskevicius, Tybur, & van den Bergh,
2010; Stern, 2000). Indeed, many have suggested that green consumerism involves
individuals purchasing ‘green products’ that are ultimately less environmentally
damaging, such as organic produce or recycled products, (e.g., Arvola et al., 2008;
Bamberg, 2002; Bartels & Hoogenham, 2011; Bartels & van den Berg, 2011; Thøgersen,
2011; Thøgersen & Ölander, 2002, 2003).
Yet others have suggested, although far less commonly, that green consumerism
extends beyond the purchasing of green products to include the purchase, use, and
disposal of products and services that are perceived by individuals to be ‘green’ (e.g.,
Antil, 1984; Barr & Gilg, 2006; Gilg, Barr, & Ford, 2005; Grønhøj, 2006; Peattie, 2010;
Roberts, 1996). This suggestion is consistent with marketing and consumer studies
perspectives which argue that consumption involves all those behaviours that fall along
the entire cycle of consumption, from the manufacture of the product, to initial purchase,
and then to final disposal (e.g., Balderjahn, Peyer, & Paulseen, 2013; Jacoby, 2001).
Such a perspective on green consumerism is explored in the present thesis, given
the various intertwined consumption behaviours individuals engage in when attempting
to be ‘environmentally friendly’, as well as the decision making that leads to these
practices (Peattie, 2010). For example, those concerned about the environment may
modify their use and maintenance of products and resources (e.g., decreasing energy
use), household disposal (e.g., kerbside recycling), and choice of household goods and
services (e.g., utilising ‘green electricity’ tariffs) (Dietz, Stern, & Guagnano, 1998; Durif,
CH. 2. LITERATURE REVIEW 19
Roy, & Boivin, 2012; Clark, Kotchen, & Moore, 2003; Follows & Jobber, 2000; Stern,
Dietz, Kalof, Guagnano, & Abel, 1999; Thøgersen, 2009, 2011). Furthermore, to
compensate for situations where there are no green alternatives to products and services,
individuals may also engage in consumption behaviours that do not involve purchasing,
such as minimising the use of such non-green products, or disposing them in an
environmentally friendly manner (Durif et al., 2012; Jansson, Marell, & Nordlund, 2010;
Olson, 2013; Zamwel, Sasson-Levy, & Ben-Porat, 2014).
Even when individuals purchase green products or services, many of them may
also engage in a variety of post-purchase behaviours (such as recycling, reusing or
composting) in an attempt to further reduce the environmental impact of their initial
purchase (Jansson et al., 2010; Stern, 1999; Thøgersen, 1999). Others may choose to
boycott non-green products or actively choose to buy green products, even if the product
is perceived to be less effective than a non-green product, in order to increase the
demand for green products and services (Cherrier, 2009; Friedman, 1995; Griskevicius
et al., 2010; Micheletti & Stolle, 2012). Finally, individuals may also search for
appropriate information about products, and evaluate various behavioural options to
ensure their consumption behaviours are as green as possible (Fuentes, 2014; McDonald,
Oates, Thyne, Aleizou, & McMorland, 2009; Wagner-Tsukamoto & Tadajewski, 2006).
The examples above point to how green consumerism is a complex construct that
extends beyond simply purchasing a green product, and therefore may be better defined
and conceptualised as including the acquisition, use, and disposal of a range of ‘green’
products and services (Barr & Gilg, 2006; Connolly & Prothero, 2003; Peattie, 2010;
Roberts, 1996; Roberts & Bacon, 1997; Straughan & Roberts, 1999). However, there is
no research to date investigating how consumers make sense of green consumerism,
CH. 2. LITERATURE REVIEW 20
including what behaviours they think are involved in it, and whether they see it as
extending beyond the purchase of green products. Indeed, investigating how individuals
perceive and make sense of green consumerism may help to clarify the key defining
features of the construct.
Exploring the mechanisms by which green consumerism is effective in
protecting the natural environment. Although there is no consensus on how to
conceptualise green consumerism, as described above, implicit within all current
definitions of green consumerism are two assumptions. The first assumption is that those
who engage in green consumerism typically do so because they are concerned for the
environment (e.g., Bamberg, 2003; Crane, 2010Peattie, 2010). This assumption exists
despite empirical evidence demonstrating that those who engage in green consumerism
can also be motivated by price or status, and not just environmental concern (e.g.,
D’Souza et al., 2007; Griskevicius et al., 2010) (the various predictors of green
consumerism are discussed later in this chapter). Secondly, it is assumed that consumers
view green consumerism as an effective means to deal with numerous environmental
concerns (e.g., Follows & Jobber, 2000; Mohr, Webb, & Harris, 2001; Moisander, 2007;
Spaargaren, 2003; Stern, 2000). Although some research has attempted to investigate
these assumptions, arguing that individuals who engage in green consumerism do so for
status or to be environmentally responsible (see Autio, Heiskanen, & Heinonen, 2009;
Connolly & Prothero, 2003; Moisander, 2007), little has been done explore in detail how
exactly consumers perceive green consumerism to be an effective strategy for reducing
current environmental issues, if they do perceive this to be the case.
Clarifying the ways in which green consumerism is perceived to be effective in
protecting the natural environment can help to determine whether it is an individual
CH. 2. LITERATURE REVIEW 21
action, as often assumed within the pro-environmental behaviour literuatre (Stern, 2000),
whilst also helping researchers to understand what motivates individuals to engage in
green consumerism over other pro-environmental behaviours (Moisander, 2007; Pieter,
Bijmolt, van Raaij, & de Kruijk, 1998). The little research that has been done on this
issue suggests that consumers see green consumerism as reducing the environmentally
negative impact of their own individual consumption, especially if it is part of a lifestyle
in which all their personal actions are ‘green’ or ‘environmentally friendly’ (Barr & Gilg,
2006; Black & Cherrier, 2010; Fraj & Martinez, 2006; Gatersleben, White, Abrahamse,
Jackson, & Uzzell, 2010).
Yet this focus on green consumerism as an individual action within the pro-
environmental behaviour literature overlooks how green consumerism’s overall
effectiveness is reliant upon large numbers of individuals acting in the same way – that
is, that green consumerism is ‘collectively employed’ (Peattie, 2010). That is, even
though the individual actions that are seen as part of green consumerism may occur in
the private sphere, they are only effective in decreasing environmental problems in the
long term if a group of individuals collectively and consistently choose to engage in
these actions, as argued by several theorists (Akenji, 2014; Alfredsson, 2004; Crane,
2010; Dauvergne & Lister, 2010; Friedman, 1995; Girod et al., 2014; Peattie, 2010;
Spaargaren, 2003). Indeed, green consumerism could be argued to be a collective pro-
environmental behaviour, either through the additive effect of individuals operating
privately, or as a mixture of private and public acts done with the awareness of others
also engaging in green consumerism and the desire to work as a group or collective to
meet their shared goal of reducing environmental problems.
CH. 2. LITERATURE REVIEW 22
Whilst no research to date has examined whether green consumerism is better
conceptualised as a pro-environmental behaviour that is individually or collectively
employed, some researchers have suggested that green consumerism may be a form of
political action that individuals engage in with likeminded others to reduce current
environmental problems (Autio et al., 2009; Micheletti & Stolle, 2012; Moisander &
Pesonen, 2002). That is, when a large group of individuals actively change their
consumption practices to be more sustainable or green, this change in consumption can
serve as a form of consumer activism in capitalist societies (Crane, 2010; Friedman,
1995, 1996). Indeed, green consumerism’s capacity to serve as a form of consumer
activism may be some individuals’ underlying motivation for engaging in the behaviour,
and for preferring it to other forms of pro-environmental behaviour (Moisander, 2007).
This argument suggests that, for some consumers at least, green consumerism may be a
pro-environmental behaviour that can be collectively employed. Nevertheless, further
research is needed to investigate this possibility.
Predictors of Green Consumerism
Despite the lack of consensus as to how to define and conceptualise green
consumerism (Peattie, 2010), research has nonetheless investigated variables which help
to increase behaviours that can be considered facets of green consumerism, such as
purchasing green products, recycling, and conservation of resources or services. This
research has been summarised and meta-analysed in a number of seminal papers (see
Bamberg & Möser, 2007; Gifford & Nilsson, 2014; Hines, Hungerford, & Tomera,
1987; Osbaldiston, 2013; Osbaldiston & Schott, 2012; Peattie, 2010; Stern, 2000), with
some key findings particularly relevant to the present thesis summarised below.
CH. 2. LITERATURE REVIEW 23
Demographic variables. Some research, especially within the marketing field,
indicates that women, younger people, and more well educated individuals are more
willing to purchase recycled products and organic food than are men, older people, and
less educated individuals (e.g., Mostafa, 2007; Stern, Dietz, & Guagnano, 1995;
Straughan & Roberts, 1999). Yet other studies suggest that age, occupation, level of
education, and gender do not predict the purchase of green products such as recycled
paper products and ‘green detergent’ (e.g., Akehurst, Afonso, & Goncalves, 2012;
Diamantopoulos, Schlegelmilch, Sinkovics, & Bohlen, 2003; Fisher et al., 2012). Given
these mixed findings, many researchers have concluded that demographic variables
alone are unable to predict green consumerism (e.g., Akehurst et al., 2012; Clark et al.,
2003; Diamantopoulos et al., 2003; Papaoikonomou er al., 2011, Peattie, 2010;
Straughan & Roberts, 1999; Tanner & Kast, 2003).
Perceptions of green branding and marketing. The subjective perceptions
consumers have of green branding also appears to have minimal explanatory power for
green consumerism (Griskevicius et al., 2010; Henion, Gregory & Clee, 1981; Peattie,
2010). For example, it has been shown that whilst the aim of green or eco labels is to
provide clear information to consumers, they are in actuality perceived to be confusing
and overwhelming for most (Borin, Lindsey-Mullikin, & Krishuan, 2013; Brécard,
Hlaimi, Lucas, Perraudeau, & Salladarré, 2009; Chen, 2010; Pedersen & Neergaard,
2006). Individuals also have both positive and negative perceptions of green marketing
claims (Chan, 2000; Kim, Lee, & Park, 2010; Shrum, McCarty, & Lowrey, 1995), and
are less likely to engage in green consumerism when a product is seen to be dishonestly
labelled as environmentally friendly – that is, when ‘greenwashing’ occurs (Lim, Ting,
Bonaventure, Sendiawan, & Tanusina, 2013).
CH. 2. LITERATURE REVIEW 24
Individual-level psychological variables. As demographic variables and
subjective perceptions of green branding appear to inadequately predict green
consumerism, many researchers have instead focused on psychological variables in
order to provide more stable and stronger explanations for green consumerism (Peattie,
2010; Reisch & Thøgersen, 2015; Stern, 2000). This research has primarily focused on
individual-level variables, including environmental knowledge (e.g., Paladino, 2005;
Schlegelmilch, Bohlen, & Diamantopoulos, 1996), pro-environmental attitudes or
concern (e.g., Balderjahn, 1988; D’Souza et al., 2007; Roberts & Bacon, 1997), personal
norms (e.g., Dean, Raats, & Shepherd, 2008; Thøgersen & Ölander, 2006), perceived
behavioural control (e.g., Sparks & Shepherd, 1992), biospheric values (Gatersleben,
Murtagh, & Abrahamse, 2014), and ‘green’ or ‘environmental’ identities (van der Werff
et al., 2014; Whitmarsh & O’Neill, 2010), each of which is briefly addressed below.
Firstly, of this literature, environmental knowledge appears to only explain a
marginal amount of variance in green consumerism. For instance, although
environmental knowledge is positively and moderately related to green purchasing and
to conserving household energy (Bamberg, 2003; Chan & Lau, 2000; Paladino, 2005;
Poortinga, Steg, & Vlek, 2004; Schlegelmilch et al., 1996), when subjective (perceived)
knowledge and objective (actual) knowledge of the natural environment were separately
assessed, each form of environmental knowledge accounted for between 4-8% of
variance in reducing, reusing, and recycling behaviour (Ellen, 1994).
Similarly, positive environmental attitudes and concern have only been found to
predict a small proportion of variance in green purchasing (8–20%) in most studies (e.g.,
Balderjahn, 1988; Bamberg, 2003; D‘Souza et al., 2007; Leonidou, Leonidou, &
Kvasova, 2010; Minton & Rose, 1997; Pagiaslis & Krontalis, 2014; Roberts & Bacon,
CH. 2. LITERATURE REVIEW 25
1997). The variance explained does increase (to 30–42%) when the specific attitude
towards a ‘green product’ is measured and used to predict purchasing of that specific
product (e.g., Mostafa, 2007; Vermeir & Verbeke, 2008) – this is in line with the
compability principle as outlined by the Theory of Planned Behaviour (Ajzen, 1985;
1991). However, when environmental self-identity is included as a predictor alongside
environmental attitudes, attitudes are no longer predictive of a range of pro-
environmental behaviours, including green purchasing (Whitmarsh & O’Neill, 2010).
Indeed, recent research has shown that environmental self-identity fully mediates the
relationship between environmental concern and sustainable consumption (Dermody,
Hanmer-Llyod, Koenig, & Zhoa, 2015) (as is further discussed below). Despite these
studies measuring environmental attitudes, concerns, and identity in varying ways, thus
limiting the ability to make general conclusions, the above findings do indicate that
identity appears to be important predictor for green purchasing behaviour.
Research into whether personal norms are predictive of green consumerism has
also produced mixed findings (e.g., Bertoldo & Castro, 2016; Harland, Staats, & Wilke,
1999; Johe & Bhullar, 2016; Thøgersen & Ölander, 2006). For instance, personal norms
(defined as ‘personal beliefs about right and wrong’, see Dean et al., 2008) moderately
predicted intention to purchase organic food products (Dean et al.; Thøgersen & Ölander,
2006), but did not significantly predict individuals’ intentions to purchase
‘environmentally friendly’ apparel online (Kim, Lee, & Hur, 2012).
One reason for these variable findings is that the personal norm-behaviour
relationship appears to be much stronger in instances where all that is asked of the
individual is to engage in an ‘easier’ pro-environmental behaviour (e.g., Aguilar-Luźon,
García-Martínez, Calvo-Salguero, & Salinas, 2012; Steg & Nordlund, 2012; Turaga,
CH. 2. LITERATURE REVIEW 26
Howarth, & Borsuk, 2010). For example, Black, Stern, and Elworth (1985) showed that
personal norms more strongly predicted the inexpensive and easier behaviour of
adjusting temperature settings than it predicted actions involving major investments in
energy efficiency, such as purchasing household products that save on energy. However,
the predictive ability of personal norms for more difficult aspects of green consumerism
associated with high personal costs, such as waste prevention and recycling, is
strengthened when environmental self-identity is included in predictive models (Nigbur,
Lyons, & Uzzell, 2010; Ruepert et al., 2016).
Given that environmental attitudes and personal norms alone have often been
unable to strongly predict facets of green consumerism, some researchers have instead
employed the more comprehensive theory of planned behaviour7 (TPB) as a theoretical
model, demonstrating it has a moderate level of predictive power for green purchasing,
recycling, and reusing behaviour (e.g., Bamberg, 2002; Bang, Ellinger, Hadjimarcou, &
Traichal, 2000; Cook, Kerr, & Moore, 2002; Mannetti, Pierro, & Livi, 2004). Variables
from the TPB that are particularly relevant are environmental attitudes and subjective
norms which have both been found to moderately predict reduction in meat consumption
and the use of energy-saving lightbulbs (Harland et al., 1999), as well as the purchase of
organic and sustainable food (e.g., Arvola et al., 2008; Cook et al., 2002; Vermeir &
Verbeke, 2008).
7 The theory of planned behaviour (Ajzen, 1985, 1991) states that intention to engage in a specific
behaviour such as green consumerism is the best predictor of the behaviour (e.g., Harland, Staats, & Wilke,
1999; Steg & Nordlund, 2012). This intention is predicted by specific attitudes towards the behaviour,
perceived subjective norms related to the behaviour, and perceived behavioural control over the behaviour.
Other variables, such as demographics, knowledge and values, are seen to influence behaviour indirectly
via attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioural control.
CH. 2. LITERATURE REVIEW 27
Interestingly, when an identity variable is added to the TPB, it has often emerged
as a stronger predictor of both pro-environmental intentions and behaviour than are the
usual TPB variables of environmental attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived
behavioural control (e.g., Cook et al., 2002; Mancha & Yoder, 2015; White & Hyde,
2012). For instance, environmental self-identity was a stronger predictor of carbon off-
setting behaviour than were TPB variables (Whitmarsh & O’Neil, 2010), as was the
‘recycler’ self-identity for kerbside recycling (Nigbur et al., 2010). Furthermore,
including self-identity as an ‘organic consumer’ or ‘health conscious consumer’
increased the predictive utility of the TPB for such behaviours as organic purchasing,
reduction in meat consumption, and consuming a diet low in animal fats (Sparks &
Guthrie, 1998; Sparks & Shepherd, 1992). ‘Organic consumer self-identity’ was also
found to increase intention to purchase organic products by initially influencing
consumer attitudes and norms (Johe & Bhullar, 2016). These findings suggest that,
whilst the TPB can predict green consumerism, identity explains a unique amount of
additional variance in green consumerism, with identity often making a greater
contribution in explaining pro-environmental intentions and behaviour over and above
that of variables found in the TPB.
Researchers have also examined whether personal values may predict green
consumerism, particularly in relation to the purchasing of green products, the reduction
in energy and car use, and the reuse of resources and products (Barr, 2007; Dembkowski
& Hanmer-Lloyd, 1994; Jansson et al., 2010; Steg, 2015; Thøgersen & Ölander, 2002;
Vermeir & Verbeke, 2008). In fact, studies have consistently shown that biospheric
values, defined as perceiving the intrinsic value of the natural environment, are
predictive of numerous pro-environmental behaviours (for a review, see Steg & de Groot,
CH. 2. LITERATURE REVIEW 28
2012). Unsurprisingly, then, biospheric values have been found to predict ‘sustainable’
consumption (Thøgersen & Ölander, 2002).
Yet recent research has also demonstrated that the relationship between
biospheric values and green purchasing (as well as a range of other pro-environmental
behaviours) is mediated by environmental self-identity (Gatersleben et al., 2014;
Ruepert et al., 2016; van der Werff et al., 2013a, 2013c). That identity mediates the
relationship between values and pro-environmental behaviours has led to the suggestion
(Gatersleben et al., 2014; Hiltin, 2003; Steg & de Groot, 2012) that having a ‘green’ or
‘environmental’ identity encompasses one having biospheric values in the first place, as
valuing nature is an important component of seeing oneself as ‘green’ or
‘environmentally friendly’.
‘Green’ or ‘environmental’ identity. Identity can be defined as an
organisational framework of the self, essentially providing information on how we
perceive ourselves and others (Clayton, 2003, 2012; Clayton & Myers, 2015; Light,
2000; Sparks, 2013). An identity typically emerges from social structures and
interactions and, when made salient by situational cues, guides our attitudes and
behaviour (Baumeister & Twenge, 2003; Brown, 2000; Stapleton, 2015; Stets & Biga,
2003; Stets & Burke, 2000).
Within the pro-environmental behaviour literature, it has been suggested that
making an ‘environmental’ or ‘green’ identity salient is especially useful for fostering a
range of pro-environmental behaviours (Clayton & Myers, 2015; Clayton & Opotow,
2003; Schultz & Tabanico, 2007; van der Werff et al., 2014). Arguably, this is because
‘environmental’ or ‘green’ identities reflect an individual’s acknowledgement that their
personal relationship to the natural environment is a central part of whom they are.
CH. 2. LITERATURE REVIEW 29
Given this, individuals therefore need to engage in pro-environmental behaviour in order
to accurately reflect their perception of being an ‘environmentally friendly’ person
(Clayton, 2003; Clayton & Opotow, 2003; Sparks, 2013; Stets & Biga, 2003). This can
include consumption behaviour, especially if it is consumption that is intended to be
green or sustainable (as suggested by Crane, 2010; Soron, 2010). As such, researchers
have examined identities that are specific towards a certain pro-environmental behaviour
(e.g., ‘recycler self-identity’, ‘organic consumer’ self-identity) (Nigbur et al., 2010;
Sparks & Shepherd, 1992) and those which are more general (e.g., ‘environmental
identity’ or ‘environmental self-identity’) (Clayton, Fraser, & Burgess, 2011; Kashima,
Paladino, & Margetts, 2014; Kim et al., 2012; van der Werff et al., 2013a, 2013b, 2013c,
2014; Whitmarsh & O’Neill, 2010).
Broadly speaking, these ‘green’ or ‘environmental’ identities in particular have
been found to be strongly predictive of numerous pro-environmental behaviours,
including energy conservation, adopting green energy or electric cars, recycling, travel
mode choice, environmentally friendly transport, participation in environmental
stewardship programs, and waste minimisation behaviour (e.g., Barbarossa, Beckman,
De Pelsmacker, Moons, & Gwozdz, 2015; Dresner, Handelman, Braun, & Rollwagen-
Bollens, 2015; Gatersleben et al., 2014; Kashima et al., 2014; Murtagh, Gatersleben, &
Uzzell, 2012; Nigbur et al., 2010; van der Werff et al., 2013a, 2013b; White & Hyde,
2012; Whitmarsh & O’Neill, 2010). Moreover, ‘green’ or ‘environmental’ identities are
also predictive of green purchasing choices (Costa Pinto, Herter, Rossi, & Borges, 2014;
Herter, Costa Pinto, Borges, & Nique, 2011; Sparks & Shepherd, 1992; Whitmarsh &
O’Neill, 2010). Indeed, a consumer’s tendency to identify as a ‘green’, ‘sustainable’ or
‘organic’ consumer also strongly predicts their purchase of ‘green’, ‘sustainable’, and
CH. 2. LITERATURE REVIEW 30
‘organic’ products (Bartels & Reindeers, 2016; Johe & Bhullar, 2016; Kim et al., 2012;
Sparks & Shepherd, 1992).
Furthermore, and as outlined earlier in this chapter, whilst numerous individual-
level psychological variables are moderately predictive of facets of green consumerism
such as green purchasing and the reuse of products, the predictive ultility of these
models that include environmental attitudes or concern are often increased when ‘green’
or ‘environmental’ identity is also included (e.g., Cook et al., 2002; Dermody et al.,
2015; Gatersleben et al., 2014; Ruepert et al., 2016; Mancha & Yoder, 2015; Nigbur et
al., 2010; Whitmarsh & O’Neill, 2010). ‘Green’ or ‘environmental’ identities are also
shown to mediate the relationships environmental concern, personal norms, and
biospheric values have with various pro-environmental behaviours (Johe & Bhullar,
2016; Nigbur et al., 2010; Ruepert et al., 2016; Whitmarsh & O’Neill, 2010). Together,
these findings suggest that identity is a strong predictor of pro-environmental behaviour,
including green consumerism, as argued by a number of researchers (Clayton, 2012;
Clayton & Myers, 2015; Kashima et al., 2014; Sparks, 2013; Whitmarsh & O’Neill,
2010).
Reconceptualising green or environmental identity. Whilst one can hold
multiple identities that can be either personal (self or personal identity) or collective
(group or social identity) (Tajfel & Turner, 1979), the present thesis argues that the
current pro-environmental behaviour literature has typically focused solely upon an
individualised or ‘personal’ view of ‘green’ or ‘environmental’ identity. That is, the
research focus is usually upon the part of the self-concept that arises from personal
views of the self or idiosyncratic experiences. This includes individuals seeing
themselves as someone who engages in ‘environmental friendly’ behaviour or
CH. 2. LITERATURE REVIEW 31
individuals perceiving themselves as having a close relationship with the natural
environment (Clayton, 2003; Light, 2000; Sparks, 2013; van der Werff et al., 2014).
Such ‘personal’ identities that have been studied include:
‘ecological’ identity, defined as one’s perceived interdependence with nature
(Light, 2000; Thomashow, 1996),
‘environmental identity’, defined as the sense of connection to some part of
the nonhuman natural environment that contributes to the way one perceives
and acts towards the natural world (Clayton, 2003, 2012), and
‘environmental self-identity’, defined as someone perceiving themselves as a
person who engages in a range of pro-environmental behaviours (van der
Werff et al., 2013a, 2013b, 2013c, 2014).
Although these various types of personal identities are conceptually different,
they all share the underlying view that ones personal experiences of the natural
environment contributes to their sense of self. However, identity does not only arise
from idiosyncratic and personal experiences, like one seeing themselves as part of nature
(i.e., environmental identity), or as a person who acts pro-environmentally (i.e.,
environmental self-identity). An individual’s self-concept can also be derived from
membership to psychologically meaningful social groups – that is, social or group
identities (Tajfel, 1981; Tajfel & Turner, 1979; Turner, 1982; Turner et al., 1987; Turner
& Oakes, 1986). Indeed, individuals can perceive themselves to be members of groups
based on shared ideology and opinion, including the ideology of environmentalism
(Bliuc et al., 2007; McGarty et al., 2009).
Given this, membership in pro-environmental social categories or groups that
have an underlying environmental ideology (or groups that hold pro-environmental
CH. 2. LITERATURE REVIEW 32
norms more generally) are likely to also significantly contribute to individuals’
perceptions of themselves, and to their associated behaviour. Indeed, a plethora of
studies show that when social identities become salient, those who identify with these
identities assimilate their attitudes, beliefs and behaviour to the norms of the group,
viewing themselves as having similar qualities with other ingroup members (for some
summaries, see Brown, 2000; Ellemers, Spears, & Doosje, 2002; Reicher, Spears, &
Haslam, 2010; Terry & Hogg, 2000). Quite simply, identification to the social group or
category becomes the psychological mechanism that underpins group normative
attitudes, beliefs, and behaviours.
Given these considerations, many researchers have previously suggested that
seeing oneself as ‘green’ or ‘environmental’ is important to members of environmental
movements and groups, and therefore contributes to their behaviour (Holland et al.,
2000; Light, 2000; Matsuba, 2012; Owen, Videras, & Wu, 2010; Ruiz-Junco, 2011;
Stapleton, 2015). However, the relationship between social identity and different types
of pro-environmental behaviour has only received recent empirical attention (e.g.,
Bartels & Hoogendam, 2011; Bartels & Reinders, 2016; Dono, Webb, Richardson,
2010; Fielding, McDonald, & Louis, 2008a). Nevertheless, this emerging body of
research demonstrates that an identity based on environmental group membership – that
is, social identity – is positively and moderately associated with numerous pro-
environmental attitudes and behaviours (e.g., Bamberg, Rees, & Seebauer, 2015; Bliuc,
McGarty, Thomas, Lala, Berndsen, & Misajon, 2015; Rees & Bamberg, 2014;
Sweetman & Whitmarsh, 2016; Veenstra, Lyons, & Fowler-Dawson, 2016).
Yet, to date, no research has investigated the relationship between social identity
and green consumerism in particular. As such, in the following chapter, it is argued that
CH. 2. LITERATURE REVIEW 33
the social identity approach (Tajfel & Turner, 1979; Turner et al., 1987), a theoretical
framework that acknowledges both personal and social identity, could help to further
explain the relationship between identity and green consumerism, as well as elucidate
how other group and intergroup processes (such as group stereotyping) may contribute
to green consumerism, and pro-environmental behaviour more generally. This argument
is accompanied by a review of research that, although not directly measuring the
relationship between social identity and green consumerism, provides some initial
evidence as to how social identity, and the processes that arise from ingroup
identification, can contribute to engagement in green consumerism.
CH. 3. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 34
Chapter 3
Theoretical Framework: The Social Identity Approach
Introduction
In Chapter 2, the pro-environmental behaviour literature that has investigated
green consumerism was outlined, and two key conclusions were drawn. Firstly it was
noted that green consumerism is typically conceptualised as a type of individualised
purchasing behaviour – specifically as the purchase of green products (Dembkowski &
Hanmer-Lloyd, 1994; Griskevicius et al., 2010; Stern, 2000; Thøgersen & Ölander, 2002,
2003). However, the chapter argued that not only could green consumerism be better
conceptualised as including multiple consumption behaviours, it could also be seen as a
behaviour that is collectively employed, given that it needs to be enacted by many
people to be as effective as possible in reducing current environmental problems (Crane,
2010; Girod et al., 2014; Peattie, 2010; Spaargaren, 2003).
Secondly, Chapter 2 also demonstrated that while various individual-level
variables are positively related to green consumerism, ‘green’ or ‘environmental’
identities have often been found to be just as strong predictors of green purchasing (and
pro-environmental behaviour more generally) than other such variables (e.g., Dean et al.,
2008; Gatersleben et al., 2014; Ruepert et al., 2016; van der Werff et al., 2013a, 2013b,
2013c, 2014; Whitmarsh & O’Neill, 2010). Yet by taking an individualistic view of
identity, this literature often overlooks how psychologically meaningful group
memberships also impact on one’s perceptions of the self and, through this, on
behaviour (Tajfel & Turner, 1979; Turner et al., 1987). It was subsequently argued that
this focus on personal environmental identities was a limitation of the current research
CH. 3. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 35
literature, as it neglects the contribution that social groups, and thus social identity, can
have on green consumerism, and pro-environmental behaviour more generally (Fielding
& Hornsey, 2016).
Drawing upon these arguments, then, the aims of the present chapter were: (1) to
introduce the social identity approach, a meta-theoretical framework that acknowledges
the contributions that social identity processes make to social behaviours; and (2) to
discuss the advantages of employing this approach when investigating engagement in
green consumerism. The following section now introduces the social identity approach.
The Social Identity Approach and its Central Tenets
The social identity approach8 is a meta-theoretical framework for understanding
group processes, intergroup relations, and social behaviour across many social contexts,
including political and environmental ones (Hogg, 2006a; Hogg & Turner, 1987; Tajfel,
1981; Tajfel & Turner, 1979; Turner et al., 1987). Its development arose as a reaction to
individualistic and reductionist theoretical explanations of group-mediated phenomena,
and it instead emphasises that psychological group membership is both necessary and
sufficient to produce intra- and intergroup processes (Abrams & Hogg, 1990; Hornsey,
2008; Tajfel & Turner, 1979; Turner et al., 1987; Turner & Oakes, 1986). Indeed, one’s
identification with relevant social groups is one of the psychological mechanisms that
underpins attitudes and social behaviours in many social contexts, with theorists recently
suggesting that the broad environmental movement may be one such context (see
8 The social identity approach contains two distinct, yet closely aligned theories: social identity theory
(SIT) (Tajfel & Turner, 1979) and self-categorisation theory (SCT) (Turner et al., 1987). Although these
two theories hold different foci and emphases, they are highly complementary given that they hold the
same underlying ideological positions and assumptions (Hogg, 2006a; Turner, 1999). Therefore the ‘social
identity approach’ is employed in the present thesis to refer to conceptual and empirical work that is
derived from both social identity theory and self-categorisation theory.
CH. 3. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 36
Batalha & Reynolds, 2012; Fielding & Hornsey, 2016; Postmes, Rabinovich, Morton, &
van Zomeren, 2013).
At its foundation, the social identity approach rests upon the assumption that
society is comprised of numerous social categories and groups that seek to distinguish
themselves from one another (Hogg & Abrams, 1988; Hogg, Terry, & White, 1995;
Hornsey, 2008; Spears, 2011; Tajfel & Turner, 1979). These social categories exist
within hierarchically stratified societies, where individuals are aware that the social
groups to which they belong differ in status from other groups. Moreover, groups are not
static and may compete for such status as well as for concrete resources, via social
change and other more psychological strategies (Brewer & Brown, 1998; Ellemers et al.,
2002; Tajfel & Turner, 1979).
Principally, from this perspective, such social categories and groups are not
aggregates of individuals, but are qualitatively different to individuals, with members
brought together by a shared self-perception and social reality (Tajfel, 1981; Turner,
1982; Turner & Oakes, 1986). Although social psychologists have defined groups in
numerous ways, for social identity theorists groups are not defined by their function, size,
or structure, but rather by ingroup members’ subjective perceptions regarding what are
the defining features of the group. Thus, even though one may fulfil the external or
objective criterion for being a member of the social category or group (e.g., ‘I was born
in Australia and therefore am an Australian’), this is not the same as subjectively
perceiving oneself as a member of a psychological group (e.g., ‘I feel that I am an
Australian’).
CH. 3. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 37
Furthermore, as described by the interpersonal-intergroup continuum9,
individuals’ behaviours that occur within groups as well as between groups are primarily
determined by how salient a social category and group is in a given social context (Hogg
& Abrams, 1988; Hornsey, 2008; McGarty, 2001; Spears, 2011; Tajfel & Turner, 1979).
For example, at the interpersonal extreme of this continuum, human interaction involves
people relating to one another entirely as individuals, with no awareness of social
categories or groups. Therefore, the resulting behaviour that arises from this interaction
is fully determined by an individual’s idiosyncratic characteristics and the interpersonal
relationships that exist between individuals. However, at the intergroup extreme of this
continuum, human interactions involve people relating to one another as representative
members of their social groups, resulting in numerous intra- and intergroup processes
that reflect group-level perceptions.
What is important to note is that individuals can shift between the opposing ends
of the interpersonal-intergroup continuum as a result of categorisation, the automatic
cognitive process wherein the most meaningful stimuli within a particular social context
– be it social or non-social stimuli – are brought into sharper focus (Hogg & Abrams,
1988; Tajfel, 1981; Tajfel & Turner, 1979). Individuals employ social categories as the
basis of categorisation in social situations in order to simplify their interpretation of the
social world, either as members of the same category as the self (ingroup members), or
as members of a different category from the self (outgroup members) (Hogg, 2006a;
Hogg & Abrams, 1990; Tajfel & Turner, 1979). This categorisation produces an
9 The social identity approach does acknowledge that, in real life, social behaviour is often driven by a
compromise between the two extremes of the interpersonal-intergroup continuum (Tajfel & Turner, 1979;
Turner, 1981). However it is generally argued that almost all social encounters would be influenced to
some degree by an individual’s assignment of themselves and others to social categories.
CH. 3. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 38
accentuation effect (Tajfel, 1957, 1959; Tajfel & Wilkes, 1963); that is, the similarities
between people within the same category, and the differences between people in
different categories, are simultaneously exaggerated (Hogg & Abrams, 1988).
This process of categorisation, and its resulting accentuation effect, changes the
way in which people see themselves – that is, their self-concept (Hornsey, 2008;
Ellemers et al., 2002; Postmes & Jetten, 2006; Tajfel & Turner, 1979). When a particular
social context leads to shifts in self-categorisation, this activates different parts of one’s
self-concept: either personal identities, those self-definitions which are individual-based
and derived mostly from personal or idiosyncratic experiences, or social identities, those
self-definitions that arise from psychologically meaningful group memberships (Hitlin,
2003; Hogg et al., 1995; Tajfel & Turner, 1979; Turner & Oakes, 1986; Turner, Oakes,
Haslam, & McGarty, 1994). Given that the social identity approach argues that it is
primarily social groups and categories that underpin intergroup relations and social
behaviour, the focus within this meta-theoretical paradigm is typically upon social
identities10.
As such, social identity is defined as “that part of an individual’s self-concept
which derives from his [or her] knowledge of his [or her] membership of a social group
(or groups) together with the value and emotional significance attached to that
membership” (Tajfel & Turner, 1979, p. 63). Social identities are also inherently fluid
and flexible, as ingroup members’ shared social reality can alter over time and across
social contexts (Reicher, 2004; Turner, 1982; Turner, Oakes, Haslam, & McGarty, 1994;
10 That is not to say the impact of personal identity on human behaviour and interactions is not
acknowledged. It is just argued that personal identity is better suited to explain close personal relationships
and the individual attributes of the person (Ellemers et al., 2002; Hitlin, 2003; Hogg, 2006a; Hogg et al.,
1995; Turner, 1982).
CH. 3. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 39
Turner & Tajfel, 1979). For example, what it means to be part of the ‘Australian’ social
group can change over time with changes in the political context, and when Australians
are compared to different social groups (Haslam et al., 1995a, 1995b).
Social identities can be formed on the basis of many different types of social
categories and groups, including broad socio-demographic categories (e.g., ethnicity,
gender), smaller, interactive groups (e.g., sports teams, clubs), and also shared social and
political ideologies and opinions (Huddy, 2001; McGarty et al., 2009; Tajfel, 1981;
Tajfel & Turner, 1979). In the latter type of group, termed opinion-based social groups,
individuals identify with a psychological group of people who share the same broad
ideology (e.g., feminism, environmentalism, liberalism, conservativism), rather than a
group that shares any external or objective characteristics such as gender or ethnicity
(Bliuc et al., 2007; McGarty et al., 2009). This can include specific political or activist
groups such as climate change believers or sceptics (Bliuc et al., 2007, 2015), as well as
more general social justice ideologies (Thomas, Mavor, & McGarty, 2012; Thomas,
McGarty, & Mavor, 2010).
As with non-social categories, people cognitively represent social categories and
groups as groups as prototypes – a fuzzy set of attributes (perceptions, attitudes, feelings,
and behaviours) that embody the central features of the category or group (Hogg & Reid,
2006; Oakes, 1987; Oakes, Turner, & Haslam, 1991). Prototypes are subjective
representations of the defining features of groups, rather than an objective reality, and
follow the meta-contrast principle in that they seek to maximise intergroup differences,
whilst enhancing intragroup similarities (Oakes, 1987). Prototypes are also context-
dependent, as they arise as a function of the social comparisons individuals make
between and within groups salient in a given situation. For instance, what it means to be
CH. 3. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 40
an Australian will change when the group is Americans then when it is compared to the
English.
As self-categorisation as a group member heightens the similarities one has to
other ingroup members, and the differences between the self and outgroup members,
one’s perception of the self and other ingroup members becomes aligned with the
ingroup prototype – that is, the perception of self becomes depersonalised11, resulting in
individual’s self-perception becoming closer to the stereotypical or defining
characteristics of the group (Hogg, 2001b; Hogg & Reid, 2006; Oakes, 2002; Turner,
1999; Turner et al., 1987). As part of this, individuals assimilate to the ingroup’s
attitudinal and behavioural norms (Amiot, Sansfaçon, & Louis, 2014; Hogg, 2006a;
Reynolds, Subašić, & Tindall, 2015; Tajfel & Turner, 1979; Terry & Hogg, 2000).
Therefore, if a social identity is meaningful for an individual and salient within a given
social context, this will generally result in the individual ‘taking on’ this identity, and
engaging in normative behaviours of the group (Ellemers et al., 2002; Hogg & Reid,
2006; McGarty, 2001; Reicher, 2004; Tajfel & Turner, 1979).
What makes a social identity salient in a particular context is the ease with which
the identity can be cognitively activated by the individual (perceiver readiness); the
extent to which social categories are perceived by the individual to actually reflect social
reality (fit); and the relative accessibility of that categorisation for the individual
(accessibility) (Oakes, 1987; Oakes et al., 1991, 1994; Turner et al., 1987). For instance,
individuals can perceive a high level of fit for a social category in a particular social
11 In the context of the social identity approach, depersonalisation does not mean a loss of personhood, and
therefore does not hold the same negative connotations as dehumanisation. Rather, depersonalisation
simply refers to how individual’s perceptions of the self become less individual and instead more ‘groupy’
(Hogg & Abrams, 1988; Turner et al., 1987).
CH. 3. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 41
context if it enhances intragroup similarities, whilst maximising intergroup differences
(comparative fit); but a social category can also have high fit within a specific social
context if a group and its social behaviour reflect stereotypical expectations the
individual holds of the group (normative fit). Furthermore, although social categories
need to be cognitively accessible for them to become salient, this accessibility can be
because the social category was specifically primed within a given situation (situational
accessibility), or because the social category is frequently employed by the individual
(chronic accessibility). As such, it is the social category with the optimal fit and one
which is easily accessible that will become the basis of self-categorisation and
depersonalisation, and therefore social identification (Oakes, 1987, 2002). These
processes become important when one considers the range of social identities
individuals can hold (e.g., mother, Australian, academic, musician) and how this group
membership is then drawn upon by the individual within a given situation.
Speaking more broadly, the social identity approach also posits that the need for
positive group distinctiveness, partnered with the need to reduce uncertainty in social
contexts, motivate social identification (and the group processes that arise from this
identification) (Ellemers, Kortekaas, & Ouwerker, 1999; Hogg, 2000; Hornsey, 2008;
Rubin & Hewstone, 1998; Tajfel & Turner, 1979). Given that with self-categorisation
the self becomes instilled with the attributes of the ingroup, and the fact we wish to feel
positive about the groups we belong to, individuals are motivated for their ingroup to
appear favourably when compared to relevant outgroups, whilst also ensuring the
ingroup is clearly distinct from such groups (Hornsey, 2008; Hornsey & Hogg, 2000a;
Jetten, Spears, & Postmes, 2004). In certain contexts, such as intergroup conflict over
resources or status, this motivation for the ingroup to be evaluated positively can lead to
CH. 3. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 42
ingroup favouritism or ingroup members discriminating against outgroup members
(Brewer & Brown, 1998; Hornsey, 2008; McGarty, 2001; Oakes, 2002). Social identities
also reduce subjectivity uncertainty within social contexts, as group norms provide
guidance as to how one should think and behave (Hogg, 2000; Mullin & Hogg, 1999).
Finally, as mentioned earlier, the wider intergroup context and the ingroup’s
position within it impact on group-based behaviour, operating via group members’
subjective belief structures (Ellemers et al., 2002; Jetten et al., 2004; Tajfel & Turner,
1979). These beliefs concerning intergroup relations are subjective reflections of the
ingroup’s social reality, rather than a necessarily accurate reflection of the “true”,
objective nature of reality between groups. Beliefs of particular importance are those
concerning the past and present relations between the ingroup and relevant outgroups,
and include the relative status and power groups have within society when compared to
other groups, the extent to which these status differences are stable and legitimate, and
the permeability of group boundaries (Ellemers, van Knippenberg, de Vries, & Wilke,
1988; Ellemers, van Knippenberg, & Wilke, 1990; Ellemers, Wilke, & van Knippenberg,
1993; Hogg & Abrams, 1988; Tajfel & Turner, 1979).
These subjective belief structures influence the specific strategies and behaviours
a group member adopts in order to obtain, maintain, and protect a positive and distinct
social identity (Ellemers et al., 2002; Hogg & Abrams, 1988; Hornsey, 2008; Rubin &
Hewstone, 1998; Tajfel & Turner, 1979). For example, depending upon whether group
boundaries are perceived to be legitimate, stable, and/or permeable (i.e., individuals can
leave the group), strategies that can be employed by ingroup members when they are a
member of a low status group include: exiting their ingroup, either physically or
psychologically; making downward intergroup comparisons that are flattering to the
CH. 3. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 43
ingroup; devaluing or converting a negative attribute of the ingroup into a positive one;
and engaging in intergroup conflict or social change in order to overturn the existing
status quo (Ellemers et al., 1988, 1990, 1993). Indeed, if members of a low status group
believe that the ingroup’s low status is legitimate and stable, but its boundaries are
permeable, then these group members are unlikely to identify strongly with the ingroup
or attempt to improve the group’s status, instead actively choosing to disidentify from
the group. Indeed, those groups that are based on shared ideology are likely to perceive
group boundaries as permeable and therefore would just as easily engage in protective
behaviours for the category or to leave the group if they feel there are too many
unwanted consequences as a result of being an ingroup member.
Consequences of Social Identification
Broadly speaking, the social identity approach emphasises how groups, and the
broader social context that surrounds the existence of groups, contribute to human
interaction and social behaviour (Abrams & Hogg, 1990; Hornsey, 2008; Tajfel &
Turner, 1979; Turner et al., 1987). In particular, this meta-theoretical framework
provides a clear psychological mechanism to explain why groups matter to behaviour, by
showing in repeated studies that it is an individual’s social identification with a salient
social category in a given social context that results in identity congruent social
behaviour (Hogg, 2006a; Spears, 2011; Reynolds et al., 2015; Tajfel & Turner, 1979;
Turner et al., 1987). As just a sample of such evidence, the social identity approach has
been employed to explain social behaviours that occur in contexts such as organisations
(Cornelissen, Haslam, & Balmer, 2007; Haslam, 2004; Hogg, 2001a), education
(Bizumic, Reynolds, Turner, Brombead, & Subasic, 2009; Bliuc, Ellis, Goodyear, &
Hendres, 2011), and health (Greenaway, Haslam, Cruwys, Branscombe, Ysseldyk, &
CH. 3. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 44
Heldreth, 2015; Haslam, Cruwys, Haslam, Dingle, & Chang, 2016; Jetten, Haslam, &
Haslam, 2012). Most appropriate for the present thesis, some researchers have also
recently argued that the social identity approach, including the psychological mechanism
of social identification, can also help to explain pro-environmental attitudes and
behaviour (see Batalha & Reynolds, 2012; Fielding & Hornsey, 2016; Postmes et al.,
2013).
Given social identification is the psychological mechanism that drives ‘groupy’
behaviour, the social identity approach has also been employed to explain both intra and
intergroup processes. Such intragroup processes include conformity, leadership, group
polarisation, group cohesiveness, social influence, minority influence, and leadership
(Brown, 2000; Hogg, 2001; Hogg et al., 2006a; Hornsey, 2008; Turner, 1991; Turner,
Wetherell, & Hogg, 1989). Indeed, social identification explains why ingroup members
are more influential than outgroup members (because ingroup members are seen as more
credible and trustworthy when compared to outgroup members) and why group
membership enhances self-esteem (because ingroup members work collaboratively
towards group goals) (Hornsey, Oppes, & Svensson, 2002; Greenaway, Wright,
Willingham, Reynolds, & Haslam, 2015; McGarty, Turner, Hogg, David, & Wetherell,
1992; Rubin & Hewstone, 1998; Schultz & Fielding, 2015). Social identification also
explains intergroup phenomena, such as stereotyping, prejudice, discrimination, and
intergroup attribution (Brewer & Brown, 1998; Brown, 2000; Hogg, 2006a; Hogg &
Abrams, 1988; Tajfel, 1981).
Stereotyping in particular is an important intergroup behaviour that arises from
social identification (Haslam et al., 1995a, 1995b, 1996; Oakes et al., 1994; Tajfel,
1981). Given that when individuals identify with a social group an accentuation effect
CH. 3. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 45
occurs (Haslam et al., 1999; Oakes et al., 1994), ‘stereotypic’ perceptions therefore arise
for both individuals ingroup (i.e., self-stereotypes) and relevant outgroups (i.e., outgroup
stereotypes) (Haslam et al., 1998; McGarty et al., 2002). These stereotypic perceptions
take on the form of a group prototype – a multidimensional fuzzy sets of attributes or
traits that capture the most representative and distinguishable features of the group
(Haslam et al., 1996; Oakes, 1987; Oakes et al., 1994; Oakes, Haslam, & Reynolds,
1999). As one can identify with all manners of groups, self and outgroup stereotypes can
arise for all manner of groups, including those groups defined by shared political or
social ideologies. However, the content of the stereotypes one holds, of the ingroup and
outgroups, reflects the ingroup’s subjective social reality – the ingroup’s perceptions
regarding the relations between the groups and how they compare to others (Haslam et
al., 1992, 1998; 1999). Quite simply, then, self and outgroup stereotypes can change
when perceived social relations between groups, the intergroup context, changes.
Employing the Social Identity Approach to Explore the Relationship between
Social Identity Processes and Green Consumerism
As demonstrated in Chapter 2, ‘green’ or ‘environmental’ identities are
predictive of numerous behaviours that can be considered to be facets of green
consumerism, such as green or organic purchasing, energy conservation, and recycling
(e.g., Kashima et al., 2014; Kim et al., 2012; Sparks & Shepherd, 1992; White & Hyde,
2012; Whitmarsh & O’Neill, 2010). In fact, ‘green’ or ‘environmental’ identities are
often just as strong of a predictor of these behaviours as other individual-level variables
including environmental concern and attitudes, biospheric values, and personal norms
(e.g., Cook et al., 2002; Dermody et al., 2015; Gatersleben et al., 2014; Mancha &
Yoder, 2015; Nigbur et al., 2010; Ruepert et al., 2016; Whitmarsh & O’Neill, 2010).
CH. 3. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 46
These findings therefore show that one’s self-concept can significantly contribute to
engagement in pro-environmental behaviours, including perhaps green consumerism
(Clayton, 2003, 2012).
However, as also noted in Chapter 2, research that has investigated whether
‘green’ or ‘environmental’ identities are predictive of pro-environmental behaviour often
employ an individualistic conceptualisation of identity. That is, researchers tend to
investigate how an individual’s personal connection with the natural environment, or
their perception that they are environmentally friendly, contributes to their pro-
environmental attitudes and behaviours (e.g., Clayton, 2003; Ruepert et al., 2016; van
der Werff et al., 2013a, 2013b, 2013c, 2014; Whitmarsh & O’Neill, 2010). Yet, as
outlined by the social identity approach above, identity in fact arises from both personal
idiosyncratic experiences, such as one’s experiences with the natural environment, and
psychologically meaningful group memberships, such as individuals’ membership in
environmental social groups or categories (Hogg & Abrams, 1988; Tajfel & Turner,
1979, Turner & Oakes, 1986).
Social identities in particular can be formed on the basis of shared opinion,
including the social and political ideology of environmentalism (McGarty et al., 2009;
Tajfel, 1981; Tajfel & Turner, 1979). The ideology of environmentalism strongly
emphasises the need to conserve the natural environment, and although
environmentalism may encompass numerous subgroups (e.g., conservationism,
ecocentrism, deep ecology, etc.), they all share the same underlying belief that the
natural environment is to be protected (Anderson, 2010; Brulle, 1996; Dalton, 2015;
Ogrodnik & Staggenborg, 2016). Indeed, Opotow and Brook (2003) suggest that when
the environmentalist social category is made salient, individuals will see their own
CH. 3. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 47
ingroup members as ‘environmentalists’, with everyone else seen as ‘non-
environmentalists’. Thus, environmentalism can form the basis of a social category, with
those who perceive themselves to be members of this broad environmentalist category
its ingroup members (‘environmentalists’ or ‘environmentalist ingroup members’), and
those who do not outgroup members (‘non-environmentalists’ or ‘environmentalist
outgroup members’).
Furthermore, as engagement in pro-environmental behaviours such as green
consumerism is typically normative of the environmentalist social category (Holland et
al., 2000; Horton, 2004; Perera, 2014; Tesch & Kempton, 2004; Tranter, 2010; Ruiz-
Junco, 2011; Stapleton, 2015), holding an environmentalist social identity12 can
therefore be one of the psychological mechanisms that drives individuals to engage in
numerous pro-environmental behaviours including green consumerism (Fielding &
Hornsey, 2016). That is, one’s identification with an environmentalist social category
will lead one to assimilate to the norms of the group and subsequently engage in identity
congruent social behaviours including such pro-environmental behaviours as green
consumerism.
Evidence Supportive of the Role of Social Identification in Pro-Environmental
Behaviour
Consistent with the above conceptualisation, a number of studies have begun to
investigate whether an identity based upon membership to an environmental group or
organisation is positively associated with pro-environmental attitudes, beliefs, and
12 As noted in Chapter 1, within this thesis the environmentalist social identity is seen as conceptually
distinct from environmentalist identity or environment self-identity as it as the former arises from
perceived membership in a psychologically meaningful group, rather than an idiosyncratic and personal
relationship to the natural environment.
CH. 3. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 48
behaviour (e.g., Bamberg et al., 2015; Bliuc et al., 2015; Fielding et al., 2008a; Rees &
Bamberg, 2014; Sweetman & Whitmarsh, 2016; Veenstra et al., 2016). Overall, these
studies have shown that environmental group membership predicts environmental
activism (Fielding et al., 2008a), whilst strength of identification as a climate change
believer or sceptic (Bliuc et al., 2015), or with a community-based climate collective
(Bamberg et al., 2015), each predict intentions to engage in differing types of climate
change activism. Additionally, environmentalist social identity predicts an individual’s
sense of environmental citizenship and their willingness to personally sacrifice for the
environment (Dono et al., 2010), whilst identification with a pro-environmental ingroup
(that is, when an individual views their national or student ingroup as pro-
environmental) also predicts conservation of water and energy, reductions in travelling,
and recycling behaviour (Bertolodo & Castro, 2016; Prati, Albanesi, & Pietrantoni,
2015; Sweetman & Whitmarsh, 2016).
Other research has shown that stronger identification with a group that is
described as holding pro-environmental norms can also predict higher levels of pro-
environmental intentions and behaviour (McDonald, Fielding, & Louis, 2014; Terry,
Hogg, & White, 1999; White, Smith, Terry, Greenslade, & McKimmie, 2009). For
instance, a group’s norm of recycling is only influential for one’s own recycling
behaviour when participants’ strength of social identification with a recycling or student
group (that is perceived to be pro-environmental) is high (Nigbur et al., 2010; Terry et
al., 1999). Additionally, favourably comparing the ingroup to relevant outgroups in
terms of pro-environmental norms can also increase one’s willingness to engage in pro-
environmental behaviour (Ferguson, Branscombe, & Reynolds, 2011; Fielding, Terry,
Masser, & Hogg, 2008b; Harth, Leach, & Kessler, 2013; Rabinovich, Morton, Postmes,
CH. 3. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 49
& Verplanken, 2012). Furthermore when outgroup members make negative comments
regarding ingroup members not engaging in group normative pro-environmental
behaviour such as cycling, this also increases ingroup members’ tendency to endorse
cycling and walking behaviour over driving a car (Gaffney, Hogg, Cooper, & Stone,
2012).
Evidence Supportive of the Role of Social Identification in Green Consumerism
Despite the findings outlined above, little has been done to investigate whether
environmentalist social identity is predictive of green consumerism specifically,
especially when green consumerism is conceptualised to extend beyond purchasing
practices (see Chapter 2). However, qualitative research has shown that membership in
environmental organisations contributes to individuals’ green consumption practices
(Autio et al., 2009; Black, 2010; Connolly & Prothereo, 2003; Forno & Graziano, 2014;
Fuentes, 2014; Horton, 2004; Moisander & Pesonen, 2002). For example, residents of
eco-communes argued in interviews that engaging in green consumerism was an
important part of being in an environmental group that resisted materialistic
consumption (Moisander & Pesonen, 2002). Similarly, Horton (2004) found that
individuals belonging to environmental activist organisations, such as Friends of the
Earth or Earth First!, often chose to consume products that were a reflection of their
green identity and a demonstration of their membership in such environmental lifestyles
and groups. Furthermore, these environmental activists noted that if they chose to
purchase ‘non-green’ products over green products, other environmentalists in their
groups would question the legitimacy of their group membership.
That those who were part of environmental groups or organisations found green
consumerism to be a reflection of their social identity suggests that one’s identification
CH. 3. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 50
as an environmentalist may contribute to the way in which they perceive green
consumerism. In particular, as one’s identification to a salient social group contributes to
their attitudes, behaviours, and perceptions (Terry & Hogg, 2000), through simply
identifying with the environmentalist social category, environmentalists may have
different perspectives of green consumerism compared to non-environmentalists –
including what behaviours are involved in green consumerism and how it may be
effective in reducing environmental problems. Indeed, those who identify as
environmentalists note that collectively engaging in green consumerism, rather than
engaging in the practice individually, provides them with a greater sense of effectiveness
and control over achieving positive outcomes for the environment (Kozinets &
Handelman, 2004). Furthermore, those who hold a collectivist orientation (where the
group rather than the individual has a stronger influence on the self-concept) are more
likely to engage in green buying behaviour, with this relationship mediated by
perceptions of consumer group effectiveness (Kim & Choi, 2005).
Quantitatively, research has also shown that ‘reference groups’, or consumer
group based social identities, are predictive of ‘green’ purchasing (Bartels &
Hoogendam, 2011; Bartels & Onwezen, 2014; Bartels & Reinders, 2016; Costa Pinto et
al., 2014; Gupta & Ogden 2009; Welsch & Kühling, 2006). For instance, when reference
groups, defined as those groups or communities that individuals use as a basis for their
consumption decisions, purchase or use green products, reference groups are predictive
of individuals purchasing green products such as energy saving light bulbs and organic
produce (Gupta & Ogden, 2009; Welsch & Kühling, 2006; Wang et al., 2016).
Furthermore, identification with ‘organic’, ‘fair trade’ and ‘environmentally
conscious consumer’ groups have also been found to be moderately predictive of
CH. 3. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 51
organic food consumption, fair trade consumption, and environmentally friendly
behaviour13 respectively (Bartels & Hoggendam, 2011; Bartels & Onwezen, 2014), even
over a one year period in several western cultures (i.e., Australia, Germany, Canada, the
US, the UK, and the Netherlands) (Bartels & Reinders, 2016). However, identification
with one consumer group, such as the fair trade consumer group, was not predictive of
behaviour related to that group membership, such as organic product consumption
(Bartels & Reinders, 2016). Given these findings, then, it appears that environmentalist
social identity could be predictive of green consumerism, consistent with the social
identity approach. Further research is needed to investigate this possibility.
The Importance of the Social Context to Environmentalist Social Identity and
Green Consumerism
Although environmentalist social identity could be predictive of green
consumerism, the social identity approach also highlights the need to consider the wider
social contexts that surround social categories and groups, especially when looking at
one’s choice to identify with opinion-based and permeable social groups such as the
environmentalist social category (Hornsey, 2008; Tajfel & Turner, 1979; Turner et al.,
1987). This is because the group-based stereotype one holds of a social category,
particularly when compared to other groups, contributes to whether one will identify
with that group in the first place, and whether one will therefore assimilate to and
engage in its normative behaviours (Haslam et al., 1995a, 1995b).
13 Bartels and Reinders (2016) operationalised environmentally friendly behaviour as including buying
products with environmentally friendly packaging, reading publications about environmental problems,
contributing financially to environmental organisations, and learning about environmental issues from the
media, so encompassing some aspects of green consumerism.
CH. 3. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 52
In the case of the environmentalist social category then, the stereotypes
individuals hold of environmentalists could contribute to whether they wish to identify
as one, and therefore engage in identity congruent behaviours such as green
consumerism. In particular, as those who do not hold an ‘environmental’ identity tend to
be less likely to engage in numerous pro-environmental behaviours (Clayton & Myers,
2015; Clayton & Opotow, 2003; Schultz & Tabanico, 2007; Sparks, 2013; van der Werff
et al., 2014), and therefore are more likely to have a negative impact on the natural
environment than environmentalists, it is pertinent to study what limits these individuals
willingness to identify as an environmentalist group member in the first place.
Currently, very little research has systematically investigated those group-based
stereotypes of the environmentalist social category held by individuals of the general
public who either do not perceive themselves to be members of the environmentalist
social category or who are not members of an environmental organisation (hereonin
referred to as ‘environmentalist outgroup members’ or ‘non-environmentalists’). Indeed,
many researchers merely assume that the environmentalist social category overall is
typically perceived negatively by non-environmentalists within the general public
(Hutchings, 2005; Murphy & Dee, 1996; Wright, Nyberg, & Grant, 2012). Others still
have instead focused on the subgroup of environmental activists, rather than the broader
superordinate category, showing that environmental activists are stereotyped as
aggressive, eccentric, and less warm by those who are not environmentalists or activists
(Bashir et al., 2013; Castro, Uzelgun, & Bertoldo, 2016). However, while outgroup
members typically tend to hold negative perceptions of groups with whom they are in
conflict for status and resources (Brewer & Brown, 1998; Tajfel & Turner, 1979), in this
context many individuals in the general public who are environmentalist outgroup
CH. 3. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 53
members do not engage in conflict with environmentalists, thereby suggesting that
perceptions that environmentalist outgroup members hold of this social category may
perhaps not be wholly negative. Therefore research is needed to investigate how the
broad superordinate environmentalist social category is perceived by the general public,
especially by those who do not perceive themselves to be an environmentalist or who are
not members of an environmental organisation (i.e., environmentalist outgroup members
or non-environmentalists).
Furthermore, little has been done to investigate whether the stereotypes non-
environmentalists hold of the environmentalist social category contribute to their
willingness to identify with the environmentalist social category and, in turn, engage in
identity congruent green consumerism. Indeed, findings from a small number of
qualitative studies have suggested that because many individuals think that the
environmentalist social category is negatively perceived by others, they are reluctant to
identify or label themselves as environmentalists, even if they engage in pro-
environmental behaviours or are concerned for the environment (Perera, 2014;
Whitehouse & Evans, 2010). Additionally, whilst not measuring identification
specifically, Bashir et al. (2013) showed that individuals who evaluated environmental
activists negatively were less likely to affiliate (i.e., interact and maintain relationships)
with these activists and were subsequently less influenced to engage in the pro-
environmental behaviours that they promoted.
Further still, social identity has been found to mediate the relationship between
group stereotypes and group normative behaviour, particularly in highly politicised
social groups, for example, feminists, liberals, and conservatives (e.g., Chatard,
Selimbegović, & Konan, 2008; Graham, Haidt, & Nosek, 2014; Nelson et al., 2008;
CH. 3. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 54
Robnett, Anderson, & Hunter, 2012; Roy, Weibust, & Miller, 2007). Given this
suggestive evidence, it is possible that environmentalist stereotypes contribute to green
consumerism, perhaps indirectly through environmentalist social identity, especially
amongst non-environmentalists.
The Present Research
The literature review presented in Chapters 2 and 3 identified four clear gaps
within the literature relating to green consumerism. Firstly, it is still unclear whether
green consumerism is better conceptualised as an individual purchasing behaviour or as
a behaviour that can be collectively employed and that extends beyond purchasing
practices. Secondly, although an individualistic conceptualisation of ‘green’ or
‘environmental’ identity is positively related to behaviours that can be considered to be
facets of green consumerism, it is still unclear whether social identification with the
superordinate environmentalist social category (i.e., environmentalist social identity) is
also predictive of green consumerism. Thirdly, little is known regarding the nature and
content of environmentalist stereotypes, including whether environmentalists are
perceived negatively by members of the general public who do not see themselves as
environmentalists (i.e., are environmentalist outgroup members). Finally, no research
has yet examined whether such stereotypes of the environmentalist social category
contribute to identification with the environmentalist social category, as well as to green
consumerism. Indeed, it is unclear whether environmentalist social identity mediates the
relationship between environmentalist stereotypes and green consumerism – especially
amongst non-environmentalists.
Given these gaps in the literature, the central aim of the thesis was to determine:
Do outgroup stereotypes of environmentalists and environmentalist social identity each
CH. 3. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 55
contribute to engagement in green consumerism, particularly amongst individuals’ in
the general public who are not members of environmental organisations (i.e.,
‘environmentalist outgroup members’ or ‘non-environmentalists’)? Given that little
research has been done to investigate how social identity processes are related to green
consumerism, an exploratory mixed methods research approach was employed, with the
current thesis seeking to answer four research questions across four empirical studies.
These were:
1. What do environmentalists and non-environmentalists perceive to be
involved in green consumerism? (Study 1)
2. What is the content of the stereotypes that non-environmentalists hold of the
superordinate environmentalist social category? (Study 2)
3. Is environmentalist social identity predictive of green consumerism amongst
non-environmentalists? (Study 3)
4. Does environmentalist social identity mediate the relationship between
outgroup stereotypes of environmentalists and green consumerism for non-
environmentalists? (Study 4)
A brief overview of each study is now presented.
Study 1 (N = 28) (Chapter 4) of the present thesis starts by addressing the gap in
the literature in terms of how green consumerism should be conceptualised. To do this, it
explored in depth how participants perceived green consumerism, and whether this
varied by individuals’ strength of environmentalist social identity. A qualitative
methodology was employed, with one-on-one interviews with both self-identified
environmentalists and non-environmentalists conducted. Semi-structured interviews
focussed particularly upon determining whether green consumerism was perceived as a
CH. 3. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 56
behaviour that can be collectively employed and whether it was seen as effective in
reducing current environmental problems. A thematic analysis employed a critical realist
epistemology14 in order to identify consistent and meaningful patterns across the data.
The second study (N = 89) (Chapter 5) aimed to explore the nature and content
of environmentalist stereotypes, addressing the gap in the literature concerning how the
superordinate social category is broadly perceived by non-environmentalists. A
qualitative open-ended survey was employed, with those who did not belong to
environmental organisations asked to provide their thoughts and opinions regarding
environmentalists. Two qualitative analyses were subsequently conducted, both which
were also grounded in critical realist epistemology. Firstly, an inductive thematic
analysis was conducted, to explore the broad perceptions participants held of
environmentalists. This was followed by a qualitative content analysis that inductively
determined the specific trait terms and phrases that were commonly used by participants
to describe environmentalists. These trait terms were then employed as the basis of the
environmentalist stereotype measure used in Study 4 (Chapter 7).
Study 3 (N = 275) (Chapter 6) aimed to investigate whether environmentalist
social identity was predictive of green consumerism amongst non-environmentalists;
addressing the gap in the literature concerning whether identification with the
environmentalist social category was associated with green consumerism. Given that this
study was interested in clarifying the relationships between these constructs, a
14 Despite the flexibility of thematic analysis, it lacks a grounding theoretical framework and therefore
requires an epistemology to be actively chosen and drawn upon when conducting its analyses (as outlined
by Braun & Clarke, 2006). A critical realist epistemology was chosen for both Studies 1 and 2, with
details of this choice and explanation of this epistemology provided in the chapters that present these two
studies (Chapters 5 and 6 respectively).
CH. 3. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 57
quantitative survey methodology was employed. In particular, a confirmatory factor
analysis was conducted to investigate the statistical properties of the scales that were
employed in this study (and also employed in Study 4), whilst a path analysis was
conducted in order to quantify the relationship between environmentalist social identity
and green consumerism for non-environmentalists.
Finally, the fourth study (N = 248) (Chapter 7) investigated whether the
relationship between the stereotypes outgroup members held of environmentalists and
green consumerism was mediated by their strength of environmentalist social identity.
This study therefore addressed the gap in the literature concerning whether social
identity and group processes in general could contribute to green consumerism in
members of the general population. As this study was essentially interested in
investigating the strength of relationships, as well as the mediating impact of
environmentalist social identity, a quantitative survey methodology was employed, with
a mediation analysis undertaken.
The following chapter now presents Study 1.
CH. 4 STUDY 1: EXPLORING GREEN CONSUMERISM 58
Chapter 4
Study 1:
Making Sense of Green Consumerism and its Relationship to Environmentalism
and Social Identity
Introduction
Within the current pro-environmental behaviour literature, green consumerism is
often conceptualised as a type of individualised purchasing that decreases individuals’
personal impact on the environment (Antil, 1984; Ölander & Thøgersen, 1995; Roberts,
1996; Stern, 2000). Yet, as outlined in Chapter 2, the validity of this assumption is still
to be determined, with little investigation into whether green consumerism is perceived
to extend beyond purchasing, and whether green consumerism is seen to be effective in
helping to reduce numeorous environmental issues as either a behaviour that is
individually or collectively employed (Peattie, 2010). Indeed, examining laypeoples
beliefs concerning green consumerism may provide a clearer idea concerning how to
conceptualise green consumerism within the research literature.
However, as discussed in Chapter 3, environmentalist social identity may help to
explain the way in which individuals perceive green consumerism, given that
identification with psychologically meaningful groups contributes to individuals’
general perceptions, attitudes, and behaviour (Tajfel & Turner, 1979; Turner et al.,
1987). Indeed, identification with the environmentalist social category may contribute to
individual’s perceptions of green consumerism, and their subsequent green consumerism
engagement, given that pro-environmental behaviours are typically seen as normative of
environmental social groups (Holland et al., 2000; Horton, 2004; Perera, 2014; Tesch &
CH. 4 STUDY 1: EXPLORING GREEN CONSUMERISM 59
Kempton, 2004; Tranter, 2010). Given these considerations, this first study of the thesis
recruited both environmentalists and non-environmentalists in order to qualitatively
explore the ways in which individuals’ made sense of green consumerism and whether
this was related to their strength of environmentalist social identity.
A detailed justification for the study now follows.
Extending Current Conceptualisations of Green Consumerism by Exploring
Individuals’ Perceptions
As outlined in Chapter 2, of the studies that provide a definition for green
consumerism, most suggest that green consumerism can be conceptualised as an
individualised purchasing behaviour (Peattie, 2010; Sparks & Shepherd, 1992; Stern,
2000), in which people engage because they believe it to be effective in reducing their
personal negative impact on the environment (Antil, 1984; Gatersleben et al., 2002; Gilg
et al., 2005; Roberts & Bacon, 1997; Straughan & Roberts, 1999; Thøgersen & Ölander,
2003). Yet despite this common conceptualisation within the pro-environmental
behaviour literature, green consumerism may in fact extend beyond individualised
purchasing practices to involve several stages of consumption that attempt to be
environmentally friendly, as suggested by a number of researchers (Antil, 1984; Grønhøj,
2006; Peattie, 2010; Polonsky et al., 2012)..
Exploring individuals perceptions of green consumerism may help to clarify
what behaviours should be deemed to be a part of the construct and thereby how it
should be conceptualised within the pro-environmental behaviour literature. Indeed, if
green consumerism is perceived by individuals as extending beyond purchasing, this can
also help to account for the various green consumption behaviours individuals engage in
CH. 4 STUDY 1: EXPLORING GREEN CONSUMERISM 60
when attempting to be environmentally friendly (Peattie, 2010; Thøgersen, 1999), as
outlined in the literature review of the present thesis (see Chapter 2).
Prior research has also assumed that individuals engage in green purchasing
behaviour because it is effective in decreasing environmental problems (Fraj & Martinez,
2006; Peattie, 2010; Webb et al., 2001), yet it is unclear exactly how green consumerism
is perceived to be effective (Moisander, 2007; Spaargaren, 2003). For example,
individuals may perceive green consumerism to be only effective in reducing the
environmentally negative impact of an individual’s consumption when it forms part of a
sustainable ‘lifestyle’ (as suggested by several researchers, e.g., Fraj & Martinez, 2006;
Gatersleben et al., 2010; Gilg et al., 2005). Others may instead perceive green
consumerism to be only effective when it is collectively employed as a political action
against environmentally irresponsible corporations (Autio et al., 2009; Micheletti &
Stolle, 2012). Given this, the present study also explored whether green consumerism
was seen to be effective in helping to reduce environmental problems, and through what
mechanisms it was seen to operate.
Social Identity Processes and their Relationship to Individuals’ Conceptualisations
of Green Consumerism
According to the social identity approach (Abrams & Hogg, 1990; Tajfel &
Turner, 1979; Turner et al., 1987), when an individual’s self-definition shifts from the
individual to the collective – a process referred to as depersonalisation – group
memberships contribute to an individual’s perceptions, attitudes, and behaviour (Hogg,
2001b; Turner & Oakes, 1986). In particular, when group membership is made salient,
individuals internalise the norms of the group and act according to those groups’ norms
(Terry & Hogg, 2000). For groups that wish to achieve social change in particular – be
CH. 4 STUDY 1: EXPLORING GREEN CONSUMERISM 61
in political or environmental change – strength of identification with the group can
therefore act as a moderator between beliefs or perceptions and group normative
behaviour (de Weerd & Klandermans, 1999; Kelly, 1993; Kelly & Breinlinger, 1995;
Terry et al., 1999).
Consistent with this idea, research shows that social identity is moderately
related to engagement in environmental activism and consumption of organic products
(Bamberg et al., 2015; Bartels & Onwezen, 2014; Dono et al., 2010; Fielding et al.,
2008a), whilst identification with a group that holds environmental norms can also
increase an individual’s environmental intentions and behaviour (McDonald et al., 2014;
Postmes et al., 2014; Rabinovich et al., 2012; Terry et al., 1999). Those who strongly
identify with environmental groups (such as those who live in alternative eco-
communities) also view green consumerism as an effective means to reduce their
environmental impact as it serves to resist and challenge a prevalent materialistic culture
(e.g., Forno & Graziano, 2014; Fuentes, 2014; Horton, 2004; Moisander & Pesonen,
2002; Shirani, Henwood, Parkhill, Pidgeon, & Butler, 2015), whilst some
environmentalists believe engaging in green consumerism, and other socially non-
normative consumption practices, is central to being an environmentalist (Autio et al.,
2009; Black, 2010; Horton, 2004).
Given these findings, it is possible that the strength of an individual’s
environmentalist social identity may contribute to the way in which they perceive green
consumerism, in particular what behaviours are involved in green consumerism and how
they may be effective in reducing environmental problems, and the present study
explored this possibility. As existing research has not studied how perceptions held by
CH. 4 STUDY 1: EXPLORING GREEN CONSUMERISM 62
those taking on an environmentalist social identity compare to those held by individuals
who do not identify as environmentalists, this was also explored.
The Current Study
Following on from the literature reviewed above, this study aimed to explore the
ways in which people made sense of green consumerism and how this may be related to
an individual’s strength of environmentalist social identity. In particular, the study had
three main research questions: (i) what did individuals perceive to be involved in green
consumerism; (ii) how was green consumerism perceived to be effective in reducing
environmental issues; and, (iii) how did identification as an environmentalist contribute
to the perceptions of green consumerism offered by participants. Given that these
research questions focused on participants’ subjective perceptions, a qualitative research
approach was chosen for the study, with semi-structured, one-on-one interviews
employed to ensure a rich exploration of these questions. Patterned thematic analysis
was used during data collection and analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006), with details of this
method given below.
Method
Participants
Research participants comprised of 28 Australians (17 women, 11 men), ranging
in age from 19 to 64 years (M = 28.64; SD = 10.81). The sample represented a range of
education levels and occupations, with only three participants reporting membership in
environmental organisations (see Table 4.1). Participants also varied in their strength of
identification as an environmentalist and their engagement in green consumerism. In fact,
even though participants were asked outright whether they identified as an
environmentalist or whether they engaged in green consumerism, the responses given
CH. 4 STUDY 1: EXPLORING GREEN CONSUMERISM 63
did not result in simple yes or no responses. Participant responses were therefore
categorised both by how participants framed their identity (identified, reluctant to
identify, did not identity), and their engagement in green consumerism (yes, sometimes,
try to, no), as shown in Table 4.1.
Data Collection
After approval for the study was granted by Deakin University’s Human
Research Ethics Committee (project number HEAG-H 59_2014, see Appendix A.1), a
convenience sample of 28 Australian adults was recruited through online social
networks (i.e., Facebook). Recruitment notices were posted on the author’s social
networking page and in environmental groups asking for volunteers to take part in a
study about consumer perceptions of green consumerism. The recruitment notice also
asked individuals to share the study’s details amongst their family, friends or peers. A
purposive snowballing method was employed during recruitment to try and obtain a
diverse range of perspectives (Patton, 2002; Robinson, 2014). This entailed purposefully
seeking a large range of ages and occupations, as well as ensuring both genders were
represented when recruiting participants (see Table 4.1). Effort was also made to ensure
environmentalists and non-environmentalists alike were recruited as well as those who
did and did not engage in green consumerism.
The author conducted all semi-structured one-on-one interviews between May
and September, 2014, either over the phone (n = 20) or in person on campus at Deakin
University (n = 8) (see Appendix C for interview protocol). Informed consent was
obtained from every participant before commencing the interview (see Appendix B.1 for
the Plain Language Statement), with the length of interviews ranging from 30.52 to
65.19 minutes (M = 43.82; SD = 7.26).
CH. 4 STUDY 1: EXPLORING GREEN CONSUMERISM 64
Table 4.1
Demographic Characteristics of Participants
Pseudonym Gender Age Occupation Education Level Environmentalist social
identity
Engagement in green
consumerism (GC)
Elizaᵃ F 23 Academic demonstrator Undergraduate degree Identified Engaged in GC
Victoria F 37 Teacher (primary) Undergraduate degree Identified Sometimes
Tim M 26 Tradesperson (carpenter) TAFE Identified Sometimes
Katherine F 23 Teacher (tertiary) Honours Identified Tried to
Daniel M 27 Academic Graduate diploma Identified Tried to
Ashleighᵃ F 54 Psychologist Masters Identified Tried to
Flynn M 24 Sports coach Masters Reluctant to identify Engaged in GC
Kelly F 24 Customer service High school completion Reluctant to identify Engaged in GC
Ryan M 26 Retail manager TAFE Reluctant to identify Sometimes
Hannah F 23 Student Honours Reluctant to identify Sometimes
Michelle F 22 Teacher (tertiary) Honours Reluctant to identify Sometimes
Emma F 24 Childcare professional TAFE Reluctant to identify Sometimes
Ella F 24 Tradesperson (roofer) Did not complete high school Reluctant to identify Tried to
Isobel F 34 Finance manager High school completion Reluctant to identify Tried to
Renee F 23 Exercise physiologist Masters Reluctant to identify Tried to
Sophie F 64 Homemaker Did not complete high school Reluctant to identify Tried to
Scott M 26 Tradesperson (landscaper) Did not complete high school Reluctant to identify Didn't engage in GC
Rebecca F 23 Retail assistant Honours Did not identify Sometimes
Robert M 23 Retail assistant High school completion Did not identify Sometimes
James M 19 Retail assistant High school completion Did not identify Sometimes
Teagan F 24 External auditor TAFE Did not identify Sometimes
Amyᵃ F 23 Community service officer TAFE Did not identify Sometimes
John M 26 Tradesperson (baker) TAFE Did not identify Sometimes
Sarah F 54 Nurse Did not complete high school Did not identify Sometimes
Marcus M 27 Research assistant Graduate diploma Did not identify Tried to
Jen F 25 Tax accountant Undergraduate degree Did not identify Didn't engage in GC
Mark M 28 Academic PhD Did not identify Didn't engage in GC
Patrick M 26 Finance manager Undergraduate degree Did not identify Didn't engage in GC
Note. F = Female; M = Male; ᵃ = member of an environmental organisation; TAFE = post-secondary non-tertiary education.
CH. 4. STUDY 1: EXPLORING GREEN CONSUMERISM 65
A number of open-ended questions about environmentalists and green
consumerism were used as prompts for the interview (see Table 4.2 and Appendix C);
with probing and follow up questions orientated towards participants’ responses also
used in order to fully explore participant perceptions (e.g., “Can you provide some more
detail about that?” and “Why do you think that’s the case?”). This flexible approach was
used to ensure that interviews yielded in-depth and meaningful responses (Braun &
Clarke, 2013; Jacob & Furgerson, 2012). Data collection continued until additional
interviews were unable to generate any new information or insights, thereby indicating
theoretical saturation had been reached (Morse, 1995; O’Reilly & Parker, 2012;
Sandelowski, 1995).
Table 4.2
Interview Schedule
Question
1 Tell me about yourself
(Age? Current occupation? Highest level of education obtained? Member of any
environmental organisation/s?)
2 Do you self-identify as an environmentalist?
3 Please describe what you perceive to be an environmentalist
4 Please describe what comes to mind when you hear the term green consumerism
5 What do you think is involved in green consumerism?
6 What do you think has a relationship or is similar to green consumerism?
7 How may green consumerism be an effective strategy for tackling environmental
problems?
8 What types of people may engage in green consumerism?
9 Do you perceive yourself as engaging in green consumerism?
(If so, how come? If not, how come?)
10 Please describe what comes to mind when you hear the term green product
11 Is there anything else that you want to note about these matters? Note. After eight interviews Question 5 was altered to “what do you think has a relationship to green
consumerism” to make the question clearer for participants.
CH. 4 STUDY 1: EXPLORING GREEN CONSUMERISM 66
Data Analysis
All interviews were digitally recorded and then transcribed verbatim by the
author, with identifying information and names changed during transcription to ensure
participant anonymity. Although information in regards to emphasis and inflection in
speech was transcribed to give the reader a greater understanding of the interviewee
discourse (as suggested by Potter & Hepburn, 2005), any unnecessary detail from
interviews (such as repetitions) were still removed during transcription to increase
interpretability (otherwise known as ‘cleaning the data’, see Braun & Clarke, 2013;
Sandelowski, 1994). All completed transcripts were subsequently double checked by the
author for accuracy.
Patterned thematic analysis was chosen for data analysis due to its flexible
framework (Braun & Clarke, 2006). This method allows for the identification of
consistent patterns across data, without the influence of any a priori theoretical
assumptions (Braun & Clarke, 2013). Yet due to thematic analysis’ lack of grounding
theoretical framework, a critical realist epistemology was employed during data analysis
(as suggested by Braun & Clarke, 2006; Carter & Little, 2007). Critical realist theorists
argue that even though an independent, objective reality exists, the reality that is
experienced by individuals themselves is often socially constructed (Easton, 2010;
Houston, 2001; Sims-Schouten, Riley, & Willig, 2007; Wikgren, 2004). Furthermore,
the epistemological stance of critical realism also assumes that there is an association
between rhetoric and cognitions, in that cognitions can be inferred from the in-depth
responses that are given by individuals (Wikgren, 2004). Therefore, by employing a
critical realist approach, both behaviours grounded in an objective reality, and the
CH. 4 STUDY 1: EXPLORING GREEN CONSUMERISM 67
various perceptions participants experienced in regards to green consumerism, could be
examined.
In accordance with Braun and Clarke’s six-phase methodology for thematic
analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006, 2013), the author analysed the data using a reiterative
process of identifying, interpreting, and analysing common themes across participant
discourses. Categories and codes were inductively constructed by close readings of
interview transcripts (Morse, 2008), with the research questions then used as a guide for
identifying themes during formal analysis. This was followed by examining conflicting
and non-fitting data to further re-define codes and categories, with any remaining data
that did not answer the research questions discarded from further analysis (Braun &
Clarke, 2016). The remaining codes were then constructed into major themes and these
were then discussed between the author and principal supervisor to ensure a consistent
level of agreement. Any disagreement between the team was resolved through a re-
analysis of coding and further discussion until consensus was reached.
Results
Three major synthesised themes were identified across the majority of
participants, regardless of their strength of environmentalist identification (see Table 4.3
for a summary). These themes are detailed below, with quotes and extracts from the
interviews used to provide examples of each theme and sub-theme. “I:” is used for the
interviewer and pseudonyms (see Table 4.1) are used for participants. Capital letters are
used to represent elevated volume, whilst underlined words within quotes indicate
emphasis in speech.
CH. 4 STUDY 1: EXPLORING GREEN CONSUMERISM 68
Table 4.3
Inductively Developed Thematic Categories
Theme Sub-theme Explanation of theme Exemplar quotations 1. Multiple
dimensions of
green
consumerism
Green consumerism was
perceived to include
purchase, intentional non-
purchase, use, disposal,
searching for information,
and comparative decision
making.
Katherine: “I think (green
consumerism) can be a
whole range of things”.
Victoria: “Green
consumerism is about the
whole cycle (of
consumption)”.
2. Green
consumerism is a
strategy to reduce
environmental
problems
2a. Employing
green
consumerism as
an individual,
private sphere
behaviour to help
the environment.
Participants suggested
that individuals could
employ green
consumerism as a way to
ensure their individual,
private actions helped the
natural environment
Michelle: “Green
consumerism is about
personal choices… like
actively engaging with… a
green lifestyle… to reflect
your beliefs”.
2b. Employing
green
consumerism as a
collective,
activist strategy.
Green consumerism was
perceived to be an activist
strategy that could be
collectively employed to
improve outcomes for the
natural environment
Flynn: “I think (green
consumerism) can turn
into activism rather than
individuals doing their
own thing”.
3. Reluctance to
identify as an
environmentalist
3a. To be an
environmentalist
is to be ‘active’
Participants suggested
that one could only
strongly identify as an
environmentalist if they
actively engaged in a
number of pro-
environmental behaviours
Hannah: “… an
environmentalist (is)
someone who seeks out
and takes a more active
approach… (where I)
would take more of a
passive approach”.
3b. Negative
perceptions of
environmentalist
Some participants viewed
environmentalists
negatively, often
suggesting that
environmentalists
engaged in extremist
behaviour.
Renee: “I perceive
(environmentalists) with
negative connotations, as
you know, those people
that just… go around…
protesting and…um are
more on the… radical
sides of things”. Note. N = 28.
CH. 4 STUDY 1: EXPLORING GREEN CONSUMERISM 69
To alleviate concerns of the possible vagueness of the qualitative data and to
demonstrate the strength of consistency of a theme across participants (Sandelowski,
2001), quantifying terms are also used for the results and discussion15. Using Braun and
Clarke (2013) as a guide: ‘many’ refers to 17 or more occurrences of an interpretation;
‘most’ or ‘almost all’ refers to between 12-14 occurrences; and ‘some’ means six to
eight occurrences. Use of such terms as ‘commonly’, ‘typically’, or ‘often’ also broadly
refer to occurrences ranging from ten to 17 participants, whilst ‘occasionally’ or
‘uncommon’ refers to less than half of the participants offering that specific
interpretation.
Theme 1: Multiple dimensions of green consumerism.
Interviews with all participants, regardless of the strength of their
environmentalist social identity, began with discussions about how purchasing was an
integral part of green consumerism. Green consumerism involved “buying things that
are environmentally friendly” (Hannah) or “built to last” (Sarah), including products that
were “carbon-neutral” (Mark), “natural” (Sarah), “ethical” (Ryan), “recycled” (John) or
“recyclable” (Katherine), “biodegradable” (Kelly), “locally made” (Hannah),
“sustainable” (Mark), and “organic” (Flynn). Alternative forms of purchasing such as
“sharing purchasing with others” (Isobel) or “buying in bulk” (Victoria) were also
15 The need to present the numerical frequency of an interpretation across participants is an ongoing
debate within qualitative research (Braun & Clarke, 2013; Sandelowski, 2001). For some, using phrases
such as “a common theme…” or “many participants noted that...” does not provide enough accurate or
clear information regarding the strength of a perception amongst participants, with frequency counts
instead encouraged. Nonetheless, for others, meaningful interpretations within the data are said to be
irrelevant to their frequency as qualitative research is said to be interested in meaning making, rather than
numerical scores. As such quantifying terms (as advocated by Braun & Clarke, 2013) are given to ensure
the focus remains on participants meaning making, whilst also providing the reader some clarity of the
general strength of an interpretation.
CH. 4 STUDY 1: EXPLORING GREEN CONSUMERISM 70
considered to be a part of green consumerism, as was purchasing “less” (Tim) or
“minimising purchasing” (Sarah).
Both environmentalists and non-environmentalists also strongly emphasised that
green consumerism was also “obviously (about) not purchasing” (Eliza). This intentional
non-purchase was seen as a direct way to reduce environmentally damaging
consumption practices, with Isobel noting that “if we need to harvest…less fish in the
sea… maybe we just… eat less or no fish”. Even so, it was acknowledged that
intentional non-purchase was encouraged less in “product based societies” (Sarah) as
individuals were instead always encouraged to “buy the latest newest stuff” (Mark).
As interviews progressed, both environmentalists and those who did not identify
as environmentalists also explicitly noted that green consumerism extended beyond
purchasing practices to include such consumption behaviours as use, re-use, and disposal
of products and services. An extract from the interview with Flynn illustrates this point:
Flynn: “… you know, (green consumerism) doesn’t just stop at… um… buying
products, it continues on… once you have things then… *inhales breath* what
you do with them, how you dispose of them, ummmmm you know, what energy
you use to… cook or change them or do whatever… you know, you want to them,
so it just doesn’t stop simply at buying or not buying”.
Marcus also reflected Flynn’s comments noting that “ANY sort of behaviour that
falls into that bracket of… reusing and… recycling those purchased products is gonna be
one of those things that falls under (the idea of green consumerism)”. These suggestions
tapped into a larger perception that almost all participants (regardless of their strength of
environmentalist social identity) offered – that green consumerism involved the “whole
cycle” (Victoria) or the “entire process” (James) of consumption from “start till end”
(James). That is, from the beginning of the production process to final disposal.
CH. 4 STUDY 1: EXPLORING GREEN CONSUMERISM 71
When probed to think further about what else could be considered a part of green
consumerism, almost all participants (regardless of their strength of environmentalist
social identity) discussed the need to “seek information” (Mark) about the products and
services an individual was buying or using. It was the “consumer’s responsibility” (Tim)
to “do some research” (John) about whether a product or service was environmentally
friendly. This involved the dual process of critically analysing and “checking labels”
(Ella) as well as seeking “trustworthy” (Victoria) or “credible” (Patrick) sources to
verify information.
The actual source was especially important – it had to be someone who did not
have ulterior motives for encouraging others to engage in green consumerism. Patrick
even suggested that potential sources should not be those that presented a “one sided
view about environmental issues” like some “left-leaning environmental organisations”
or “far right business or mainstream industry”. Therefore, it was suggested that those
who attempted to engage in some form of green consumerism would typically ask
respected friends, peers or family for their opinion. For example, Ryan spoke about how
he valued his partner’s opinion more than others when he sought more information about
green consumerism.
Ryan: “… I wasn’t very green consumerist and then… just my girlfriend’s
influence sort of… ahum… ahhhhh made me… cause I respected that opinion
more than just stuff on TV or in a newspaper or whatever…”
Many participants, regardless of their strength of environmentalist social identity,
also suggested that green consumerism involved what could be referred to as
comparative decision making. Many participants spoke about the need to “weigh up”
(Victoria) between consumption options by thinking about “what impact products have
on the environment” (Daniel) and “what happens to a product once (you) get rid of it”
CH. 4 STUDY 1: EXPLORING GREEN CONSUMERISM 72
(Ella). However, it was acknowledged that this comparative decision making was also
highly dependent upon how informed and knowledgeable an individual was, with
Sophie stating that individuals needed the “correct knowledge to actually do the right
thing”.
Theme 2: Green Consumerism as a Strategy to Reduce Environmental Problems
All participants, regardless of their environmentalist social identity or lack
thereof, perceived green consumerism to decrease the “negative” (Marcus) contribution
consumption had on a variety of environmental problems16. When probed further about
how exactly green consumerism reduced environmental problems, almost all
participants implied that green consumerism’s effectiveness arose from its ability to be
“both a… individual and collective activist behaviour” (Daniel). These two perceptions
of effectiveness were often spoken about interchangeably; suggesting participants saw
green consumerism as behaviour that could be both individually and collectively
employed. However, in order to aid in interpretability, they are discussed separately
below.
Subtheme 2a: Employing green consumerism as an individual, private
sphere behaviour to help the environment. When asked how green consumerism was
effective in “helping” (Michelle) the environment, both environmentalists and non-
environmentalists alike suggested that green consumerism allowed individuals to be
“considerate” (Ryan) of how their personal consumption in their private lives negatively
16 Environmental problems specified by participants included “deforestation” (Tim), “drought” (Mark),
“pollution” (Ella), “waste and landfill” (James), “wildlife extinction” (Kelly), “carbon emissions” (Renee),
use of “pesticides and chemicals” (Mark), as well as “climate change” (Ashleigh) or “global warming”
(Rebecca).
CH. 4 STUDY 1: EXPLORING GREEN CONSUMERISM 73
impacted the environment17. This led to suggestions that green consumerism was about
being “responsible” (Ashleigh) for your individual actions and “doing the right thing”
(Robert) for “animals” (Renee), “wildlife” (Scott), “forests” (Tim), “oceans” (Kelly),
“the earth” (Michelle), “future generations” (Emma), as well as the “the rest of humanity”
(John).
While many participants did initially note that an individual engaging in green
consumerism was about an individual doing the right thing by the environment, almost
all participants noted that this would inadvertently cause individuals to be conscious of
other social issues too. This included the “ethical treatment of animals” (Flynn), “fair
trade issues” (Hannah) and “labour or worker rights” (Renee). This was because those
who engaged in individual, private acts to improve the environment would often have a
“social consciousness bent in general” (Patrick).
It was also noted that for green consumerism to be effective as a private sphere
behaviour, people would have to engage in a strong “green lifestyle” (Amy). This was
because your individual actions and “what you’re doing everyday” (Scott) was perceived
as more important than “occasionally purchasing the ‘right’ product” (Ella). Therefore,
green consumerism was a continuous and conscious behaviour wherein it had to “apply
to a lot of different aspects of your life” (Katherine), otherwise engaging in green
consumerism was not an example of an individual trying to “do the right thing” (John)
by the environment.
17 Although John did note that there would be some products and services (like fossil fuels and petrol) that
would always damage the environment. Therefore consumption that involved these products could never
be ‘green’ or ‘sustainable’.
CH. 4 STUDY 1: EXPLORING GREEN CONSUMERISM 74
Subtheme 2b: Employing green consumerism as a collective, activist
strategy. During participant interviews, both environmentalists and non-
environmentalists also suggested that green consumerism could help to minimise various
environmental problems due to consumer “purchasing power” (Ryan). It was argued that
as the “the dollar absolutely speaks… to business” (Ashleigh), companies could be
forced to “change their practices to suit the consumer” (Flynn). Most participants
suggested that green consumerism could be employed to “fight against” (Sarah)
practices that were un-environmental or socially irresponsible, often using such language
as the “power of the consumer” (Flynn), the “force of consumers” (Hannah), consumers
“hav(ing) a voice” (Sarah) or consumers “vot(ing) with their dollar” (Mark). Eliza went
so far to say that engaging in green consumerism was “empowering”. Due to these
considerations, it appears that some participants saw green consumerism as a form of
powerful, collective action.
Both environmentalists and non-environmentalists alike emphasised the
importance of purchasing behaviours when collectively employing green consumerism.
Here, participants distinguished between “avoiding buying things” (Ella) from un-
environmental companies or actively “looking for and buying” (Emma) products or
services from environmentally conscious companies. However, although these two types
of purchasing were perceived as changing company practices overall, the way in which
they were perceived to be effective substantially differed. Intentional non-purchase was
generally viewed as a way to “punish” (Ryan) un-environmental companies as it directly
“threatened” (Renee) their business and profits. Intentional purchasing was instead
perceived as offering “incentives” (Amy), “support” (Ryan) or “rewards” (Emma) to
environmentally friendly businesses by directing profits towards them.
CH. 4 STUDY 1: EXPLORING GREEN CONSUMERISM 75
Living in a free market system – described as a “consumer based economic
world” (Daniel) or a “globalised capitalist world” (Flynn) – was also perceived as
integral when collectively employing green consumerism. Both environmentalists and
non-environmentalists alike suggested that because companies were concerned by “how
much revenue or profit they generate” (Mark), the economic principle of “supply and
demand” (Ryan) would signal to them the need to change their practices to be more
environmentally friendly. An extract from the interview with Marcus provides an
example of this common perception.
Marcus: “IF you have enough people engaging in… green consumer behaviour
then the market will drive it into a direction that is MORE sustainable… for
example, IF everyone stops buying... errr old growth timber products, THEN the
old growth timber product market dries up and everything becomes sustainable
timber … in the end… the environmental outcomes will improve”.
Most participants who identified as an environmentalist (such as Hannah, Eliza,
Victoria, Flynn and Daniel) also noted collectively employing green consumerism was
reliant upon a large number of individuals engaging in the behaviour. Green
consumerism could only “make a difference” (Hannah) in having “rippling effects on
the economy” (Daniel) when a “good portion of people did it” (Daniel). Others also
noted that this idea to use green consumerism as a type of activism was still “niche”
(Robert) and therefore needed to “spread to more customers” (Ryan) for it to be truly
effective in decreasing environmental problems. However, ensuring individuals were
well-informed about unethical or environmentally damaging company practices could
encourage a large collective to “vote with their dollar” (Mark).
Theme 3: Reluctance to Identify as an Environmentalist
Across a number of interviews, participants were often reluctant to identify as an
environmentalist – even if they indicated they were concerned for the environment or
CH. 4 STUDY 1: EXPLORING GREEN CONSUMERISM 76
engaged in some level of green consumerism. When asked directly if they identified as
an environmentalist, many responses were hesitant and uncertain, with such comments
as “not sure” (Sophie), “I don’t know” (Teagan), and “yes and no” (Michelle). Some
participants (such as Ryan, Ashleigh, John and Sarah) even engaged in lengthy
reflections upon who could actually be considered to be an environmentalist. An extract
from the interview with Daniel provides an example of this.
Daniel: “Well I think… I think it’s a very sort of broad um … thing you can be….
because it involves so many different things. I mean it involves…. People that go
OUT and I guess are politically active… I guess in terms of pushing for certain
things… you know POLICY WISE.... And I guess there’s also a different type of
environmentalist that is probably more the individual type… they do things on a
more of an individual level…”
Many other participants (such as Katherine, Ryan, Jen, Tim and Flynn) also
offered broad interpretations of what it meant to be an environmentalist, often
suggesting that the defining feature of the environmentalist social category was that
ingroup members were “passionate” (Flynn) or “cared about the environment” (Jen).
Some participants went so far to say that environmentalists fell along a “continuum”
(Victoria) according to how much they did for the environment.
Yet even with such wide-ranging definitions of environmentalists, a third of
participants were reluctant to identify as an environmentalist (see Table 4.1). Even for
Eliza (a participant who was a member of environmental organisations), identification as
an environmentalist was fraught with issues concerning whether she adequately reflected
what she thought was the ideal or prototypical environmentalist. Subsequently, many
participants could not be clearly separated into those who did or did not identify as an
environmentalist and were instead categorised as being reluctant to identify as an
environmentalist (see Table 4.1). Upon closer inspection of interviews, two reasons were
recognised as to why this may have been the case and are outlined below.
CH. 4 STUDY 1: EXPLORING GREEN CONSUMERISM 77
Subtheme 3a: To be an environmentalist is to be ‘active’. Most participants,
regardless of their strength of environmentalist social identity, perceived that being an
environmentalist required a large amount of “effort” (Jen). Participants (such as Ryan,
Mark, Patrick, Robert and James) suggested that environmentalists went “out of their
way to take care of our environment a bit more than most… other people” (James) and
were therefore “active” (Patrick), “actively involved” (Renee) or had an “active role”
(Ashleigh) in conserving the environment.
Tegan: “I guess (an environmentalist is) someone who’s ACTIVELY involved…
just someone that’s concerned… with the environment… BUT who is also
ACTIVELY involved in it. Soooooo… someone THAT is actually involved in
recycling and takes action by going to protests”.
Many other participants shared Tegan’s view (e.g., e.g., Sophie, Hannah, Ryan,
Amy, Jen), noting they could not be considered environmentalists as they did not always
“go beyond” (James) what the average, presumably non-environmentally conscious,
person does.
Regarding green consumerism specifically, participants often viewed it as
something that “anyone could do” (Ryan). However engagement in green consumerism
would more likely occur, and therefore be the norm, with environmentalists or those
who were members of environmental organisations (e.g., “Sea Shepherd” (Tim) or
“Greenpeace” (Ella)). This was because environmentalists would be actively trying to
achieve a “green lifestyle” (Jen). Others went further (such as John, Sophie and Scott),
suggesting that if you identified as an environmentalist, it would be “hypocritical”
(Scott) not to engage in green consumerism as it would be the expected norm for all
group members.
Subtheme 3b: Negative perceptions of environmentalists. Throughout
interviews, many participants (such as Hannah, Amy, Sophie, Ashleigh, Mark, Jen,
CH. 4 STUDY 1: EXPLORING GREEN CONSUMERISM 78
Rebecca, Robert, and John) also voiced how they held negative perceptions of
environmentalists, regardless of whether they identified as an environmentalist or not. It
was common for participants to refer to environmentalists either in disdain or comically
as “hippies” (Hannah), “greenies” (Mark) or “tree huggers” (Jen), whilst perceiving
them to “support the Greens18” (Ryan), be very “left leaning” (Robert) and “definitely
vegetarian or vegan” (Michelle). Environmentalists were also regarded as occasionally
arrogant, with this often attributed to how environmentalists often brought up how
environmentally conscious they were. An extract from the interview with John provides
an example of this.
John: [An environmentalist is] “quite… in your face about their opinion about
the environment…. (they’re) someone who like… it has to be known that they’re
doing the right thing...”
Across participant interviews, the arrogance associated with environmentalists
was also perceived to distance the public from environmental causes, including those
people who shared a common concern for the environment. For instance, Ashleigh noted
that even though she agreed with the objectives of environmentalists and identified as an
environmentalist, the fact that they were always “telling us all that we’re doing the
wrong thing and that we’re…. bad people” was frustrating and disheartening. Others
noted that because environmentalists were always “preaching at others” (Michelle),
“trying to prove something” (John) or “only (saw) one side” (Patrick) of the issue,
environmentalists could also appear uncompromising and confrontational.
A few participants went even further, describing environmentalists as “radical”
(Renee), “irrational” (Rebecca), “hard core” (Sophie) or “extreme” (Isobel) – especially
18 The Greens are a minor Australian political party that grew out of the environmental activist movement
of the 1960s and 1970s.
CH. 4 STUDY 1: EXPLORING GREEN CONSUMERISM 79
if they engaged in explicit displays of activism. In particular, if environmentalists
engaged in highly contentious actions such as “protesting” (Michelle) or “tying
themselves to trees and stuff” (Rebecca) it was suggested that the nature of these
behaviours would “put people off” (Emma) becoming an environmentalist and/or
engaging in environmentally conscious behaviours. Renee, an exercise physiologist,
went so far to say that because environmentalists “were not represented in a positive
light” in the media, she was hesitant to identify as one despite trying to engage in green
consumerism herself.
Across participant interviews, it also appeared that the more negatively a
participant (such as Rebecca, John, Amy and Renee) perceived environmentalists, the
less likely they would identify as an environmentalist. This was even the case for those
participants who demonstrated a concern for the environment or who tried to engage in
green consumerism themselves. Although not explicitly stated, many participants
indicated that identifying as an environmentalist was not reflective of themselves, as
they did not see themselves as “irrational” (Rebecca) or “radical” (Renee). This suggests
that the way in which the environmentalist social category itself is perceived may
contribute to whether individuals choose to identify as an environmentalist and engage
in identity congruent behaviour.
Discussion
The aim of this study was to explore the ways in which individuals made sense
of green consumerism and how this may have been explained by an individual’s strength
of environmentalist social identity. In-line with the research questions proposed,
particular interest was paid to examining whether environmentalists and non-
environmentalists differed in what behaviours they considered to be a part of green
CH. 4 STUDY 1: EXPLORING GREEN CONSUMERISM 80
consumerism as well as how they perceived green consumerism to be effective in
improving the environment. A patterned thematic analysis demonstrated that both
environmentalists and non-environmentalists alike perceived green consumerism to
contain multiple environmentally friendly consumption behaviours. Green consumerism
was also seen to be effective in reducing environmental problems because it could be
employed as an individual, private behaviour or as a collective, activist strategy.
Findings from this study also demonstrated that most participants viewed
environmentalists simultaneously as ‘active’ but also as ‘extreme’, which carried
negative connotations.
All participants, regardless of their strength of environmentalist social
identification, consistently offered broad conceptualisations of green consumerism,
lending further support to those who have previously argued that green consumerism
should be viewed as extending beyond individualised purchasing (Antil, 1984; Fuentes,
2014; Gilg et al., 2005; Peattie, 2010; Polonsky et al., 2012). That individuals viewed
green consumerism to include numerous behaviours that attempt to be green also
suggests that the measurement of green consumerism should include reference to various
consumption behaviours (as previously noted by Gilg et al., 2005; Peattie, 2010;
Polonsky et al., 2012). Indeed, current scales that only reference individualised
purchasing may be unable to capture those who engage in other facets of green
consumerism (such as reusing products or disposal). Furthermore, even though previous
research often views information seeking and decision making as separate constructs to
green consumerism (McDonald et al., 2009; Pedersen & Neergaard, 2006; Wagner-
Tsukamoto & Tadajewski, 2006), these behaviours were perceived by individuals as
integral part of the green consumerism construct, particularly if one critically analyses
CH. 4 STUDY 1: EXPLORING GREEN CONSUMERISM 81
information and uses it as a basis for various consumption decisions. Nonetheless,
further research is needed to investigate and further clarify how information seeking and
comparative decision making may be a part of green consumerism.
Conceptualising green consumerism as extending beyond purchasing also has
implications for the pro-environmental behaviour research literature more broadly
(Gatersleben, 2012; Gatersleben et al., 2002; Stern, 2000). It has been previously
suggested that green consumerism (when operationalised as the purchase of green
products) is one type of pro-environmental behaviour and is therefore separate to such
behaviours as energy saving or recycling (Larson et al., 2015; Markle, 2013; Olli,
Grendstad, & Wollebaek, 2001), Stern, 2000). However, it may be inappropriate to
conceptualise pro-environmental behaviour in this way as it does not allow for
acknowledgement of the various pro-environmental behaviours that are perceived to be a
part of green consumerism. Further research therefore must examine the validity of
having such a broad conceptualisation of green consumerism and the impact it may have
on measurements of pro-environmental behaviour.
This study also highlights how some individuals may employ green consumerism
as a form of collective action. This finding is consistent with recent papers within the
political science literature that argue consumer behaviour can be employed as an activist
strategy (see Micheletti & Stolle, 2012; Stolle et al., 2005), especially since intentional
purchase (buy-cotting) or non-purchase (boycotting) can influence institutions within
capitalist societies to change their practices to be more ethical or sustainable (Friedman,
1995; Stolle et al., 2005). It also indicates that green consumerism may have a strong
relationship to other forms of environmental activism (such as petitioning and
protesting). Future research should investigate how and why people use consumerism as
CH. 4 STUDY 1: EXPLORING GREEN CONSUMERISM 82
a form of collective action for environmental problems and how green consumerism
may be related to more ‘traditional’ forms of environmental activism (such as
protesting).
A key finding of the present study is that environmentalists and non-
environmentalists also did not substantially vary in their perceptions of green
consumerism and its potential effectiveness in reducing environmental problems. For
example, it appeared that both environmentalists and non-environmentalists perceived
green consumerism to be a normative behaviour of environmentalists, partially reflecting
previous research that has shown those who are a part of environmental social groups
perceive pro-environmental behaviours to be normative of the group (Horton, 2004;
Holland et al., 2000; Tesch & Kempton, 2004; Tranter, 2010; Perera, 2014; Rabinovich
et al., 2012). This lack of difference in perceptions between environmentalists and non-
environmentalists may have occurred because many participants failed to out-rightly
identify as an environmentalist. Indeed, social identity theorists argue that social identity
only contributes to individual perceptions, attitudes, and behaviours when one is said to
both self-categorise and socially identify with the group (Hogg, 2006a; Hogg & Abrams,
1990; McGarty, 2001; Tajfel & Turner, 1979). Furthermore, as social identification
with the environmentalist social category was not directly measured in this study, with
participants simply asked if they self-identified as an environmentalist, it is possible that
participants did not view the question as a reflection of group membership to the
environmentalist social category, instead seeing it as a question of whether they
personally saw themselves as an environmentally friendly person (Tesch & Kempton,
2004). Nevertheless, the finding that individuals engaged in lengthy reflections
concerning what is meant to be an environmentalist suggests that the environmentalist
CH. 4 STUDY 1: EXPLORING GREEN CONSUMERISM 83
social identity itself is extremely fluid and flexible – something that could not have been
adequately determined without the use of qualitative methods (Reicher, 1984, 2004).
Findings from this study also indicated that some individuals are reluctant to
identify as environmentalists, even if they say they are concerned for the environment or
engage in some form of green consumerism. This finding extends previous research that
demonstrates how some individuals are hesitant to adopt the environmentalist label,
even if they teach environmental sustainability (Whitehouse, 2001; Whitehouse & Evans,
2010), engage in pro-environmental behaviours in the workplace (Wright et al., 2012),
or accept themselves as environmentalists (Perera, 2014). Within this study, it appeared
that this failure to identify as an environmentalist was often due to negative perceptions
of environmentalists and the idea that high levels of effort were required to be
considered an environmentalist. Therefore, environmentalists were simultaneously
idealised as being ‘active’ and stigmatised for being ‘extreme’. Although some previous
research has suggested subgroups of environmentalists are often perceived negatively by
others (Bashir et al., 2013; Hutchings, 2005; Murphy & Dee, 1996; Thatcher, 2013),
additional research investigating whether these perceptions translate to widely held
stereotypes of the superordinate environmentalist social category is warranted, and
therefore explored in Studies 2 and 4 (Chapters 5 and 7 respectively).
Limitations
One of the limitations of the current study was that majority of participants who
were recruited were highly educated and between the ages of 23 and 27. Although
particular effort was made to obtain a varied range of demographics, a more diverse
collection of ages as well as the inclusion of a wider range of education levels may have
altered the overall conclusions made in this study. Secondly, as most participants were
CH. 4 STUDY 1: EXPLORING GREEN CONSUMERISM 84
raised in Australia, their focus upon using the free market as a way to encourage
environmental change may be a reflection of their socialisation in a capitalist society
(Heath & Gifford, 2006; Gifford & Nilsson, 2014). It is entirely possible that subgroups
of environmentalists that do not subscribe to free market ideologies would not perceive
green consumerism as effective in minimising environmental damage (such as radical
environmental activists or deep ecologists) (see Anderson, 2010; Brulle, 1996; Dalton et
al., 2003; Ogrodnik & Staggenborg, 2016). Finally, due to the focus of the study being
on how environmentalists and non-environmentalists made sense of green consumerism,
there were some issues that were apparent within the data that could not be explored
fully. This included how, in subtheme 2a, green consumerism was often perceived as a
morally superior and value-laden behaviour (as has been previously suggested by Fraj &
Martinez, 2006; Thøgersen, 2011; Thøgersen & Ölander, 2002). Future research should
therefore investigate how biospheric values and morality contribute to green
consumerism and environmentalist social identity to broaden our understanding of these
constructs and how they may be related.
Concluding Remarks
The aim of this qualitative study was to investigate the subjective perceptions
individuals held of green consumerism and to determine whether these may have varied
according to an individual’s strength of environmentalist social identity. Overall, the
findings of this first study of the present thesis demonstrated that environmentalists and
non-environmentalists shared the same perceptions of green consumerism. In particular,
findings indicated that common conceptualisations and measurements of green
consumerism may require reference to a multitude of consumption behaviours, rather
than just individualised purchasing practices. Findings from the study also indicated that
CH. 4 STUDY 1: EXPLORING GREEN CONSUMERISM 85
green consumerism was perceived to be effective in reducing environmental problems as
both an individual, private action and a collective, activist strategy. Therefore, it appears
that many of those who engage in green consumerism may do so because they wish to
foster collective change and are motivated to be environmentally responsible. Finally,
this study provides further insight into why some individuals may find it difficult to
identify as environmentalists, even if they are concerned for the environment or engage
in some facets of green consumerism. It indicates that employing environmentalist social
identity as a predictor for green consumerism may be limited by the perceptions
individuals hold of the environmentalist social category, including that ingroup members
are ‘active’ but also at times ‘extreme’. That is, the broader social context surrounding
the environmentalist social category is important to consider when attempting to
encourage individuals to identify as an ingroup member.
CH. 5 STUDY 2: OUTGROUP PERCEPTIONS OF ENVIRONMENTALISTS 86
Chapter 5
Study 2:
“Not all environmentalists are like that…”: Exploring How Outgroup Members
Perceive the Environmentalist Social Category
Introduction
Although Study 1 (Chapter 4) aimed to explore how individuals strength of
environmentalist social identity contributed to their perceptions of green consumerism, it
was instead found that many participants were reluctant to identify as an
environmentalist in the first place. Analysis for Study 1 indicated that this was either
because participants were not active enough in their pro-environmenal behaviours or that
there were too many negative perceptions surrounding the environmentalist social
category. Subsequently, these findings indicated that the broader social context –
especially how environmentalists are perceived by others – may have important
consequences for outgroup members’ potential identification as an environmentalist (as
well as their willingness to engage in pro-environmental behaviours such as green
consumerism).
However, despite considerable research investigating the stereotypes social
groups hold of one another (e.g., Hilton & van Hippel, 1996; McGarty et al., 2002),
including politicised and opinion-based social groups such as feminists, liberals, and
conservatives (see Chatard et al., 2008; Graham et al., 2009; Robnett et al., 2012; Roy,
et al., 2007; Williams & Wittig, 1997), little is still known about how members of the
environmentalist social category – that is, environmentalists – are perceived and
characterised by those who are not a part of their ingroup.
CH. 5 STUDY 2: OUTGROUP PERCEPTIONS OF ENVIRONMENTALISTS 87
Given these considerations, this second study of the present thesis went on to
further explore how members of the environmentalist social category were perceived by
environmentalist outgroup members (i.e., non-environmentalists). Using a qualitative
survey methodology, this study aimed to not only determine the wide-ranging views
non-environmentalists held of the environmentalist social category, but to also determine
the specific traits that non-environmentalists thought to be characteristic of
environmentalists. This was done in order to gain a deeper understanding of the potential
stereotypes outgroup members held of environmentalists, and to provide a foundation
for the measure of environmentalist stereotypes that was used in Study 4 (Chapter 7).
A detailed justification for the study now follows.
Stereotypical Outgroup Perceptions of Environmentalists
Although recent work has begun investigating how other highly politicised and
ideological groups – such as liberals, conservatives, and feminists – are stereotypically
perceived by outgroup members (see Chatard et al., 2008; Graham et al., 2014;
Berryman-Fink & Verderber, 1995; Robnett et al., 2012; Roy et al., 2007; Swirsky &
Angelone, 2014; Twenge & Zucker, 1999), less work has examined the general
impressions outgroup members hold of environmentalists (although see Bashir, 2010;
Bashir et al., 2013; Castro et al., 2016). In fact, of the little research that has investigated
outgroup stereotypes of environmentalistss, findings are disperse and unclear, with it
especially ambiguous as to how environmentalists are broadly perceived by members of
the general public who do not perceive themselves to be environmentalists. In particular,
it is unclear what traits outgroup members deem to be prototypical of environmentalist
ingroup members.
CH. 5 STUDY 2: OUTGROUP PERCEPTIONS OF ENVIRONMENTALISTS 88
For instance, it has been previously suggested that opposing groups who engage
in direct conflict with environmentalists tend to evaluate environmentalists negatively
(Hutchings, 2005; Murphy & Dee, 1996; Thatcher, 2013; Wright et al., 2012). This
literature has argued that oppositional groups, such as corporate decision makers, tend to
perceive environmentalists to be anti-progress or anti-technology, as well as
uncompromising and unwilling to negotiate (Hutchings, 2005; Murphy & Dee, 1996).
Indeed, as the debate around environmental issues becomes increasingly polarised in the
United States (Dunlap, McCright, & Yarosh, 2016; Layman, Carsey, & Horowitz, 2006;
McCright, Xiao, & McDunlap, 2014) and Australia (Fielding, Head, Laffan, Western, &
Hoegh-Guldberg, 2012; Tranter, 2010), many non-environmentalists who advocate for
business interests have been seen to disparage environmentalists within the public sphere
as being militant and economically illiterate (Balch, 2014; Vidal, 2012; Watt, 2014;
Wright, 2012). Nevertheless, it is somewhat unsurprising that those who are in direct
conflict with environmentalists may evaluate environmentalists negatively, given that
those groups who are in competition for status and resources tend to view one another
negatively in general (Colvin, Witt, & Lacey, 2015; Fielding et al., 2005; Hornsey,
2008; Opotow & Brook, 2003; Tajfel & Turner, 1979).
Other research, although minimal, has investigated how individuals (within the
general public) view various sub-groups of environmentalists (Bashir, 2010) as well as
those who are described as engaging in activism or different types of pro-environmental
behaviours (but who are not out rightly labelled as an environmentalist within the study)
(Bashir et al., 2013; Castro et al., 2016). This research has demonstrated that subgroups
of environmentalists, such as ‘tree-huggers’, ‘radical environmental activists’ and
‘mainstream environmentalists’ were evaluated as less likable and more militant than
CH. 5 STUDY 2: OUTGROUP PERCEPTIONS OF ENVIRONMENTALISTS 89
students (Bashir, 2010). Furthermore environmentalists who were described as engaging
in activism (e.g., protesting) were perceived to be more aggressive, less warm, and less
personable than those who were described as engaging in non-active forms of pro-
environmental behaviour (e.g., recycling, organic purchasing, energy and water saving)
(Bashir et al., 2013; Castro et al., 2016). Environmentalists were also seen as threatening
by those who held right-wing ideologies due to the social change environmentalists
promoted (Hoffarth & Hodson, 2016). Inded those who self-identify as
environmentalists themselves were aware that others view the social change orientated
behaviour they engage in as aggressive and excessive (Shirani et al., 2015; Wright et al.,
2012), leading some environmentalists to engage in identity strategies where they label
themselves as ‘green’, rather than as an ‘environmentalist’, to counteract these perceived
negative evaluations in their day-to-day life (Perera, 2014).
Other empirical work also only provides preliminary evidence regarding which
traits are perceived by outgroup members to be prototypical of the environmentalist
social category, typically focusing on certain subgroups of environmentalists (Bashir et
al., 2013; Castro et al., 2016). For instance, Bashir et al. (2013) employed trait rating
scales to demonstrate that environmentalists who were perceived to conform to negative
stereotypes of activists (i.e., ‘typical’) were rated as more eccentric and aggressive when
compared to those environmentalists who did not conform to the activist stereotype (i.e.,
‘atypical’). Furthermore, although not interested in investigating stereotypes of the
broader environmentalist group per se, Castro et al. (2016) also showed that individuals
who were described as engaging in different types of pro-environmental behaviours
(without referencing the environmentalist social category) differed in how they were
evaluated on the two trait dimensions of warmth (i.e., ‘good person’, ‘friendly’, ‘warm’,
CH. 5 STUDY 2: OUTGROUP PERCEPTIONS OF ENVIRONMENTALISTS 90
‘cheerful’, and ‘tolerant’) and competence (i.e., ‘capable’, ‘intelligent’, and ‘competent’).
Those who were described as engaging in any form of pro-environmental behaviour
were seen as highly competent; however those who engaged in activist behaviour were
evaluated as less warm when compared to those who engaged in private sphere
environmentalism (such as recycling, organic purchasing, saving energy and water).
Similarly, study 1 of this thesis also demonstrated that participants often employed such
trait terms as ‘radical’, ‘irrational’ and ‘extreme’ to describe environmentalists.
The Current Study
The findings outlined above provide some indication that the superordinate
environmentalist social category may be perceived negatively by outgroup members and
that there may be certain traits perceived by outgroup members to be prototypical of
environmentalists. However, given that these previous studies were either focused on
subgroups of environmentalists (Bashir et al., 2013), those who were described as
engaging in pro-environmental behaviours but not labelled as environmentalists (Castro
et al., 2016), or were not interested in exploring perceptions of environmentalists
specifically (Study 1 of the present thesis), it is still unclear what traits are seen
asprototypical of the environmentalist social category. It is also unclear whether the
perceptions outgroup members hold of environmentalists are only negative in nature
(given that most of the public are not in direct conflict with environmentalists).
Therefore, to achieve a better idea of how environmentalists are perceived by
environmentalist outgroup members (i.e., non-environmentalists), the current study
aimed to explore the overall impressions non-environmentalists held of the
environmentalist social category. This included investigating which specific traits were
deemed by outgroup members to be characteristic or stereotypical of all
CH. 5 STUDY 2: OUTGROUP PERCEPTIONS OF ENVIRONMENTALISTS 91
environmentalist, not just sub-groups of environmentalists. To this end, the research
questions of the study were, firstly, how did outgroup members in general describe and
define environmentalists, and, secondly, what traits did outgroup members frequently
employ when describing environmentalists?
Method
As this study aimed to explore how the environmentalist social category was
perceived by outgroup members, an inductive, qualitative methodology was employed,
with a qualitative survey used for data collection. Qualitative surveys are a type of
textual data collection where participants are given a series of standardised open-ended
questions to write short responses to (Braun & Clarke, 2013; Toeriena & Wilkinson,
2004). By employing a standardised open-ended questionnaire format, qualitative
surveys not only allow for the ambiguities and complexity in participants’ perceptions to
be explored deeply, they also substantially increase the breadth and specificity of the
data collected when compared to interactive qualitative approaches such as one-on-one
interviews and focus groups (Braun & Clarke, 2013; Frith & Gleeson, 2008; Opperman,
Braun, Clarke, & Rogers, 2014; Toeriena & Wilkinson, 2004). Consequently, qualitative
surveys are well-suited to providing preliminary information for early areas of research
as they provide researchers with a comprehensive and standardised idea of the
perceptions individuals hold on a particular phenomenon (Braun & Clarke, 2013;
Toeriena & Wilkinson, 2004).
Participants
A total of 100 participants took part in the study. Participant data were screened
prior to qualitative analysis in order to ensure that the data analysed only represented the
perspectives of the public who were outgroup members of the environmentalist social
CH. 5 STUDY 2: OUTGROUP PERCEPTIONS OF ENVIRONMENTALISTS 92
category. However, it was decided that participants were not to be asked directly if they
idenitfied as an environmentalist given that, as seen in Study 1 (see Chapter 4),
participants could struggle to determine whether they were an environmentalist. Indeed,
research has indicated that individuals define the term ‘environmentalist’ in multiple
ways, often seeing it as a term to describe both the individual environmentalist and one
that is part of a group (see Tesch & Kempton, 2004).
Therefore, to enforce the inclusion criteria that participants were to be
environmentalist outgroup members, membership to an environmental organisation was
instead employed as a proxy for environmentalist social category membership. It was
reasoned that those who perceived themselves as an environmentalist would more likely
be involved in an environmental organisation in some capacity – either as an active
member or as a financial contributor. Subsequently, participants who indicated they
were members of an environmental organisation (n = 7), not sure if they were (n = 1), or
preferred not to say (n = 3) were deleted from all further analyses19.
A total of 89 participants aged 21 to 53 (M = 32.74, SD = 7.98) were utilised in
the data analysis (37 women, 52 men). All participants that provided information
concerning their country of origin originated from the United States (one participant did
not answer this item). Table 5.1 shows the full demographic profile of participants.
Participants wrote an average of 21 words (M = 21.82, SD = 18.61) for each question,
ranging from 1 to 178 words.
CH. 5 STUDY 2: OUTGROUP PERCEPTIONS OF ENVIRONMENTALISTS 93
Table 5.1
Demographic Information for Participants Included in Data Analysis
Frequency %
Gender
Female 37 41.6%
Male 52 58.4%
Country of residence
USA (United States of America) 88 98.9%
Missing 1 1.1%
Education
Lower secondary education (year 10/sophomore year) 0 0.0%
Upper secondary education (high school completion) 24 27%
Post-secondary non-tertiary education (TAFE, Diploma) 10 11.2%
First stage of tertiary education (undergraduate degree) 50 56.2%
Second stage of tertiary education (graduate degree) 5 5.6%
Annual income (in US dollars, before taxes)
Less than $15,000 20 22.5%
$15,000 to $24,999 14 15.7%
$25,000 to $34,999 20 22.5%
$35,000 to $49,999 17 19.1%
$50,000 to $74,999 11 12.4%
$75,000 and above 7 7.9%
Student status
Currently a student 9 10.1%
Not a student 79 88.8%
Missing 1 1.1% Note. N = 89. Age range 21 to 53; M = 32.74; SD = 7.89.
Materials
Each participant completed a short online questionnaire consisting of two
sections (see Appendix D). The first section contained four open-ended questions asking
participants to offer their views and descriptions of environmentalists (see Table 5.2 for
item list). These four items were developed by the author and principal supervisor on the
basis of past qualitative research that has investigated stereotypes of other politicised,
ideological social groups such as feminists (e.g., Liss, Crawford, & Popp, 2004; Nelson
19 The eleven participants that were excluded from further analysis were: P3, P6, P7, P11, P14, P43, P49,
P58, P60, P68, and P76.
CH. 5 STUDY 2: OUTGROUP PERCEPTIONS OF ENVIRONMENTALISTS 94
et al., 2008; Swirsky & Angelone, 2014). These questions were refined through
discussion amongst the research team concerning the clarity and conciseness of each
question.
The second section of the qualitative survey collected participants’ demographics,
including whether they were a member of an environmental organisation (which served
as a proxy screening measure for whether the participant was an environmentalists and
therefore an ingroup member of the environmental social category). As suggested by
Braun and Clarke (2013), demographic information was collected after the open-ended
questions to minimise participants’ feelings of being threatened by the immediate need
for personal information and to minimise the possibility that the demographic items
could prime responses to open-ended questions, especially the item concerning their
membership in environmental organisations.
Table 5.2
Open-ended Questions Employed in Section 1 of the Qualitative Survey
Question
1 In one or two sentences, how would you define the term ‘environmentalist’?
2 What words, phrases or statements would you use to describe
environmentalists?
3 What is your overall view of environmentalists?
4 Could you please outline why you hold this view?
Procedure
After ethics approval was obtained from Deakin University’s Human Research
Ethics Committee (project number: HEAG-H 128_2015, see Appendix A.2),
participants were recruited online via Amazon’s Mechanical Turk (MTurk). MTurk was
chosen as a recruitment method given previous research has shown that samples
recruited through MTurk are more diverse and representative of the US population than
CH. 5 STUDY 2: OUTGROUP PERCEPTIONS OF ENVIRONMENTALISTS 95
in-person convenience and student samples (Berinsky, Huber, & Lenz, 2012; Levay,
Freese, & Druckman, 2016). Furthermore, the quality of data obtained from MTurk has
been found to be comparable to traditional recruitment methods, often meeting or
exceeding psychometric best practice (Buhrmester, Kwang, & Gosling, 2011). Finally,
although this thesis was based in Australia, US samples were collected through MTurk
in order to ensure a diverse range of participants were obtained. In fact, as previous
research has shown that the US and Australia are comparable in their rates of
environmentalism (Bamberg, 2003; Bartels & Reinders, 2016; Castro, 2006), using a US
sample for Study 2 (as well as Study 3 and 4, see chapters 6 and 7) were deemed to be
acceptable for the present thesis.
In order to ensure a diverse range of individuals were recruited, and that those
who were not interested in environmentalism did not self-select themselves out of the
study, the recruitment notice on MTurk asked participants to take part in a short survey
about the social beliefs they held about social groups (see Appendix D). Participants first
read the study’s Plain Language Statement (see Appendix B.2), which indicated they
had between 15 to 30 minutes to complete the study. They then answered the four open-
ended questions and were asked to write as much as they liked in the text boxes
provided under each question. Although the study requested participants to answer each
open-ended question in as much detail as possible, participants were not forced to
complete each question. Participants were then given the demographic items. Upon
submission of the online questionnaire, which signified participants’ informed consent to
the study, participants were paid $US1.50.
CH. 5 STUDY 2: OUTGROUP PERCEPTIONS OF ENVIRONMENTALISTS 96
Data Analysis
Data analysis was divided into two parts. The first part involved determining the
common themes evident across participant responses (thematic analysis). Part two
involved identifying the specific trait terms or phrases used by participants to describe
environmentalists (qualitative content analysis). Details of both analyses now follow.
Thematic analysis. Given the first research question of the study was to explore
the broad views outgroup members held of the environmentalist social category, the first
part of the data analysis was guided by the principles of thematic analysis – a flexible
yet systematic method of examining recurring themes within qualitative data (Braun &
Clarke, 2006, 2013). In accordance with this six-stage method, the author and principal
supervisor engaged in an iterative process of identifying, interpreting, and analysing
common themes across participant responses (Braun & Clarke, 2006). Categories and
codes were initially constructed by close readings of interview transcripts (Morse, 2008),
with these codes then used as a guide for identifying themes during formal analysis. This
thematic analysis was also performed across the open-ended questions, rather than for
each open-ended question individually, in order to identify the commonalities
throughout the data. Any disagreement between the researchers in terms of the themes
generated was resolved through discussion and a re-analysis of coding.
As thematic analysis is devoid of a grounding theoretical framework, the way in
which the data are interpreted depends upon the epistemological position that is adopted
during data analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006, 2013). Given this, a critical realist
perspective was taken for this study (Willig, 1999). A critical realist approach asserts
that an independent, objective reality exists, but also acknowledges that the way in
which reality is experienced by individuals is often socially constructed by culture,
CH. 5 STUDY 2: OUTGROUP PERCEPTIONS OF ENVIRONMENTALISTS 97
language, and political beliefs (Sims-Schouten, Riley, & Willig, 2007; Wikgren, 2005).
In terms of the focus of this study, employing this epistemological position meant that
participant’s responses could be taken as they were and interpreted as depicting the
reality of people’s cognitions, without minimising the contribution of the wider social
context. These cognitions included their views of, and potential experiences with,
environmentalists.
Qualitative content analysis. As the second research question of the study was
to determine the trait terms outgroup members used to describe environmentalists, a
qualitative content analysis was also conducted (Forman & Damschroder, 2008; Hsieh
& Shannon, 2005; Mayring, 2004). Qualitative content analysis focuses on identifying
the specific language or words within text data, which are then coded according to a
systematic inductive classification system (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005). Following this
method, once the common themes across participant responses were identified through a
thematic analysis (see above), participant responses were re-read twice more by the
author with the aim of identifying and making note of the specific traits employed by
participants when describing environmentalists (Stemler, 2001). The frequency of each
trait term was also recorded (see Table 5.4 for frequency counts). The occurrence and
frequency of each trait term was then checked by the principal supervisor.
Once a comprehensive list of trait terms was created, a joint inductive analysis
by the author and principal supervisor indicated that the trait terms could be categorised
according to whether they were positive or negative in nature (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005;
Mayring, 2004). Following this, the negative and positive traits were further coded into
subcategories by the author and principal supervisor, with the positive and negative traits
grouped with others similar in meaning (e.g., informed is similar in meaning to educated
CH. 5 STUDY 2: OUTGROUP PERCEPTIONS OF ENVIRONMENTALISTS 98
or knowledgeable and therefore was grouped together with these words) (see Table 5.5
for details of these subcategories). This was done in order to determine whether
outgroup members viewed environmentalists to hold both positive and negative
characteristics. As with the thematic analysis above, disagreement between the
researchers in terms of the coding of the trait terms was resolved through discussion and
a re-analysis of coding.
Results
The following results section is split into two parts to reflect the two different
modes of qualitative data analysis that were undertaken. In the thematic analysis
specifically, quotations and extracts from participant responses are used to provide
examples of each theme. Furthermore, as questionnaire responses were anonymous,
unique identifier numbers for each participant are included with each quotation (rather
than pseudonyms). No significant changes were made to participants responses, except
for the correction of minor spelling mistakes in order to increase readability and
comprehension of the data (otherwise known as ‘cleaning the data’, see Braun & Clarke,
2013; Sandelowski, 1994).
Thematic Analysis: Exploring Outgroup Members Broad Perceptions of the
Environmentalist Social Category
As stated previously, the first research question of the study was to explore the
broad views outgroup members held of environmentalists. This was done in order to
achieve a better understanding of how environmentalists may be stereotyped by those
who do not perceive themselves to be environmentalists. Following an inductive
thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006, 2013), four major synthesised themes were
identified across the majority of participants. These were: (1) Environmentalists are
CH. 5 STUDY 2: OUTGROUP PERCEPTIONS OF ENVIRONMENTALISTS 99
active in protecting, conserving, and improving nature; (2) Environmentalists may all
care about nature but they do not all do the same things; (3) Environmentalists are
evaluated positively due to their perceived altruism; and (4) Not all environmentalists
are extreme and aggressive, but many act that way. Table 5.3 presents a definition of,
and an exemplar quotation for, each theme.
Table 5.3
Inductively Developed Thematic Descriptions of Environmentalists
Theme Definition Exemplar quotations
1. Environmentalists
are active in
protecting,
conserving, and
improving nature.
Environmentalists were
viewed as actively involved
because they fought to bring
about positive outcomes for
the environment.
An environmentalist is
“someone who is actively
trying to clean up or change
the environment for the
better”. (P87)
2. Environmentalists
may all care about
nature but they do not
all do the same
things.
Although one of the defining
features of environmentalists
was perceived to be that they
cared about nature, this caring
about the natural environment
was perceived to be enacted in
different ways across
environmentalists.
“Someone who cares about
and believes in preserving the
environment”. (P89)
3. Environmentalists
are evaluated
positively due to their
perceived altruism.
Many participants held
positive views of
environmentalists, deeming
them to be ‘good’ people
because they helped to
improve the natural
environment (and
inadvertently humans).
“I really admire and respect
environmentalists. They do a
lot of hard work to help us all,
often without much support
from the general public”.
(P14)
4. Not all
environmentalists are
extreme and
aggressive, but many
act that way
Not all environmentalists were
perceived to be extreme, but
participants still viewed many
environmentalists to be intense
and aggressive.
“Some environmentalists are
too hard core, but not the
majority aren’t” (P36)
“(Environmentalists) can be a
bit preachy in regards to trying
to force people to live a certain
CH. 5 STUDY 2: OUTGROUP PERCEPTIONS OF ENVIRONMENTALISTS 100
way”. (P40)
Note. N = 89.
Frequency counts for the thematic analysis are not provided, unlike some other
qualitative survey studies (Frith & Gleeson, 2004; Toeriena & Wilkinson, 2004). This
was because the aim of this thematic analysis was to achieve a comprehensive sense of
the broad perceptions held by participants, not to determine the numerical frequency of
those perspectives which were given (Sandelowski, 2001). However, to provide an idea
of the strength of perceptions offered, quantifying terms are employed in the results
section as suggested by Braun and Clarke (2013) (and as also was seen in Study 1,
Chapter 4). Following the guidelines in Opperman and colleagues (2014), who also
employed a qualitative survey methodology, the terms ‘majority’ or ‘most’ are used
when almost all participants provided the same or similar perception; ‘frequently’ is
employed when perceptions were offered by more than half of participants; and the term
‘some’ is employed when less than half of participants offered that specific
interpretation.
Theme 1: Environmentalists are active in protecting, conserving, and
improving nature. The first theme reflects how the overwhelming majority of
participants perceived environmentalists as dynamic actors in their pursuit to conserve
and protect the environment. Most participants explicitly described environmentalists
using such terms as “active” (P37), “actively involved” (P22), or “(taking) action” (P26),
while the remaining participants simply implied environmentalists were active by
describing how environmentalists “(made) some effort” (P48), were “willing to put
everything they’ve got into that one goal” (P64) or were people who were “willing to
speak up” (P16). That environmentalists were seen by the majority of participants as
CH. 5 STUDY 2: OUTGROUP PERCEPTIONS OF ENVIRONMENTALISTS 101
active – either explicitly or implicitly – indicated that outgroup members perceived
‘being active’ in helping the natural environment as one the key characteristics that
made environmentalists different from the general, presumably non-environmental,
public.
Following their statements of how environmentalists were active, most
participants outlined the various ways that being active made environmentalists
positively contribute to the natural environment. That is, because environmentalists were
‘active’ they were perceived as “maintaining” (P64), “preserving” (P66), “saving” (P19),
“protecting” (P36), “conserving” (P90) and “improving” (P13) the natural environment.
Some participants went further by suggesting that environmentalists stopped the
negative impacts humans had on earth by “chang(ing) the environment for the better”
(P87) by “preventing” (P94), “reducing” (P72) or “minimising” (P40) the “damage”
(P1) or “harm” (P21) humans caused towards nature. One participant went so far as to
note that environmentalists were “stewards” (P88) of the earth because
“environmentalists work to or live in such a way to reduce the negative consequences of
human impact” (P88).
Broadly speaking, most participants viewed environmentalists’ role as active
actors through a political lens. For example, some participants described
environmentalists using political terms, noting that environmentalists would be “liberals
at heart” (P79), “leftist” (P73), “progressive” (P74) or “socially aware” (P89). Some
participants even indicated the political party affiliation they thought environmentalists
would have, suggesting that environmentalists would most likely be “Democrats”
CH. 5 STUDY 2: OUTGROUP PERCEPTIONS OF ENVIRONMENTALISTS 102
(P59)20. Nonetheless, a few participants did indicate that environmentalists were only
active in helping the natural environment because they were typically “privileged” (P74)
or were part of the “middle-class” (P78), with one participant elaborating that:
“(Environmentalists) tend to be wealthy people who engage in behaviour that
might be impractical and expensive because they can afford it… (They) often try
to enforce behaviour that they can afford on people who can’t.” (P78)
Across participant responses, the majority of participants also suggested that the
key reason as to why environmentalists were active was because they valued nature and
were concerned about the well-being of the natural environment. That is,
environmentalists were “nature lovers” (P18), “as one with nature” (P42), “in harmony
with nature” (P62) and “connected to nature” (P61) and therefore were interested in:
“making the world a sound and healthy place for people and animals to live” (P66);
“protecting our natural resources” (P67); “keep(ing) nature clean” (P87); and,
“conserving the world’s natural spaces, animals, and oceans” (P90). Some participants
even perceived environmentalists to be concerned about the natural environment to the
extent that they often “equated the importance of the environment about the same as
they would another human being” (P70).
As environmentalists were perceived by the majority of participants as “nature
lovers” (P55), some participants used a number of well-known labels that referenced
environmentalists love of nature when describing them. These labels included: “greenie”
(P50); “hippie” (P20); “tree-hugger” (P69); “naturalist” (P100); and, “conservationist”
(P31). These participants offered these labels in a neutral way – devoid of any positive
or negative connotations. However, a few participants did propose that these labels were
20 The use of the political party Democrat is understandable given the US sample used within the study.
The US Democratic Party is the more liberal (left-leaning) of the two major parties in the US.
CH. 5 STUDY 2: OUTGROUP PERCEPTIONS OF ENVIRONMENTALISTS 103
employed negatively against environmentalists by others in the general public, with one
participant even noting that “some people call environmentalists ‘tree-huggers’ but I
think that’s just rude” (P69).
Theme 2: Environmentalists may all care about nature but they do not all do
the same things. Whilst theme 1 demonstrated that outgroup members perceived
environmentalists to actively engage in some type of pro-environmental behaviour,
theme 2 reflects how the majority of participants suggested that although all
environmentalists cared about nature, they were seen to engage in varying behaviours in
order to help the natural environment. For instance, as environmentalists “cared deeply”
(P95) or “sincerely cared” (P87) about “the state of the environment” (P84) and “treating
the planet well” (P21) they would therefore “do anything to help the (environment)”
(P52). This included taking “steps” (P59) to “help” (P51) the environment at an
“individual, local, national, or international level” (P63). Yet these ‘steps’ were seen to
be diverse across environmentalists, with participants noting that there was not one,
typical pro-environmental behaviour in which all environmentalists would engage in, as
the following quotations illustrate:
“An environmentalist in my mind is someone… who is green in everything that
they say and do, drives a Prius, recycles, things that Captain Planet21 would
endorse.” (P12)
“An environmentalist is someone who cares about the environment and takes
care of it to the best of their ability. They recycle their glass, paper, metal and
aluminium. They reduce their usage of electricity, gas and water. They buy
products made out of recycled material. And they may even drive electric cars.”
(P33)
“An environmentalist is someone who cares about the world around us and
wants to maintain a healthy world vs destroying it. To do this they do things such
21 Captain Planet is a US children’s animated television show that teaches children about environmental
sustainability.
CH. 5 STUDY 2: OUTGROUP PERCEPTIONS OF ENVIRONMENTALISTS 104
as track their carbon footprint, recycle and reuse, and buy things that are good
for our environment instead of detrimental to it.” (P53)
“An environmentalist is a person that is actively involved in preserving the
environment. They recycle and buy sustainable products as well as engaging in
environmental activism by protesting or circulating a petition.” (P46)
Of the varied behaviours that environmentalists engaged in, participants
frequently emphasised those individual actions that environmentalist did in their
everyday life. For instance, environmentalists did “small things each day” (P71) or tried
to live a “lifestyle” (P72) that reduced their “impact on the environment” (P72), thereby
ensuring that environmentalists would “have the smallest footprint possible” (P52).
These individual actions could include environmentalists tracking their carbon footprint,
recycling, and buying environmentally friendly products, as evidenced in the extracts
above.
Some participants did however acknowledge that environmentalists also often
engaged in actions that were collective in nature. For example, environmentalists could
“advocate” (P73) for environmental causes and therefore could engage in collective
action behaviours such as “protesting or circulating a petition” (P46). This focus on
collective action led a few participants to refer to environmentalists as “activists” (P100),
“who (were) willing to be an activist for environmental causes” (P50), and who would
be “active in an organisation or movement that has an environmental preservation
mission” (P31). However, many participants did not make any reference to
environmentalists engaging in collective action, and therefore it appears most
environmentalist outgroup members did not seem to perceive environmentalism to be
synonymous with environmental activism.
Theme 3: Environmentalists are evaluated positively due to their perceived
altruism. The third theme of this study relates to how participants frequently held
CH. 5 STUDY 2: OUTGROUP PERCEPTIONS OF ENVIRONMENTALISTS 105
positive perceptions of environmentalists, often viewing them as people who “mean well”
(P34). For instance, some participants described environmentalists as “genuine” (P22) or
“good” (P8) people who were “working for a great cause” (P1) and whose intentions
were “honourable” (P34). Some other participants also noted how they “admired” (P80)
and “respected” (P86) environmentalists because of the “effort they put forth in helping
to protect the environment” (P35), and the fact that they “operated according to their
principles” (P63). This overall perception of environmentalists’ ‘goodness’ generally
arose when participants’ responses focused on how environmentalists wanted to take
care of the earth and make sure that “forests, animals, air, water etc. are well taken care
of for the future generation” (P64) or “future generations” (P12). Therefore, participants
frequently perceived environmentalists as ‘good’ to the extent that they tried to care for
the environment and the whole of humanity.
Some participants also noted how environmentalists served “an important role”
(P35) in society because they “raise(d) awareness about environmental issues” (P40) and
acted as “alarmists when it pertained to the state (of the) planet” (P46). That
environmentalists raised awareness was deemed vital by some participants, as there was
a “need” (P52) to “sound the alarm” (P42) regarding how the decisions humans made
impacted the natural environment. A few participants even noted that environmentalists
tried to “wake us up” (P39) or “educate those who may not know better” (P16), whilst
also providing “potential solutions to environmental issues” (P90) (even if these
solutions were perceived as “unrealistic” (P66) by some participants). Therefore, as one
participant succinctly summarised, environmentalists “serve a greater purpose – not only
for the environment, but for the preservation of humanity overall” (P96).
CH. 5 STUDY 2: OUTGROUP PERCEPTIONS OF ENVIRONMENTALISTS 106
Given that environmentalists were often perceived as raising awareness and
engaging in a large range of pro-environmental behaviours for the good of humanity, it
is somewhat unsurprising that participants frequently also saw environmentalists as
selfless and self-sacrificing. Environmentalists were frequently seen by participants to be
“unselfish” (P5) or “altruistic in the way that they are willing to sacrifice things for the
good of people in the future” (P8). A few participants even suggested that
environmentalists received “little credit” (P2) for their selfless actions.
“I think (environmentalists) are unselfish because generally being an
environmentalist and living an environmentally friendly life style means making
sacrifices so that society, future generations, and nature can benefit. It’s usually
not immediately self-serving to be an environmentalist, and sometimes could
even hold the person back or inconvenience them.” (P72)
Nevertheless, although participants frequently did appear to hold reasonably
positive perceptions of environmentalists, these perceptions appeared to be conditional
on how environmentalists chose to act. That is, many participants often included the
caveat that they held positive perceptions of environmentalists only to the point that
environmentalists did not become ‘extreme’ in their behaviour or views when compared
to themselves or presumably a non-environmental person:
“(I view them as) generally positive as long as they don’t get militant with their
agenda.” (P19)
“I have a neutral view on them, so long as they don’t try to force their lifestyle
on me.” (P83)
“I think they can be great as long as they are not extremists or willing to kill
people for their beliefs.” (P52)
“Anybody looking to do good is right by me but I think forcing people to do
things because of your agenda can be a bit overwhelming and a bit of a put off
even if people agree with what you’re trying to accomplish.” (P40)
“So long as environmentalists don’t go to extremes to push their views, I have
nothing but respect for them.” (P70)
CH. 5 STUDY 2: OUTGROUP PERCEPTIONS OF ENVIRONMENTALISTS 107
Overall, the extracts above demonstrate that participants only maintained their
positive evaluations of environmentalists ‘so long’ as that they did not ‘force’ their
views on others or engage in militant or socially undesirable behaviours. Therefore it
appeared that if environmentalists did engage in behaviour that was “not congruent with
how they should act” (P50), or went against what was deemed to be socially appropriate
by participants, then the positive views held participants could quickly become negative
– even if they initially saw environmentalists as caring and selfless.
Theme 4: Not all environmentalists are extreme and aggressive, but many
act that way. The final theme highlights that whilst more than half of the participants
evaluated environmentalists positively (see theme 3), they also simultaneously held
negative perceptions of environmentalists. Here participants frequently suggested that
although not all environmentalists were extreme and aggressive, enough
environmentalists were problematic in their views and behaviour that it warranted
participants to view the superordinate environmentalist social category negatively to
some extent. For instance, many participants emphasised the extremity of some
environmentalists by describing them as “zealots” (P78), “intense” (P87), “extreme”
(P98) and “hard-core” (P36). Others proposed that some environmentalists could be
“over the top” (P99) “get carried away and go overboard” (P53) or go to “unnecessary
extremes” (P71).
As well as emphasising the extremity of some environmentalists, participants
also frequently highlighted the negative characteristics they perceived many
environmentalists to hold. For instance, several participants suggested that some
environmentalists were inherently “self-righteous (and) arrogant” (P47) as they could
get “on a bit of a high horse about how much good they do” (P75), or could be “so
CH. 5 STUDY 2: OUTGROUP PERCEPTIONS OF ENVIRONMENTALISTS 108
egotistical and didactic that it (turned) people off the movement” (P74). Other
participants stressed how “unrealistic” (P47) or “overly idealistic” (P63)
environmentalists could be in the goals they were trying to achieve:
“The environmentalists I see talk of unrealistic goals – zero net carbon
emissions (we’d basically have to go to a pre-industrial age), non-pesticide food
(which means less food and more hunger), and a widespread conversion to solar
power (ignoring the fact that few areas are suitable for it).” (P66)
“Their total resistance to the need for real solutions rather than “pie-in-the-sky”
demands, etc. Take things like responsible land management of public lands,
which would actually prevent the widespread wildfires we see every summer.”
(P24)
The way in which some environmentalists interacted with others – including
when attempting to influence others – was also frequently perceived by participants to
be problematic. For example, some participants outlined how some environmentalists
found it difficult to talk to those who held a “different view” (P34) because
environmentalists were often “biased and closed minded” (P64) or were “unable to hear
any kind of counter-argument” (P24). Some participants also highlighted how some
environmentalists could be too “aggressive” (P50) and “heavy handed” (P36) in their
tactics, especially “when trying to convince sceptics” (P36).
This forcefulness was also seen to be “a bit overwhelming and a bit of a put off”
(P40) for those individuals who were sympathetic to the environmentalist cause. As one
participant succinctly put it, it was “annoying to have (environmentalists) scream their
message in your ear. I do not think every environmentalist serves their mission that way”
(P48). Subsequently, it appeared then that, due to the ‘aggressive’ tactics some
environmentalists employed, and their potential unwillingness to engage with non-
environmentalists in respectful debate, participants frequently saw environmentalists
own actions as potentially dissuading people from affiliating with environmentalism.
CH. 5 STUDY 2: OUTGROUP PERCEPTIONS OF ENVIRONMENTALISTS 109
When outlining their negative views of environmentalists, many participants did
acknowledge that they did not view all environmentalists as extreme and forceful. In
order to emphasise this perspective, these participants would use strategic phrases like
“there are some that go too far” (P71), “most of them are well-meaning” (P50), and “just
like any group, they (have) a far wing of their movement who will do anything” (P27).
The use of terms such as ‘some’, ‘most’ or ‘like any group’ by these participants
allowed them to indicate that they did not think negatively of every single
environmentalist, whilst simultaneously still providing them the opportunity to outline
the negative evaluations they did hold of environmentalists as a whole. That these
overall negative views were frequently offered by participants does suggest that these
negative aspects of environmentalists were explicitly associated with the group. That is,
even though not all environmentalists were extreme or aggressive, enough were to
warrant these negative qualities to be used to describe environmentalists and the
environmental social category as a whole.
Content Analysis: Traits Perceived by Outgroup Members to be Stereotypical of
Environmentalists
As the second research question of the study was to determine the trait terms
commonly used by outgroup members to describe environmentalists, a qualitative
content analysis was conducted on participants’ responses across the four open-ended
questions. Following multiple readings of participant responses, a wide variety of trait
terms were identified (with their frequency of use shown in Table 5.4). An inductive
analysis of these identified trait terms indicated that they could be initially categorised
according to whether they were positive or negative descriptors of the environmentalist
social category, and this was subsequently done (see Table 5.4).
CH. 5 STUDY 2: OUTGROUP PERCEPTIONS OF ENVIRONMENTALISTS 110
As seen in Table 5.4, for Questions 1 and 2 the number of positive trait terms
offered by participants was larger and more diverse when compared to those negative
trait terms that were offered. Nonetheless, for Questions 3 and 4 there was a larger
number of negative trait terms offered than positive trait terms. This could be because
the framing of Questions 1 and 2 implied to participants that they were to describe how
an environmentalist probably is, whereas Questions 3 and 4 were framed in such a way
that participants were asked to provide a more personal view of environmentalists.
Table 5.4
Positive and Negative Trait Terms Used To Describe Environmentalists
Prompt item Positive (N = 79) Negative (N = 52)
1. In one or two
sentences, how
would you define the
term
‘environmentalist’?
Caring (35); pro-active (23);
concerned (12); passionate (3);
dedicated (2); compassionate (2);
rational (1); strong convictions (1);
informed (1); knowledgeable (1);
aware (1); expert (1); worried (1)
2. What words,
phrases or
statements would
you use to describe
environmentalists?
Caring (44); passionate (14);
concerned (11); thoughtful (9);
compassionate (7); Intelligent (6);
loving (6); conscientious (5);
helpful (5); brave (5); committed
(4); worried (4); smart (4); aware
(3) devoted (3); motivated (1);
dedicated (3); responsible (3);
altruistic (3); educated (2); driven
(2); down to earth (2); considerate
(2); hard working (2);
knowledgeable (2); kind (2);
determined (2); rational (2); giving
(2); comprising (1); diligent (1);
informed (1); selfless (1); unselfish
(1); reliable (1); sincere (1);
common sense (1); peaceful (1);
warm (1); realistic (1)
Overly idealistic (3); unrealistic
(3); self-righteous (2); zealous (2);
extreme (2); entitled (1); smug (1);
strident (1); polemic (1); stubborn
(1); aggressive (1); uppity (1);
pushy (1); political bully (1);
hypocrites (1); dogmatic (1); rigid
(1); privileged (1); intense (1);
over the top (1)
3. What is your
overall view of
environmentalists?
Positive (24); caring (8);
passionate (6); hard working (2);
concerned (1); genuine (1); smart
(1); intelligent (1); altruistic (1);
worried (1); educated (1);
determined (1); dedicated (1)
Extreme (2); overbearing (1);
pushy (1); zealots (1); militant (1);
uncompromising (1); hard-core
(1); preachy (1); arrogant (1);
crazy (1); aggressive (1);
unrealistic (1); biased (1); close-
minded (1); overly idealistic (1);
CH. 5 STUDY 2: OUTGROUP PERCEPTIONS OF ENVIRONMENTALISTS 111
not always pragmatic (1); deceitful
(1); egoistical (1); didactic (1); ill-
informed (1); annoying (1)
4. Could you please
outline why you hold
this view?
Caring (4); concerned (4); sacrifice
(3); honourable (2); unselfish (2);
disciplined (1); courageous (1);
altruistic (1); principled (1)
Forceful (2); uncompromising (2);
rigid (1); heavy handed (1);
annoying (1); aggressive (1);
inconsistent (1); unrealistic (1);
arrogant (1); impractical (1) Note. While only 89 participants were used for data analysis, more than 89 traits were identified as each
participant could provide multiple traits in their responses. N = the total number of positive or negative
trait terms offered by participants.
In terms of the trait terms that were offered, their frequency of use also varied.
For instance, the terms of ‘caring’ and ‘concerned’ were seen to be employed by most
participants to describe environmentalist ingroup members, with the use of caring
ranging from 8 to 44 across the four open-ended questions. In comparison to the positive
trait terms, the frequency of participants’ use of negative trait terms across responses
was much lower. For example, although participants offered numerous negative traits to
describe environmentalists in response to Question 3 (e.g., extreme, overbearing,
egoistical), the frequency of their use was substantially less – often just once or twice –
when compared to the positive trait terms given for the same question.
Table 5.5
Clusters of Positive and Negative Trait Categories Emerging in the Data
Exemplar traits Exemplar quotations Positive traits
Caring and concerned Caring, concerned,
compassionate, considerate,
thoughtful
“Someone who cares about and
believes in preserving the
environment”. (P89)
Informed Informed, expert,
knowledgeable, smart, educated,
intelligent; aware
“They’re informed on what
impacts we are making”. (P15)
Dedicated Dedicated, devoted, motivated,
disciplined, committed; strong
convictions; passionate
“An environmentalist is someone
dedicated to the idea of preserving
the earth”. (P5)
Negative traits
CH. 5 STUDY 2: OUTGROUP PERCEPTIONS OF ENVIRONMENTALISTS 112
Pushy and in-your-
face
Aggressive, pushy, extreme,
overbearing, hard-core, forceful,
militant
“Environmentalists as a whole
tend to be overbearing and pushy
with their agenda”. (P7)
Smug and self-
righteous
Self-righteous, smug, preachy,
arrogant, entitled
“I think they think they are better
than everyone else”. (P65)
Unrealistic and
uncompromising
Stubborn, dogmatic, unrealistic,
impractical, rigid
“Unfortunately, the most active
and vocal are usually completely
unwilling or unable to hear any
kind of counter-argument”. (P24)
Once the number and frequency of trait terms were examined, further inductive
analysis of the categorised negative and positive trait terms used by participants was
conducted. This analysis suggested that both positive and negative trait terms could be
further coded into six clusters of traits, three positive (‘caring and concerned’, ‘well-
informed’ and ‘dedicated’), and three negative (‘pushy and in-your-face’, ‘smug and
self-righteous’ and ‘unrealistic and uncompromising’), as shown in Table 5.5. Therefore
it appeared that participants saw both positive and negative clusters of traits as
stereotypical of environmentalists, and therefore part of the larger stereotype they held
of the environmentalist social category.
Discussion
Following on from the findings of Study 1 (see Chapter 4) that some participants
may have perceived environmentalists negatively, the aim of the second study was to
explore further how members of the environmentalist social category were broadly
viewed and characterised by those who did not share their group membership (i.e.,
outgroup members). This was done in order to gain a deeper understanding of the
potential stereotypes environmentalist outgroup members within the general public may
hold of the environmentalists. Subsequently, this study employed a qualitative
methodology, with its two key research questions being: how did outgroup members in
CH. 5 STUDY 2: OUTGROUP PERCEPTIONS OF ENVIRONMENTALISTS 113
general describe and define environmentalists, and what traits did outgroup members
frequently employ when describing environmentalists?
A key finding of the current study was that the environmentalist social category
was defined as being concerned for the natural environment, with outgroup members
often employing the term ‘caring’ or ‘concerned’ to describe environmentalists. This
finding adds further clarification to previous research which has attempted to define an
environmentalist (Autio et al., 2009; Holland et al., 2000; Light, 2000; Perera, 2014;
Tesch & Kempton, 2004; Tranter, 2010) by emphasising that shared environmental
concern is one of the defining features of the group, even as perceived by outgroup
members. This also suggests that the perception of oneself as a member of the
environmentalist social category very much relies upon sharing the foundational belief
of environmental concern, just as other politicised groups (such as feminists, liberals,
and conservatives) are bound together by shared ideology (Bliuc et al., 2007; McGarty et
al., 2009). Although this study did not measure environmental concern directly, this
finding is also in line with previous research that demonstrates positive environmental
attitudes, biospheric values, and environmental concern are predictive of one holding a
more ‘personal’ environmental identity (Clayton, 2012; Gatersleben et al., 2012; Hinds
& Sparks, 2008; van der Werff et al., 2013a, 2013c).
The findings of this study also indicated that outgroup members perceived
environmentalists to actively engage in numerous pro-environmental behaviours –
including those that are individually and collectively employed (Stern, 2000). This
suggests that, although shared ideology may be the defining characteristic of the
environmentalist social category, consistent engagement in a range of pro-environmental
behaviour is also a key requirement of whether one is considered an environmental
CH. 5 STUDY 2: OUTGROUP PERCEPTIONS OF ENVIRONMENTALISTS 114
ingroup member (Bashir et al., 2013; Tesch & Kempton, 2004). Not only does this
finding build upon those of Study 1 wherein being active was an important consideration
for whether participants were willing to self-identify as an environmentalist, it also lends
further support to recent research that demonstrates how members of groups with pro-
environmental norms will be deemed to be hypocrites if they did not engage in the
environmental groups normative behaviours (Gaffney et al., 2012). However, given the
diverse range of behaviours perceived to be prototypical of the environmentalist social
category, it also demonstrates, as shown within the social identity literature, that
heterogeneity of behaviour can be tolerated within categories, even by outgroup
members (Hornsey, 2006). Indeed, it may be that outgroup members perceive the
environmentalist social category as a whole to engage in a range of pro-environmental
behaviours, but it is different sub-groups of environmentalists which are perceived to
engage in specific pro-environmental behaviours (Bashir, 2010; Bashir et al., 2013;
Castro et al., 2016).
This study also found that environmentalist outgroup members simultaneously
held both positive and negative perceptions of the environmentalists, describing them
with positive trait terms (caring, informed, dedicated) and negative trait terms (smug,
irrational, pushy). This finding indicates that the broader stereotype of the
environmentalist social category may contain both positive and negative elements.
Although not explicitly tested in the current study, it is certainly possible that these
positive and negative elements could then be activated in different social contexts. This
finding is also in comparison to previous research that has suggested that
environmentalists are only evaluated negatively by those who have differing ideologies,
including individuals who hold right-wing ideologies perceiving environmentalists to be
CH. 5 STUDY 2: OUTGROUP PERCEPTIONS OF ENVIRONMENTALISTS 115
problematic and threatening (Hoffarth & Hodson, 2016; Hutchings, 2005; Murphy &
Dee, 1996). Indeed, different types of groups may have differing stereotypes of
environmentalists in different contexts, but may still hold the same stereotype in the
same context (such as when they are in conflict with environmentalists). This possibility
provides a fruitful area for future research.
Previous research also outlines how the majority of traits seen as characteristic of
environmentalists suggest that they are also only militant/aggressive (e.g., forceful) and
eccentric/unconventional (e.g., eccentric) (Bashir, 2010; Bashir et al., 2013). Yet, this
study suggests that the outgroup stereotype of environmentalists is made up of positive
and negative characteristics and, in line with the social identity approach, what traits are
voiced to be stereotypical of environmentalists depends upon the social context (Haslam
et al., 1995a, 1995b). That is, outgroup stereotypes of environmentalists may alter
depending upon whether the social context emphasises negative traits (such as one
engaging in intergroup conflict with environmentalists) or positive traits, with perhaps
positive stereotypes more easily drawn upon in day-to-day perceptions of
environmentalists. Indeed, the strategic use of language by participants, such as
suggesting that only ‘some’ environmentalists were extreme and aggressive,
demonstrated that the positive perceptions of environmentalist were conditional on
whether the behaviours that environmentalist ingroup members engaged in did not
become too antagonistic or socially unacceptable. This is similar to findings in that those
who engage in political activism tend to be viewed negatively due to the nature of the
socially extreme behaviours they engage in (Bashir et al., 2013; Lindblom & Jacobsson,
2014).
CH. 5 STUDY 2: OUTGROUP PERCEPTIONS OF ENVIRONMENTALISTS 116
Limitations
Although this study offered further insights into how outgroup members perceive
the environmentalist social category, thereby providing a deeper understanding of the
potential stereotypes that surround the group, a number of limitations must be noted.
Firstly, as the focus of the study was upon the broad perceptions environmentalist
outgroup members held of environmentalists, it is unclear whether the perceptions
offered would have changed if participants were asked to recall, for example, an instance
where they directly interacted with environmentalists. Given the importance of social
context to stereotypes (Haslam et al., 1995a, 1995b; Oakes et al., 1999; Tajfel & Turner,
1979; Turner, 1999), it is entirely possible that the valence of certain perceptions offered
could have intensified or diminished depending on different social contexts. Future
research should examine how social context, including past positive and negative
experiences with environmentalists, also contribute to how outgroup members perceive
the superordinate environmentalist social category.
Secondly, the perceptions that were given by participants may have also been
culturally specific given that participants were from the US and therefore would have
drawn upon current representations of environmentalists within US society. It is entirely
possible that participants recruited from different countries, including even Australia (as
was the case in Study 1), could hold different perceptions of the environmentalist social
category. Indeed, the Greens political party in Australia has had much more coverage
within the Australian media landscape than in the US and therefore it is possible that
Australian participants see the environmentalist social category as a much more
politicised group (Fielding et al., 2012). Future research should therefore investigate
whether stereotypes of environmentalists differ across cultures, including the possible
CH. 5 STUDY 2: OUTGROUP PERCEPTIONS OF ENVIRONMENTALISTS 117
consequences these potentially different perceptions have upon ones potential
identification as an environmentalist and their willingness to engage in pro-
environmental behaviour.
Due to the focus of the study being upon how non-environmentalists of the
general public broadly perceived environmentalists, there was little analysis regarding
how certain demographic characteristics may have intersected with participant responses,
including such demographics such as age, gender, or political ideology. For instance,
debates around environmental issues have become increasingly politically polarised
within the US (Dunlap et al., 2016; Layman et al., 2006; McCright et al., 2014), with
recent research demonstrating that conservatives tend to view environmentalists as
threatening (Hoffarth & Hodson, 2016). Therefore age, gender, and political affiliation
may have had a large contribution to how participants perceived environmentalists and
should be explored in future studies.
Finally, a possible methodological limitation of the current study was the use of
environmental orgnaisational membership as a critierion to determine whether
participants were or were not environmentalist outgroup members. Indeed, the current
study employed environmental organisational membership instead of a measure of
environmentalist social identity to ensure participants were not primed before providing
answers to the open-ended questions. Nevertheless, given that in Study 1 some
participants who identified as an environmentalist did not belong to environmental
organisation, it is possible that the final participant sample within Study 2 also contained
participants who identified as an environmentalist even if they did not belong to an
environmental organisation. If this is the case, then it is possible that the results of the
CH. 5 STUDY 2: OUTGROUP PERCEPTIONS OF ENVIRONMENTALISTS 118
current study may have been skewed by inadvertently including self-identified
environmentalists within the sample.
Concluding Remarks
The aim of this qualitative study was to investigate the subjective perceptions
outgroup members held of the environmentalist social category in order to provide
further information regarding the stereotypes non-environmentalists may have of
environmentalists. Overall, the findings of this study suggest that non-environmentalists
generally see the defining characteristics of the group to be their concern for the natural
environment and their active engagement in numerous pro-environmental behaviours –
although what was considered to be normative of the group substantially varied from
individualistic to collectivistic pro-environmental actions. Furthermore, participant
responses also suggested that the stereotype of environmentalists was not solely negative.
Rather the perceptions of environmentalists were simultaneously both negative and
positive; with outgroup members deeming environmentalist ingroup members to be
caring, informed and dedicated, but also pushy, stubborn, and arrogant.
CH. 6 STUDY 3: SOCIAL IDENTITY & GREEN CONSUMERISM 119
Chapter 6
Study 3:
Investigating Whether Environmentalist Social Identity is Predictive of Green
Consumerism in Members of the General Public
Introduction
Whilst green consumerism is often defined as a type of individualised,
environmentally friendly purchasing within the pro-environmental behaviour literature
(Stern, 2000), findings of Study 1 (Chapter 4) demonstrated that environmentalists and
non-environmentalists alike perceived green consumerism to involve multiple
consumption behaviours that could be individually and collectively employed to
improve environmental outcomes (Antil, 1984; Peattie, 2010; Polonsky et al., 2012). As
such, green consumerism may not only be positively related to other types of
individualistic pro-environmental behaviours, it may also be positively associated with
collective action that is done on behalf of the environment.
Additionally, as argued in Chapter 3, environmentalist social identification may
be one of the psychological mechanisms that drive engagement in green consumerism.
For instance, previous research has shown that there are strong, positive associations
between identification with social groups that hold pro-environmental norms and pro-
environmental behaviours that are both individually and collectively employed (Bartels
& Hoggendam, 2011; Bartels & Onwezen, 2014; Bartels & Reinders, 2016; Dono et al.,
2010; Fielding et al., 2008a). In fact, if a person identifies as an environmentalist and
engages in numerous types of pro-environmental behaviours, this may make them more
CH. 6 STUDY 3: SOCIAL IDENTITY & GREEN CONSUMERISM 120
likely to engage in green consumerism, as Dono et al. (2010) found in relation to
environmental activism.
Against this background, the third study of this thesis investigated whether
environmentalist social identity was predictive of green consumerism for members of
the general public who did not belong to environmental organisations (i.e., non-
environmentalists). Furthermore, it also investigated through a path analysis whether
engagement in both individualistic pro-environmental behaviours and environmental
collective actions mediated the relationship between environmentalist social identity and
green consumerism.
A detailed justification for the study’s aims and methodology now follows.
The Relationship Green Consumerism has with Individualistic Pro-environmental
Behaviours and Environmental Collective Action
Pro-environmental behaviours have often been classified into sub-categories
according to whether they are an individual action that occurs within the private sphere,
or whether they are collectively employed within the private sphere (Bamberg & Möser,
2007; Gatersleben, 2012; Markle, 2013; Stern, 2000; Whitmarsh & O’Neill, 2010).
Following this classification, then, the pro-environmental behaviour literature has
predominantly conceptualised green consumerism as an individualistic, private sphere
behaviour that reduces consumers’ personal impact on the environment (Dietz et al.,
1998; Sparks & Shepherd, 1992; Stern, 2000; Thøgersen & Ölander, 2003).
However, findings of Study 1 demonstrated that both self-identified
environmentalists and non-environmentalists perceived green consumerism to extend
beyond the purchase of green products to instead include a wide range of
environmentally friendly consumption behaviours. Furthermore, green consumerism was
CH. 6 STUDY 3: SOCIAL IDENTITY & GREEN CONSUMERISM 121
not perceived as simply an individual action, but rather as both an individualistic and
collective pro-environmental behaviour. In particular, participants suggested that green
consumerism may be collectively employed as an activist strategy in order to reduce
environmental problems arising from unsustainable practices (as previously suggested
by Autio et al., 2009; Friedman, 1995; Micheletti & Stolle, 2012; Peattie, 2010). Given
this, green consumerism may not only be positively associated with other types of
individualistic private sphere pro-environmental behaviours, but it could also be
positively related to collective action that is done on behalf of the environment.
Although little research has examined how numerous pro-environmental
behaviours are related to one another (although for some initial work see Dono et al.,
2010; Larson et al., 2015; Markle, 2013; Olli et al., 2001), some preliminary evidence
does suggest that green consumerism may be positively associated with other pro-
environmental behaviours that occur in the private sphere. For example, green
purchasing has been shown to have a moderate positive relationship with such pro-
environmental behaviours as willingness to make personal financial sacrifices for the
environment, environmental citizenship (personally joining and contributing to
environmental organisations), and recycling behaviour (Dietz et al., 1998; Dono et al.,
2010; Stern et al., 1999; Thøgersen & Ölander, 2003; Whitmarsh & O’Neill, 2010).
Moreover, behaviours that are considered to be examples of green consumerism, such as
the purchasing of organic food and fair trade products, have been found to be positively
associated with other environmentally friendly behaviour (purchasing products with
green packaging, contributing financially to environmental organisations, and learning
about the environment) (Bartels & Hoggendam, 2011; Bartels & Onwezen, 2014;
Bartels & Reinders, 2016).
CH. 6 STUDY 3: SOCIAL IDENTITY & GREEN CONSUMERISM 122
Furthermore, as Study 1 showed, individuals may be motivated to engage in
green consumerism as a way of indirectly enabling positive environmental change
through consumers’ buying power (Autio et al., 2009; Cherrier, Black, & Lee, 2011).
Given this, green consumerism may be related to public collective behaviours such as
environmental activism, the act of engaging in collective public displays such as
protesting, rallying and petitioning (Séguin et al., 1998), and political consumerism, the
act of publicly displaying political or ethical concerns through collective consumer
choices such as boycotting and buy-cotting (Neilson, 2010). Although no research to
date has investigated these possibilities, research has shown a moderate relationship
between green purchasing and environmental activism (Dietz et al., 1998; Dono et al.,
2010; Stern et al., 1999). Furthermore, some measures of green consumerism (as used by
Bohlen, Schlegelmilch, & Diamantopoulos, 1993; Dietz et al., 1998; Stern et al., 1999)
even include items that reference boycotting, suggesting that this political consumerism
practice is inherently tied to green consumerism. The associations between these
behaviours are therefore investigated in the present study.
Environmentalist Social Identity and its Relationship to Green Consumerism
As outlined in Chapter 2, previous research has shown that ‘green’ or
‘environmental’ identities not only predict engagement in various types of pro-
environmental behaviour such as green purchasing, they often do so to a stronger extent
than other variables such as personal values and environmental attitudes (Gatersleben et
al., 2014; Kim et al., 2012; Nigbur et al., 2010; Sparks & Shepherd, 1992; Whitmarsh &
O’Neill, 2010). Yet, as argued in Chapters 2 and 3, an individual’s self-concept does not
just involve personal, idiosyncratic characteristics such as one’s personal connection to
the natural environment (Clayton, 2003), but involves ones membership to
CH. 6 STUDY 3: SOCIAL IDENTITY & GREEN CONSUMERISM 123
psychologically meaningful social groups (Reicher et al., 2010; Spears, 2011; Tajfel,
1981; Tajfel & Turner, 1979; Turner et al. 1987; Turner & Oakes, 1986).
As shown by research from the social identity perspective, identification with a
social group or category leads an individual’s perception of the self to become
depersonalised – that is, they define themselves in terms of the group’s stereotypical
group characteristics (Ellemers et al., 1999; Oakes, 2002; Tajfel & Turner, 1979; Turner,
1982; Turner et al., 1994). When this social identity is made salient, ingroup members
then assimilate their attitudes, beliefs, and behaviour to the norms of the salient ingroup
(Hogg & Abrams, 1988; Reynolds et al., 2015; Terry & Hogg, 2000), subsequently
engaging in group-normative behaviour, partly in order to affirm this social
identification (Amiot et al., 2014; Reicher et al., 2010).
In the case of the environmentalist social category, then, those who identify
strongly as an environmentalist ingroup member will therefore engage in identity
congruent behaviour. This includes individualistic and collectivistic pro-environmental
behaviours, which Studies 1 and 2 (Chapters 4 and 5) showed were both perceived to be
normative for that social category. This suggestion is consistent with research showing
that individuals who identify with groups that hold pro-environmental norms are more
likely to engage in both individualistic pro-environmental behaviours (e.g., willingness
to sacrifice, environmental citizenship, recycling) and collectivistic ones (e.g.,
environmental activism) (Bartels & Reinders, 2016; Dono et al., 2010; Fielding et al.,
2008a; Fielding et al., 2008b; Terry et al., 1999; White & Hyde, 2012; White et al.,
2009). However, no research to date has investigated whether identification with the
environmentalist social category is predictive of green consumerism specifically, which
Studies 1 and 2 showed is also normative of environmentalists (as also shown in Fuentes,
CH. 6 STUDY 3: SOCIAL IDENTITY & GREEN CONSUMERISM 124
2014; Horton, 2004; Moisander & Pesonen, 2002). The current study investigated this
possibility.
Given that social identification is the psychological mechanism that can underpin
group normative behaviour (Amiot et al., 2014; Hogg & Reid, 2006; Tajfel & Turner,
1979; Terry & Hogg, 2000), it is also possible that if one identifies with the
environmentalist social category, engaging in one type of pro-environmental behaviour
that is normative of the group may lead to an individual engaging in another (as these
behaviours would mututally reinforce one another). Indeed, Dono et al. (2010) found
that, for environmental activism, the relationship between environmentalist social
identity and environmental activism was partially mediated by pro-environmental
behaviour – in particular, by high levels of environmental citizenship (joining and
contributing to environmental organisations). This finding suggested that when an
individual identified as an environmentalist and was a part of environmental
organisations, this strengthened their desire to engage in collective actions.
In the case of green consumerism then, environmentalist social identity may also
actually contribute to green consumerism engagment indirectly through both
individualistic and collective pro-environmental behaviours, given that green
consumerism is seen as both an individual action and collective behaviour (as shown in
Study 1). In particular, as engaging in green consumerism comes at personal cost to the
individual (D’Souza et al., 2007), an individual who identifies as an environmentalist
and chooses to sacrifice their personal finances to protect the environment is
subsequently more likely to act on such a choice and engage in green consumerism.
Further still, someone who identifies as an environmentalist and engages in collective
action that is environmentally focussed (i.e., environmental activism or political
CH. 6 STUDY 3: SOCIAL IDENTITY & GREEN CONSUMERISM 125
consumerism) may become even more willing to engage in green consumerism, as being
part of such collective action may lead them to wish to engage in other behaviours that
can be collectively employed. Indeed, an environmentalist who engages in collective
action may want to ensure consistency in all their behaviours, and therefore ensure that
their consumption behaviours also result in positive environmental change. However,
these potential mediated relationships have yet to be investigated, and as such are
focused on in the present study.
Nevertheless, it is entirely possible that environmentalist social identity itself
mediates the relationship between individualised pro-environmental behaviour,
environmental collective action, and green consumerism (as recently suggested by
Veenstra et al., 2016). However, as Dono et al. (2010) demonstrated that social
identification as an environmentalist leads one to engage in numerous pro-environmental
behaviours that mutually reinforce one another, and in particular that environmental
citizenship strengthened environmental activism in environmentalist ingroup members,
it was decided to use Dono et al. as a template for this study to test the hypothesis that
individualistic pro-environmental behaviour and collective environmental action would
mediate the relationship between environmentalist social identity and green
consumerism. That is, this study served as a partial replication of the causal pathways
proposed by Dono et al.
The Current Study
Given the argument presented above, the first aim of the current study was to
investigate whether pro-environmental behaviours that are collectively or individually
employed were strongly associated with green consumerism in members of the general
public who did not belong to environmental organisations. Based on previous research
CH. 6 STUDY 3: SOCIAL IDENTITY & GREEN CONSUMERISM 126
(Study 1; Dietz et al., 1998; Dono et al., 2010; Whitmarsh & O’Neill, 2010), it was
hypothesised that:
H1: Both individualistic pro-environmental behaviour (operationalised as
willingness to sacrifice, and environmental citizenship) and collective
environmental action (operationalised as environmental activism, and political
consumerism) would be moderately predictive of green consumerism.
Secondly, this study also aimed to investigate whether environmentalist social
identity both directly predicted green consumerism, as well as indirectly through pro-
environmental behaviours that are individually and collectively employed. Based on
previous research (Studies 1 and 2; Dietz et al., 1998; Dono et al., 2010; Fielding et al.,
2008a; Stern et al., 1999), it was hypothesised that:
H2: Stronger environmentalist social identity would directly predict greater
green consumerism.
H3: The relationship between environmentalist social identity and green
consumerism would be partially mediated by individualised pro-environmental
behaviour (operationalised as willingness to sacrifice, and environmental
citizenship) and environmental collective action (operationalised as
environmental activism, and political consumerism).
CH. 6 STUDY 3: SOCIAL IDENTITY & GREEN CONSUMERISM 127
Method
Participants
The sample used for data analysis consisted of 320 adults22 living in the United
States of America (US). It was made up of 143 men (44.7%) and 177 women (55.3%).
Participant age ranged from 18 to 78 years (M = 36.68, SD = 11.34), and annual income
and education levels were diverse (see Table 6.1 for participant demographics). Only 34
participants (10.6%) were currently students.
Table 6.1
Participants’ Demographic Characteristics
Frequency %
Education
Lower secondary education (year 10/sophomore year) 2 0.6%
Upper secondary education (high school completion) 91 28.4%
Post-secondary non-tertiary education (TAFE, diploma) 51 15.9%
First stage of tertiary education (undergraduate degree) 133 41.6%
Second stage of tertiary education (graduate degree) 43 13.4%
Annual income (in US dollars, before taxes)
Less than $15,000 72 22.5%
$15,000 to $24,999 55 17.2%
$25,000 to $34,999 46 14.4%
$35,000 to $49,999 54 16.9%
$50,000 to $74,999 54 16.9%
$75,000 and above 38 11.9%
Missing 1 0.3%
Student status
Currently a student 34 10.6%
Not a student 286 89.4%
Environmental organisation membership
Yes 30 9.4%
No 275 85.9%
Not sure 8 2.5%
Prefer not to say 7 2.2% Note. N = 320.
22 The number of participants initially recruited was 358. However, upon data cleaning and the subsequent
identification and deletion of 38 multivariate outliers (see Appendix F for details), the final dataset
comprised 320 participants.
CH. 6 STUDY 3: SOCIAL IDENTITY & GREEN CONSUMERISM 128
Measures
Unless otherwise specified, all measures described below were responded to on a
7-point Likert-type response scale (1 = never, 7 = always).
Demographic items. Demographic details that were collected were gender; age;
country of residence; annual income (in $US and before taxes); education level; student
status; and membership in environmental organisations.
Environmentalist social identity. As employed by Dono et al. (2010), the 5-
item, one-factor version of the Strength of Group Identification Scale (Brown, Condor,
Matthews, Wade, & Williams, 1986) measured participants’ level of identification with
the environmentalist social category (e.g., “I am a person who identifies with
environmentalists”; see Appendix H, Table H2 for items) (α = .97).
Political consumerism. Stolle et al.’s (2005) 6-item, one-factor Political
Consumerism Index (PCI) measured participants’ prior engagement in political
consumerism (including both boycotting and buy-cotting) (e.g., “Do you participate in
boycotting products?”; see Appendix H, Table H2 for items) (α = .89). Initially
measured on a 10-point Likert-type scale, this measure was rescaled as a 7-point scale
for the present study to maintain consistency with other measures used.
Environmental activism. Séguin et al.’s (1998) 6-item, one-factor
Environmental Activism Scale was employed to measure past engagement in
environmental activism (e.g., “I participate in protests against current environmental
conditions”, see Appendix H, Table H2 for items) (α = .85).
Pro-environmental behaviour. To facilitate comparison to prior research that
has investigated the relationship between different types of pro-environmental behaviour
(Dono et al., 2010; Stern et al., 1999), two subscales of Stern et al.’s (1999) pro-
CH. 6 STUDY 3: SOCIAL IDENTITY & GREEN CONSUMERISM 129
environmental behaviour measure were employed23 (see Appendix H, Table H2 for
items). The 3-item ‘willingness to sacrifice’ subscale measured the extent to which
individuals were willing to make personal financial sacrifices for the environment (e.g.,
“I would be willing to pay much higher taxes in order to protect the environment”) (α
= .91). The 7-item ‘environmental citizenship’ subscale measured the extent to which
individuals were willing to contribute to, and be a part of, environmental causes (e.g.,
“Have you given money to an environmental group in the last 12 months?”) (α = .85).
Green consumerism. To ensure that green consumerism was measured as
extending beyond purchasing, as suggested by findings of Study 1 (Chapter 4), Roberts’
(1996) 22-item Ecologically Conscious Consumer Behaviour Scale was employed (e.g.,
“I try only to buy products that can be recycled”, see Appendix G, Table G2 for items).
Given previous research has demonstrated varying factor structures for this scale
(Roberts, 1996; Roberts & Bacon, 1997; Straughan & Roberts, 1999), a series of factor
analyses were conducted to validate the scale, with a shortened 19-version of the scale
subsequently employed for the path analysis (α = .95) (see Appendix G for more details).
Group salience manipulation checks. As participants were given a vignette in
order to make environmentalist group membership salient (see Procedure), two items
measured on a 7-point Likert-type scale determined whether participants viewed
themselves as members of the environmentalist social category or as individuals (1 very
much like a group member; 7 very much like an individual). Items assessed the extent to
which participants both felt like a member of the environmentalist social category, and
saw themselves as a member of the environmentalist social category.
23 Only two of the three subscales from Stern et al.’s (1999) pro-environmental behaviour measure were
employed, given the third subscale measured green purchasing behaviour, which was instead measured in
the current study by Roberts’ Ecologically Conscious Consumer Behaviour Scale.
CH. 6 STUDY 3: SOCIAL IDENTITY & GREEN CONSUMERISM 130
Procedure
Once ethics approval for the study was obtained from Deakin University’s Ethics
Committee (project number: HEAG-H 06_2016, see Appendix A.3 for letter of
approval), participants were recruited via the online marketplace Amazon Mechanical
Turk (MTurk). Research has shown that samples recruited through MTurk are more
diverse and representative of the general US population than in-person convenience and
student samples (Clifford, Jewell, & Waggoner, 2015; Huff & Tingley, 2015; Levay et
al., 2016). The quality of data collected through this medium also consistently either
meets or exceeds requirements for validity and reliability (Berinsky et al., 2012;
Buhrmester et al., 2011).
The recruitment notice provided on MTurk asked participants to complete a short
survey that examined their engagement in various prosocial behaviours (see Appendix
B.3 for the notice). The notice did not specify that the study was interested in
participants’ engagement in pro-environmental behaviour or whether they identified as
an environmentalist, to ensure those who were not interested in environmentalism did
not self-select out of the study. Once directed to the online questionnaire (see Appendix
E for a copy of the questionnaire), participants first read the Plain Language Statement
(see Appendix B.3) and then answered demographic items. Participants then read a
vignette that made membership to the environmentalist social category salient:
People’s views on the environment vary widely. For instance, some people do
not think about the environment and are not worried about the issues it may be
facing. In comparison, others are worried about the environment. This group of
people often wish to do something to help the environment and may employ such
strategies as: buying environmentally friendly products and services; reducing
their energy use; reusing and repairing items; and recycling.
Participants then completed the environmentalist social identity measure. This was then
followed by the collective action and pro-environmental scales, the order of which was
CH. 6 STUDY 3: SOCIAL IDENTITY & GREEN CONSUMERISM 131
randomised across participants. The study then concluded with the green consumerism
scale, the group salience manipulation checks, and the environmental organisation
membership item24, in that order. Submission of the questionnaire signified participants’
informed consent, with participants paid $US1.00 upon completion of the study.
Results
Before path analysis of the relationships between variables was conducted, a
two-step approach was adopted for measurement scale validation and composite variable
construction (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988). First, factor analyses on each measure were
conducted to establish scale validity. Items were then averaged for each scale to create
composite variables. Means, standard deviations, ranges, and bivariate correlations
between the major variables employed in the path analysis are reported in Table 6.2.
Preliminary Analyses and Manipulation Checks
Following data screening and assumption checks (see Appendix F for more
details), a number of preliminary analyses were conducted.
Environmental organisation membership. As the focus of the current study
was to investigate whether environmentalist social identity could contribute to non-
environmentalists’ tendency to engage in pro-environmental behaviours, participants
were initially screened to determine whether they were all environmentalist outgroup
members. As in Study 2, membership in an environmental organisation was employed as
a proxy for environmentalist social category membership, given participants may be
uncertain whether they are environmentalists (see Study 2, Chapter 5 for more details).
24 The environmentalist organisation membership item was given at the end of the survey in order to
ensure environmentalist group membership was not made salient before participants were given the
vignette that made membership to the environmentalist social category salient.
CH. 6 STUDY 3: SOCIAL IDENTITY & GREEN CONSUMERISM 132
Table 6.2
Bivariate Pearson’s Correlations, Means, Standard Deviations, and Ranges for
Variables Included in the Path Analysis
Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6
1. Environmentalist
social identity
–
2. Political
consumerism
.52** –
3. Environmental
activism
.57** .55** –
4. Willingness to
sacrifice
.61** .44** .49** –
5. Environmental
citizenship
.64** .67** .81** .64** –
6. Green consumerism .66** .53** .54** .58** .59** –
M 3.91 3.38 2.11 3.46 2.36 3.91
SD 1.62 1.33 1.12 1.44 1.23 1.37
Range 1-7.00 1-6.67 1-6.67 1-7.00 1-6.14 1-6.89 Note. N = 275. All variables measured on a Likert-type scale, where 1 = never, 7 = always. M =
mean; SD = standard deviation; Range = observed range of scores.
** p < .01 (two-tailed).
Before participants who indicated they were environmental organisation
members were deleted from the sample, a one-way MANOVA was conducted to check
whether there were any statistically significant differences between members and non-
members on key outcome variables. As it was reasoned that participants who indicated
that they were either a member of an environmental organisation (n = 30), not sure (n =
8), or preferred not to indicate their membership status (n = 7) were more likely to be
members of an environmental organisation than not, these participants were recoded as
being members of an environmental organisation for the sake of statistical simplicity
(total n = 45).
Using Pillai’s Trace, a significant multivariate effect of environmental
organisation membership emerged, V =.36, F(6, 313) = 28.88, p < .001, η2 partial = .36.
CH. 6 STUDY 3: SOCIAL IDENTITY & GREEN CONSUMERISM 133
Separate univariate ANOVAs on the variables revealed significant main effects of
environmental organisation membership on all variables (see Table 6.3), with higher
mean scores for members across all measures. This sub-group of participants were
therefore deleted from subsequent analyses (n = 45), ensuring that the remaining data
were only from those who were outgroup members of the environmentalist social
category (i.e., non-environmentalists) (n = 275).
Table 6.3
Univariate F-Tests for Environmentalist Social Identity, Pro-environmental Behaviour,
Collective Action, and Green Consumerism by Environmental Organisation Membership
F η2 partial Environmental
organisation
member
(n = 45)
Non-member
(n = 275)
Variables M (SD) M (SD)
Environmentalist
social identity
63.35*** .17 5.91 (1.12) 3.91 (1.62)
Political
consumerism
22.02*** .07 4.41 (1.52) 3.38 (1.33)
Environmental
activism
120.29*** .27 4.16 (1.38) 2.11 (1.12)
Willingness to
sacrifice
42.46*** .12 4.98 (1.54) 3.46 (1.43)
Environmental
citizenship
142.37*** .31 4.78 (1.40) 2.36 (1.23)
Green
consumerism
43.62*** .12 5.32 (1.09) 3.91 (1.36)
Note. For all univariate F-tests, df = 1, 318. F = F-ratio; η2 partial = eta squared partial; M = mean;
SD = standard deviation.
*** p < .001.
Group salience check. To further verify that all remaining participants did not
consider themselves to be ingroup members of the environmentalist social group, mean
scores on the two group salience manipulation checks were also inspected. Means
demonstrated that participants who did not belong to environmental organisations
CH. 6 STUDY 3: SOCIAL IDENTITY & GREEN CONSUMERISM 134
generally felt (M = 5.39; SD = 1.48) and saw (M = 5.35, SD = 1.54) themselves as
individuals rather than as members of the environmentalist social category (where 7 =
very much like an individual).
Confirmatory Factor Analysis of Variables Used in Path Analysis
A series of confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) of the scales, using the maximum
likelihood estimation method, were then run using AMOS 20.0 (2012) in order to
establish the construct validity of the variables employed in the path analysis. The chi-
square statistic (χ²) and a number of fit indices were inspected to determine the model fit
of the proposed factor structures for each scale, given the χ² statistic can become
significant when the sample size increases and models become more complex (Byrne,
2001; Hu & Bentler, 1999; Kline, 2004).
Specifically, two incremental fit indices (the comparative fit index (CFI) and
Tucker Lewis index (TLI)) were employed to measure whether the hypothesised model
was a better fit than a null model. Furthermore, two absolute fit indices (standardised
root mean square residual (SRMR) and root mean square error of approximation
(RMSEA)) were employed to measure the rate of error in the hypothesised model.
Following the recommendations of Hu and Bentler (1999), a scales factor structure was
said to be absolute fitting when it had a CFI or TLI of > .90 (ideally greater than .95), a
SRMR value < .06 and a RMSEA value < .08 (ideally less than .05).
The fit indices for the confirmatory factor analyses conducted for the variables
are provided in Table 6.4, whilst the standardised factor loadings for scale items can be
seen in Appendix H.
CH. 6 STUDY 3: SOCIAL IDENTITY & GREEN CONSUMERISM 135
Table 6.4
Fit Indices for Confirmatory Factor Analyses of Scales
Latent variables χ²(df) CFI TLI SRMR RMSEA
Environmentalist
social identity
66.71 (5)*** .96 .93 .02 .21
Political
consumerism
270.62 (9)*** .76 .60 .09 .33
Environmental
activism
49.25 (9)*** .96 .93 .05 .13
Pro-environmental
behaviour (two
factors)
139.48(35)*** .93 .90 .06 .10
Green consumerism
(19-item, one-factor)
426.66(152)*** .93 .92 .04 .08
Note. χ² = maximum likelihood estimation chi-square; df = degrees of freedom for χ²; CFI =
comparative fit index; TLI = Tucker Lewis index; SRMR = standardised root mean square residual;
RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation.
*** p < .001.
Environmentalist social identity. The 5-item, one-factor measure of
environmentalist social identity demonstrated a good fit to the data (despite the high
RMSEA score) (see Table 6.4 for fit indices). All factor loading coefficients were also
significant (see Appendix H, Table H1 for standardised factor loadings).
Political consumerism. The 6-item Political Consumerism Index demonstrated
poor fit to the data (see Table 6.4 for fit indices). However this measure was retained for
further analysis given factor loadings exceeded .60 and the Cronbach’s alpha for the
scale exceeded .80 (Field, 2013) (see Appendix H, Table H2 for standardised factor
loadings)
Environmental activism. Besides the high RMSEA value, the 6-item
environmental activism scale demonstrated a good fit to the data (see Table 6.4 for fit
indices). All factor loadings were also high, except for the item “I vote for a government
proposing environmentally conscious policies”, where the factor loading just passed
the .40 threshold (see Appendix H, Table H2 for standardised factor loadings). Given the
CH. 6 STUDY 3: SOCIAL IDENTITY & GREEN CONSUMERISM 136
high Cronbach alpha of the scale with this item included (α = .85), this item was retained
in the measure (Field, 2013)
Pro-environmental behaviour. The two-factor measure of individualistic pro-
environmental behaviour demonstrated a good fit to the data (see Table 6.4 for fit
indices). The two subfactors of willingness to sacrifice and environmental citizenship
were also strongly correlated (r = .70, p < .001), indicating they measured similar, yet
distinct, pro-environmental behaviours. Standardised factor loadings also varied
between .64 and .93 (see Appendix H, Table H3 for standardised factor loadings).
Green consumerism. Given previous research has demonstrated varying factor
structures for this scale (Roberts, 1996; Roberts & Bacon, 1997; Straughan & Roberts,
1999), an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was first conducted in order to explore the
number and content of factors that best represented the 22-item scale (as suggested by
Worthington & Whittaker, 2006). A respecified 19-item one-factor green consumerism
scale arose from this EFA (see Appendix G for more details).
The 19-item, one-factor measure of green consumerism that was developed from
the EFA was a good fit to the model (see Table 6.4 for fit indices). The factor loadings
(see Appendix H, Figure H1 for standardised factor loadings) were comparable to those
seen in the EFA, ranging from .50 to .91.
Path Analysis: Model Fit
Following results of the confirmatory analyses, items for each scale were
averaged to create composite variables to be included in the path analysis.
Model 1. A path analysis employing maximum likelihood estimation was
conducted to determine the relationships between environmentalist social identity,
environmental collective action, individualistic pro-environmental behaviours, and green
CH. 6 STUDY 3: SOCIAL IDENTITY & GREEN CONSUMERISM 137
consumerism. This initial model was found to explain 52% of the variance in green
consumerism (see Figure 6.1 for variance explained and standardised regression
coefficients). However it also demonstrated a poor fit to the data, χ²(6, N = 275) =
329.87, p < .001, CFI = .67, TLI = .18, SRMR = .16, RMSEA = .44 (90% CI [.40, .46]).
Following this poor fitting model, modification indices (MI, Lagrange
Multiplier) and expected parameter changes (EPC) were inspected in order to identify
any sources of model misfit. As suggested by Byrne (2001), only those modification
indices that were above 10 were inspected as potential areas to re-specify the model. A
series of re-specifications were undertaken based on the MIs and EPCs. These suggested
that improvements in the model could be made by covarying a number of error terms,
and in particular that the error term for environmental citizenship should be covaried
with other error terms for the other pro-environmental behaviour measures (see
Appendix I for an overview of these re-specifications). Despite these re-specifications,
improvements in the model fit were minimal.
Upon re-inspection of the items of the environmental citizenship scale, it was
found that many of these items were similar to those in the other scales. This may have
therefore led to the high level of error found in the path model. Given this, the
environmental citizenship subscale was removed for the path model, and a new path
model (Model 2) was specified (see Appendix J, Figure J1 for Model 2).
CH. 6 STUDY 3: SOCIAL IDENTITY & GREEN CONSUMERISM 138
Figure 6.1. Model 1, with environmental citizenship included, predicting green consumerism.
R² = variance explained; β = standardized regression coefficient.
p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001.
CH. 6 STUDY 3: SOCIAL IDENTITY & GREEN CONSUMERISM 139
Model 2. A path analysis for the re-specified Model 2 (see Appendix J, Figure J1
for Model 2) employed the maximum likelihood estimation to determine the regression
relationships between environmentalist social identity, environmental activism, political
consumerism, willingness to sacrifice, and green consumerism. The initial model freely
estimated the regressions among the intermediate variables to allow for the computation
of indirect effects (Hayes & Preacher, 2013). This model was found to explain 51%
percent of the variance in green consumerism. The fit indices for Model 2 also
demonstrated that Model 2 was a reasonably fitting model and was a better fitting model
when compared to Model 1, χ²(3, N = 275) = 56.07, p < .001, CFI = .91, TLI = .69,
SRMR = .09, RMSEA = .25 (90% CI [.20, .31]), (see Appendix J, Figure J1 for
standardised regression coefficients).
Inspection of the MIs and EPCs indicated that there was one potential
modification indice that satisfied the above 10 rule, as specified by Byrne (2001). This
was including a covariance between the error terms for political consumerism and
environmental activism (MI = 37.07, EPC = .37). This re-specification significantly
improved model fit, as determined by nested chi-square difference testing between the
two models (Kline, 2004) (χ² difference = 39.83, p < .05). The respecified Model 2
accounted for 52% variance in green consumerism (see Figure 6.2) and demonstrated a
good fit to the data, χ²(2, N = 275) = 16.24, p < .001, CFI = .96, TLI = .86, SRMR = .06,
RMSEA = .16 (90% CI [.09, .24]).
CH. 6 STUDY 3: SOCIAL IDENTITY & GREEN CONSUMERISM 140
Figure 6.2. Final re-specified Model 2, without environmental citizenship, predicting green consumerism.
R² = variance explained; β = standardized regression coefficient.
p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001.
CH. 6 STUDY 3: SOCIAL IDENTITY & GREEN CONSUMERISM 141
Path Analysis: Direct and Indirect Effects
A statistically significant direct effect of environmentalist social identity on
green consumerism was found, with environmentalist social identity accounting for 43%
of the variance in green consumerism engagement. In particular, the more participants
identified with the environmentalist social category, the more likely they were to engage
in green consumerism (β (SE) = .66 (.04), p < .001; BCa 95% CI =.57, .72).
An assessment of specific indirect effects of environmentalist social identity on
green consumerism through each of political consumerism, environmental activism, and
willingness to sacrifice was also conducted. Using the procedure outlined by Kline
(2004), and in line with recommendations of Preacher and Hayes (2008), the sample was
bootstrapped to 1000 replications, with bias-corrected and accelerated 95% confidence
intervals then estimated for each sequentially modelled path. As Table 6.5 shows, there
was a partial mediation effect of environmentalist social identity on green consumerism,
through each of the three variables.
Table 6.5
Specific Indirect Effects for Re-specified Path Model 2
β (SE) p BCa 95% CI
1. Environmentalist social identity
→ Political consumerism → Green
consumerism
.07 (.03) .014 [.02, .14]
2. Environmentalist social identity
→ Environmental activism → Green
consumerism
.07 (.03) .008 [.02, .13]
3. Environmentalist social identity
→ Willingness to sacrifice → Green
consumerism
.11 (.05) .002 [.05, .18]
Note. β = standardised regression coefficient; SE = standard error; p = probability value; BCa 95% CI =
95% bias corrected and accelerated confidence intervals.
CH. 6 STUDY 3: SOCIAL IDENTITY & GREEN CONSUMERISM 142
Discussion
Although previous research typically conceptualises green consumerism to be a
type of individualised, environmentally friendly purchasing (Stern, 2000), green
consumerism may in fact involve multiple consumer behaviours that can be collectively
employed to reduce environmental problems – as suggested by Study 1 and other
researchers (Peattie, 2010; Polonsky et al., 2012). Due to these findings, the present
study hypothesised that both pro-environmental behaviours that are individually
employed (operationalised as willingness to sacrifice, and environmental citizenship)
and collectively employed (operationalised as political consumerism, and environmental
activism) may be moderately predictive of green consumerism.
Furthermore, given that those who identify with a social group that holds pro-
environmental norms are more willing to engage in pro-environmental behaviours and
environmental activism (Bartels & Hoogendam, 2011; Dono et al., 2010; Rabinovich et
al., 2012; Terry et al., 1999), it was also hypothesised that environmentalist social
identity may not only be directly predictive of green consumerism, but that the
relationship between these two constructs may also be partially mediated by those pro-
environmental behaviours that are individually and collectively employed.
Findings of the current study revealed that pro-environmental behaviours that are
individually and collectively employed both predicted green consumerism engagement
in individuals who did not belong to environmental organisations. However, whilst
willingness to sacrifice, environmental activism, and political consumerism were found
to be predictive of green consumerism, this was not the case with environmental
citizenship. These findings indicate that each of these pro-environmental behaviours is
somewhat distinct from green consumerism and is in line with previous research that has
CH. 6 STUDY 3: SOCIAL IDENTITY & GREEN CONSUMERISM 143
shown the overarching construct of pro-environmental behaviour contains various
subcomponents (Gatersleben, 2012; Markle, 2013; Stern, 2000; Stern et al., 1999).
Nonetheless, further research is still needed to further specify how green consumerism
differs from these other types of pro-environmental behaviours. It may be that green
consumerism is seen as more of a private-sphere behaviour that is dependent upon being
aware of the environmental consequences of using green products, services, and
resources, whereas environmental activism and political activism are those behaviours
which are more so enacted in the public sphere.
That willingness to sacrifice was moderately predictive of green consumerism
reflects prior literature that has shown that those who are willing to make financial
sacrifices are more likely to engage in numerous pro-environmental behaviours in
general (Davis, Le, & Coy, 2011; López-Mosquera, Garcia, & Barrena, 2014; Roe, Teisl,
Levy, & Russell, 2001). Indeed, to actually engage in green consumerism, one has to be
willing to purchase products, services, or resources that are often more expensive than
their non-green equivalents (D’Souza et al., 2007).
However, it is somewhat surprising that environmental activism and political
consumerism each only weakly predicted green consumerism, given the conceptual
similarity between green consumerism and political consumerism (Micheletti et al.,
2003; Stolle et al., 2005), and that in capitalist societies, at least, green consumerism is
often seen as a ‘new’ form of environmental collective action (Friedman, 1995, 1996;
Peattie, 2010). It may be that that those who engage in more traditional forms of
activism (e.g., protesting, petitioning, boycotting) do not see green consumerism to be as
effective as these other, more extreme forms of activism, or they may feel that they have
already done enough to help the environment through engaging in these more
CH. 6 STUDY 3: SOCIAL IDENTITY & GREEN CONSUMERISM 144
‘traditional’ forms of activism (Moisander, 2007, Peattie, 2010). Future research
therefore should move towards further teasing apart these relationships, especially if
engaging in green consumerism leads to lower rates of environmental activism.
Despite the weak relationships green consumerism had with individualistic and
collectivistic pro-environmental behaviours, an important contribution of this study is to
demonstrate the importance of social identity processes for engagement in green
consumerism, even among members of the general public who are not members of
environmental organisations (i.e. environmentalist outgroup members or non-
environmentalists). For instance, the path analysis revealed a moderate direct effect of
environmentalist social identity on green consumerism, as well as environmentalist
social identity being moderately predictive of all the pro-environmental behaviour
constructs employed in the current study. These findings are in line with previous
research that shows social identification with pro-environmental social groups is
predictive of numerous pro-environmental behaviours in general (Bartels & Hoogendam,
2011; Bartels & Reinders, 2010; Dono et al., 2010; Fielding et al., 2008a), adding
further weight to the argument that encouraging higher rates of environmentalist social
identity in members of the general public can lead to higher rates of pro-environmental
behaviour overall (Fielding & Hornsey, 2016).
Adding to this, it must also be noted that the relationship between
environmentalist social identity and green consumerism was also partially mediated by
willingness to sacrifice, political consumerism, and environmental activism (however
these indirect effects were very small). Therefore, although individualistic and
collectivistic pro-environmental behaviours were not strongly predictive of green
consumerism on their own, it appeared that engaging in one type of pro-environmental
CH. 6 STUDY 3: SOCIAL IDENTITY & GREEN CONSUMERISM 145
behaviour could help to explain the relationship social identity had with green
consumerism. Indeed, it appeared that social identification itself was the psychological
mechanism that led to one engaging in numerous pro-environmental behaviours (Amiot,
et al., 2014; Hogg & Reid, 2006; Tajfel & Turner, 1979; Terry & Hogg, 2000). This
further suggests that, as argued in Chapter 3 of the present thesis, group processes that
arise as a consequence of social identity, such as group stereotypes, may also contribute
to green consumerism in the general public (Haslam et al., 1996, 1999; Oakes et al.,
1994, 1999; Tajfel & Turner, 1979). This possibility is explored in the next study of the
thesis (Study 4, Chapter 7).
Another finding worth noting is that participants who did not belong to
environmental organisations substantially differed on key measures of the study to those
participants who indicated they were members. Indeed, environmental organisation
members were more likely to sacrifice financially for the environment, engage in
political consumerism, environmental activism and green consumerism, and to identify
with the environmentalist social category. These findings tentatively suggest
environmental organisations themselves may serve as drivers of positive pro-
environmental change (Bamberg et al., 2015; Forno & Graziano, 2014; Owen et al.,
2010; Veenstra et al., 2016). Memberships in organisations that promote
environmentalist ideologies therefore serves a fertile ground for future research that aims
to develop effective pro-environmental behaviour interventions, in that these
organisations can serve as direct way of encouraging non-environmentalists to not only
engage in variety of pro-environmental behaviours but also to later identify as an
environmentalist (which will only serve to increase their rate of pro-environmental
behaviours).
CH. 6 STUDY 3: SOCIAL IDENTITY & GREEN CONSUMERISM 146
Limitations
One limitation of the current study is that, given it was based on the path model
that emerged in Dono et al. (2010), it did not test alternative models of the relationships
between variables. Therefore it is certainly possible, given the poor fitting models, that
other relationships might better fit the data. Furthermore, as it was a correlational study,
concrete conclusions regarding causality between variables, or even of the direction of
any relationships, cannot be made. Therefore future research should not only go on to
test alterantive models of the relationships between models, such as placing social
identity as the mediating variable between these behaviours, it should also employ
experimental or longintudinal designs to determine the causal direction of these
relationships.
A methodology limitation also present within the current study arises from the
use of the vignette in order to make the environmentalist social category salient. Given
that the social identity approach argues that ingroup identification requires the social
category to be made salient before one can identify with the group, many within the
social identity literature employ vignettes to make the social identity under study salient
before one measures social identity (see Bliuc et al., 2007, 2015; Hogg 2006a, Hogg et
al., 1995; Tajfel & Turner, 1979). Yet the vignette employed within the current study
may have primed certain responses by the participants as it provided explicit examples
of behaviours that most environmentalists were likely to engage in (e.g., buy
environmentally friendly products, reduce their energy use, reuse and repair items). As
such it is advisable that future measurements of environmentalist social identity do not
include reference to pro-environmental behaviour – especially if this study goes on to
measure participants engagement in pro-environmental behaviour.
CH. 6 STUDY 3: SOCIAL IDENTITY & GREEN CONSUMERISM 147
Finally, although the current study demonstrated the validity of Roberts’ and
colleagues measure of green consumerism (see Roberts, 1996; Roberts & Bacon, 1997;
Straughan & Roberts, 1999), this measure was still limited in that the length of the scale
remained impractically long, and it did not assess all the consumption behaviours which
participants in Study 1 suggested were a part of green consumerism. As such, future
research is needed to develop a scale which accurately reflects the various consumption
behaviours that are part of the green consumerism construct and were uncovered in the
in-depth qualitative research.
Conclusion
In sum, this study employed a correlational methodology to investigate whether
environmentalist social identity, as well as pro-environmental behaviours that are
individually (willingness to sacrifice, environmental citizenship) and collectively
(political consumerism, environmental activism) employed, were predictive of green
consumerism for individuals who did not belong to environmental organisations (i.e.,
non-environmentalists). A path analysis indicated that environmentalist social identity
was positively and moderately predictive of green consumerism, even to a stronger
degree than other types of pro-environmental behaviours. Furthermore, this path analysis
also revealed that the relationship between environmentalist social identity and green
consumerism was partially mediated by willingness to sacrifice, political consumerism,
and environmental activism. The findings of this study therefore suggest that social
identity processes may indeed be important determinants of green consumerism in non-
environmentalists.
CH. 7 STUDY 4: STEREOTYPES, IDENTITY & GREEN CONSUMERISM 148
Chapter 7
Study 4:
The Contribution of Social Identity and Group Stereotypes to Engagement in
Green Consumerism among Non-Environmentalists
Introduction
In Chapters 2 and 3 it was argued that social identity processes may contribute to
the general public’s willingness to engage in pro-environmental behaviours (Fielding &
Hornsey, 2016). Indeed, Study 3 (Chapter 6) demonstrated that environmentalist social
identity was predictive of green consumerism engagement in members of the general
public who did not belong to environmental organisations (and therefore were
considered to be ‘non-environmentalists’). The question then arises: why is it that those
of the general public who hold an ecological worldview or attempt to engage in pro-
environmental behaviours do not identify themselves as environmentalists?
As noted by the social identity approach, the stereotypic perceptions one holds of
a social group or category can contribute to whether one is willing to perceive oneself as
a member of that group (Haslam et al., 1995a, 1995b; Hogg & Turner, 1987; Oakes et al.,
1991, 1994). As such, the negative stereotypes individuals hold of environmentalists
may be a barrier to their identification as an environmentalist ingroup member, and
therefore may result in less engagement in identity congruent pro-environmental
behaviours such as green consumerism (as suggested in Study 1, Chapter 4; also see
Perera, 2014; Whitehouse & Evans, 2010; Wright et al., 2012). By contrast, positive
stereotypes of environmentalists may function to strengthen environmentalist social
identification and subsequent green consumerism. As research has yet to explore these
CH. 7 STUDY 4: STEREOTYPES, IDENTITY & GREEN CONSUMERISM 149
possibilities, this fourth and final study of the present thesis aimed to investigate whether
positive and negative environmentalist stereotypes predicted environmentalist social
identification in environmentalist outgroup members, and whether the relationship
between environmentalist stereotypes and green consumerism was mediated by ones
strength of environmentalist social identity.
A detailed justification for the study, as well as its methods, is now provided
below.
Environmentalist Stereotypes and Reluctance to Identify as an Environmentalist
Despite Study 3 (Chapter 6) finding that environmentalist social identity can
moderately predict green consumerism engagement in environmentalist outgroup
members, findings from Study 1 (Chapter 4) of this thesis also showed that many
individuals who engaged in green consumerism, were concerned for the environment, or
held an ecological worldview (defined as a set of beliefs and values that see human
activity and the environment as inherently interconnected) (Dunlap, Van Liere, Mertig,
& Jones, 2000) were reluctant to identify as an environmentalist. This is consistent with
other qualitative studies showing that individuals may be hesitant to adopt the
environmentalist label, or struggle to outrightly identify as an environmentalist, even if
they hold pro-environmental attitudes or engage in pro-environmental behaviours
(Perera, 2014; Shirani et al., 2015; Stapleton, 2015; Whitehouse & Evans, 2010). This is
also similar to findings of the feminist social category where many women fail to
identify with or label themselves as feminists, even if they hold beliefs for gender
equality (Duncan, 2010; Liss, O’Connor, Morosky, & Crawford, 2001; Zucker, 2004).
This reluctance to identify with the environmentalist social category is
problematic, given that identification with a group drives engagement in behaviour
CH. 7 STUDY 4: STEREOTYPES, IDENTITY & GREEN CONSUMERISM 150
perceived to be normative of that group (Hogg & Reid, 2006; Terry & Hogg, 2010;
Reicher et al. , 2010; Turner et al., 1987). In fact, as suggested by Studies 1 and 2, one of
the defining features or characteristics of the environmentalist social category is its
ingroup members ecological worldview (as also suggested by Dunlap et al., 2000). Yet
despite increased rates of environmental concern and stronger endorsements of an
ecological worldview among citizens of westernised nations (Bamberg, 2003; Castro,
2006; Dunlap, 1991; Dunlap et al., 2000), it appears many individuals within these
cultures still do not identify as an environmentalist or engage in pro-environmental
actions.
Although this reluctance to identify as an environmentalist may arise as a
consequence of individual-level variables, such as a lack of personal connection to the
natural environment (Hinds & Sparks, 2008), or differences in how individuals interpret
the environmentalist label (Tesch & Kempton, 2004), group-level processes can also
help to explain why this may occur. In particular, given that the social identity approach
argues that group stereotypes influence intergroup evaluations and behaviour (Haslam et
al., 1995a, 1999; Oakes et al., 1991, 1994, 1999), the way in which the environmentalist
social category is perceived by the public may be particularly relevant in explaining why
outgroup members, even those who hold an ecological worldview, are reluctant to
identify as an environmentalist. Given previous research has shown that social identity
often mediates the relationship between group stereotypes and group normative
behaviour (Costarelli & Callà, 2007; Cundiff, Vescio, Loken, & Low, 2013; Roy et al.,
2007; Peters, Ryan, & Haslam, 2015), this relationship may in turn explain individual’s
engagement in green consumerism.
CH. 7 STUDY 4: STEREOTYPES, IDENTITY & GREEN CONSUMERISM 151
Some preliminary evidence has indicated holding negative stereotypes of
environmentalists is associated with individuals being less willing to identify as an
environmentalist, and subsequently being less likely to engage in pro-environmental
behaviours (see Study 2; Bashir et al., 2013). For example, interviews with primary
school teachers demonstrated that many were hesitant to adopt the environmentalist
label due to the fear that they may be perceived as biased when teaching students about
environmental sustainability (Whitehouse, 2001; Whitehouse & Evans, 2010). Other
qualitative studies have also revealed that individuals who were aware of the negative
perceptions others had of environmentalists often engaged in strategies to minimise the
chances that others saw them as members of the environmentalist social category, either
by normalising the pro-environmental behaviour they engaged in by stating how non-
environmentalists also engaged in these behaviours (Shirani et al., 2015), or by choosing
to label themselves as ‘green’ rather than as an ‘environmentalist’ (Perera, 2014).
Furthermore, whilst not measuring social identification specifically, Bashir et al. (2013)
showed that individuals who evaluated environmental activists negatively, especially
activists who were described as engaging in ‘extreme’ collective action, were less likely
to affiliate (i.e., interact and maintain relationships) with these activists and subsequently
to engage in the social change behaviours that these activists promoted.
Outside of environmentalism, research that has investigated feminists (another
highly politicised social group) has also demonstrated how group-based stereotypes can
contribute to whether one identifies as a feminist, and subsequently whether one engages
in group normative behaviour (Liss et al., 2001; Nelson et al., 2008; Roy et al., 2007).
For instance, women who held negative stereotypes of feminists were less likely to label
themselves as feminist, or identify as one (Robnett et al., 2012), which made them less
CH. 7 STUDY 4: STEREOTYPES, IDENTITY & GREEN CONSUMERISM 152
likely to engage in gender equality activism compared to those women who did label
themselves as a feminist or identified with the feminist social category (Duncan, 2010;
Roy et al., 2007; Yoder, Tobias, & Snell, 2011; Zucker, 2004). Furthermore, when
feminists were described in terms of negative stereotypes, such as engaging in radical
collective action, both women and men were less likely to affiliate with feminist
activists, and consequently were less likely to engage in radical collective action
promoted by these feminists (Bashir et al., 2013). By contrast, positive stereotypes of
feminists were associated with higher rates of feminist social identification and self-
labelling (Roy et al., 2007; Williams & Wittig, 1997), which in turn contributed to
higher rates of engagement in behaviours that promoted gender equality (Liss et al.,
2004).
Together, these findings suggest non-environmentalists who hold negative
stereotypes of environmentalists (or in the present study endorse negative traits as
stereotypical of environmentalists) may be less willing to identify with the
environmentalist social category, even if they hold ecological worldviews, resulting in
lower rates of green consumerism. However, as shown in Study 2 (Chapter 5), the
stereotype that members of the general public hold of environmentalists (especially
those who are not in direct conflict with environmentalists) also includes positive
components. In particular, outgroup members tend to perceive environmentalists in a
positive light as long as they do not engage in behaviours that are deemed to be non-
normative or ‘extreme’, such as radical collective action.
Therefore, given the social identity approach argues that one of the key reasons
as to why individuals join groups is to achieve a sense of positive group self-esteem and
distinctiveness (Hogg & Abrams, 1988; Hornsey, 2008; Rubin & Hewstone, 1998;
CH. 7 STUDY 4: STEREOTYPES, IDENTITY & GREEN CONSUMERISM 153
Tajfel & Turner, 1979; Turner et al., 1987), those individuals who hold more positive
stereotypes of environmentalists, or in the present study strongly endorse positive traits
as typical of environmentalists, may be more willing to identify with the
environmentalist social category. This may be the case even when one initally holds an
ecological worldview. In turn, these individuals may be more willing to engage in types
of normative pro-environmental behaviours that are not as ‘extreme’ as radical collective
action – such as green consumerism.
The Present Study
Given the argument presented above, this study had two primary aims. The first
aim was to investigate whether the stereotypes that non-environmentalists held of the
environmentalist social category was associated with their willingness to identify as an
environmentalist, even if they held an ecological worldview. Given individuals join
groups in part to achieve a sense of positive distinctiveness (Rubin & Hewstone, 1998;
Tajfel & Turner, 1979), and that previous research has indicated that some individuals
may fail to identify as an environmentalist due in part to negative environmentalist
stereotypes (see Bashir et al., 2013; Study 1, Chapter 4), it was hypothesised that:
H1: When controlling for ecological worldviews, stronger endorsement of
positive traits as stereotypical of environmentalists by non-environmentalists
would predict stronger environmentalist social identity, while stronger
endorsement of negative traits as stereotypical of environmentalists would
predict weaker environmentalist social identity.
The second aim of this study was to investigate whether environmentalist social
identity mediated the relationship between the stereotypes non-environmentalists held of
the environmentalist social category and their engagement in green consumerism. Given
CH. 7 STUDY 4: STEREOTYPES, IDENTITY & GREEN CONSUMERISM 154
previous research has shown that social identity is the psychological mechanism that
underpins the relationship between group stereotypes and group normative behaviour
(Duncan, 2010; Roy et al., 2007; Yoder et al., 2011), it was hypothesised that:
H2: Environmentalist stereotypes would exert an effect on green consumerism
indirectly through environmentalist social identity (see Figure 7.1). More
specifically, endorsement of positive environmentalist stereotypical traits would
strengthen one’s environmentalist social identity, which in turn would promote
greater rates of green consumerism. Further still, endorsement of negative
environmentalist stereotypical traits would weaken one’s environmentalist social
identity, which in turn would lead to lower rates of green consumerism.
CH. 7 STUDY 4: STEREOTYPES, IDENTITY & GREEN CONSUMERISM 155
Figure 7.1. Theoretical model for indirect effects of positive and negative stereotypical
traits on green consumerism through environmentalist social identity (non-significant
paths denoted by dotted lines).
Note. a1 = relationship between positive stereotypical traits and environmentalist social
identity; a2 = relationship between negative stereotypical traits and environmentalist
social identity; b = relationship between environmentalist social identity and green
consumerism; c’1 = direct effect of positive stereotypical traits on green consumerism;
c’2 = direct effect of negative stereotypical traits on green consumerism; a1xb = indirect
effect of positive stereotypical traits; a2xb = indirect effect of negative stereotypical
traits.
Positive
Environmentalist
Stereotypical Traits
Negative
Environmentalist
Stereotypical Traits
Environmentalist
Social Identity Green
Consumerism
a2
a1
b
c’2
c’1
CH. 7 STUDY 4: STEREOTYPES, IDENTITY & GREEN CONSUMERISM 156
Method
Participants
The sample used for data analysis comprised of 282 participants25, including 128
women (45.4%) and 154 men (54.6%). Participant age ranged from 18 to 70 years (M =
36.50; SD = 11.34), with 35 participants (12.4%) currently students. Participants’ annual
income and education levels were also diverse (see Table 7.1 for more details). All
participants resided in the United States of America (US).
Table 7.1
Demographics of Participants
Frequency %
Education
Lower secondary education (year 10/sophomore year) 0 0.0%
Upper secondary education (high school completion) 89 31.6%
Post-secondary non-tertiary education (diploma) 34 12.1%
First stage of tertiary education (undergraduate degree) 123 43.6%
Second stage of tertiary education (graduate degree) 35 12.4%
Missing 1 0.4%
Annual income (in US dollars, before taxes)
Less than $15,000 57 20.2%
$15,000 to $24,999 42 14.9%
$25,000 to $34,999 50 17.7%
$35,000 to $49,999 52 18.4%
$50,000 to $74,999 40 14.2%
$75,000 and above 40 14.2%
Missing 1 0.4%
Student status
Currently a student 35 12.4%
Not a student 247 87.6%
Environmental organisation membership
Yes 23 8.2%
No 248 87.9%
Not sure 7 2.5%
Prefer not to say 4 1.4%
25 The number of participants initially recruited was 312. As data screening identified and removed 30
multivariate outliers (see Appendix M), the final dataset used for analysis comprised of 282 participants.
CH. 7 STUDY 4: STEREOTYPES, IDENTITY & GREEN CONSUMERISM 157
Measures
Demographic items, as well as measures of environmentalist social identity,
green consumerism, and group salience were identical to those used in Study 3 and so
are described in Chapter 6.
Environmentalist stereotypes. Following previous stereotyping research within
the social identity literature (Haslam et al., 1999; Haslam, Turner, Oakes, McGarty, &
Hayes, 1992), stereotypical environmentalist traits were measured on a 5-point Likert-
type scale that assessed the degree to which certain traits were representative (i.e.,
prototypical) of the environmentalist social category (1 not at all, 2 rarely, 3 sometimes,
4 frequently, 5 all the time). Only six traits were utilised in order to reduce participant
burden: three positive (caring, informed, dedicated) and three negative (pushy, stubborn,
arrogant) traits, with their order randomised for each participant. These traits were
chosen upon the basis of the qualitative content analysis conducted in Study 2 (Chapter
5), with pilot testing conducted prior to their use to ensure these traits were familiar to
participants and were not so negative that participants would be reluctant to use them
(see Appendix L). As there were moderate to strong correlations between traits (see
Appendix N for trait correlations), positive traits were summed to create a measure of
positive stereotypical environmentalist traits, and negative traits summed to create a
measure of negative stereotypical environmentalist traits.
Ecological worldview. In order to control for participants (as environmentalist
outgroup members) ecological worldview, the 15-item New Ecological Paradigm scale
was employed (Dunlap et al., 2000). Measured on a 7-point Likert-type scale (1 strongly
disagree, 7 strongly agree), items included “Humans are severely abusing the
environment” and “Humans were meant to rule over the rest of nature” (reverse coded).
CH. 7 STUDY 4: STEREOTYPES, IDENTITY & GREEN CONSUMERISM 158
Procedure
After ethics approval was obtained from Deakin University’s Human Research
Ethics Committee (project number: HEAG-H 128_2015, see Appendix A.4 for approval
letter), participants were recruited via the online marketplace Amazon Mechanical Turk
(MTurk). MTurk was used not only maintain consistency with Studies 2 and 3 (Chapters
5 and 6), but also because samples recruited through MTurk tend to be more
representative of the US population when compared to student and in-person
convenience samples (Berinsky et al., 2012; Buhrmester et al.; Clifford et al., 2015;
Levay et al., 2016).
The recruitment notice provided on MTurk only specified participants were to
complete a short survey indicating their beliefs about certain social groups (see
Appendix B.4 for the recruitment notice). This was done to ensure that participants who
were interested in environmentalism weren’t the only participants who were recruited,
consequently increasing the chances of instead obtaining participants who were not
members of environmental organisations (i.e., environmentalist outgroup members).
Upon reading the Plain Language Statement (see Appendix B.4), participants
were then directed to the online questionnaire (see Appendix K). Environmentalist
stereotypes were measured first, before demographic items, to ensure the stereotype
measurement was not influenced by any confounding factors potentially present in the
demographic items. As the social identity approach argues that the intergroup social
context is essential to how groups perceive one another (Haslam et al., 1992, 1995a,
1995b, 1999; Tajfel & Turner, 1979; Oakes et al., 1999), a vignette was presented to
participants to make the intergroup context surrounding environmentalists salient:
CH. 7 STUDY 4: STEREOTYPES, IDENTITY & GREEN CONSUMERISM 159
Different social groups can be distinguished by their values, attitudes, and
personal characteristics. For example, environmentalists are often seen as
intelligent, whilst miners are typically viewed as hard-working. These two
groups may also differ in opinion regarding environmental issues, with
environmentalists typically believing climate change is occurring. In comparison
many miners are sceptical of climate change.26
Participants then completed the environmentalist stereotype measure wherein the
order of the six traits was randomised, followed by the demographic items. Another
vignette which made membership to the environmentalist social category salient was
then given (as was the case in Study 3, see Chapter 6):
People’s views on the environment vary widely. For instance, some people do
not think about the environment and are not worried about the issues it may be
facing. In comparison, others are worried about the environment. This group of
people often wish to do something to help the environment and may employ such
strategies as: buying environmentally friendly products and services; reducing
their energy use; reusing and repairing items; and recycling.
Participants then completed the measures of environmentalist social identity,
green consumerism, and ecological worldview. The study then concluded with the group
salience manipulation checks and the environmental organisation membership item.27
Upon submission of the questionnaire, which signified participants’ informed consent
for their data to be used, participants were paid $US1.50.
Results
Data screening and analyses were conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics 23.0
(2016) and the PROCESS Macro for SPSS (v2.16) developed by Andrew Hayes (Hayes,
26 Miners were chosen as an example of an outgroup for environmentalists for this vignette given the long
history of environmentalists typically engaging in political actions to disrupt or stop mining (Brulle, 1996;
Colvin et al., 2015; Dalton et al., 2003). 27 The environmentalist organisation membership item was given at the end of the survey in order to
ensure the environmentalist social category was not inadvertently made salient before participants were
given the two vignettes.
CH. 7 STUDY 4: STEREOTYPES, IDENTITY & GREEN CONSUMERISM 160
2013). The means, standard deviations, Cronbach alphas, and bivariate correlations of
the major variables employed for the study are reported in Table 7.2.
Table 7.2
Descriptive Statistics, Bivariate Pearson’s Correlations, and Cronbach Alphas for
Major Variables
Variables 1 2 3 4 5
1. Environmentalist
social identityᵃ –
2. Ecological
worldviewᵃ .58** –
3. Green
consumerismᵃ .71** .49** –
4. Positive
stereotypical traitsᵇ .52** .41** .38** –
5. Negative
stereotypical traitsᵇ -.51** -.40** -.29** -.39** –
M 3.97 4.75 3.83 3.71 3.12
SD 1.56 1.18 1.42 0.59 0.75
Range 1-7 1.60-7 1-6.89 1-5 1.67-5
α .95 .96 .91 .69 .82 Note. N = 248. M = mean; SD = standard deviation; Range = observed range of scores; α = Cronbach’s
alpha.
ᵃ = variable measured a 7-point Likert-type scale; ᵇ = variable measured on a 5-point Likert-type scale.
** p < .01 (two-tailed).
Preliminary Analyses and Manipulation Checks
Following data screening and assumption checks (see Appendix M for more
details); a number of preliminary analyses were conducted.
Environmental organisation membership. Just as with Studies 2 and 3,
membership in an environmental organisation was employed as a proxy for group
membership in the superordinate environmentalist social category (see Chapters 5 and 6
for more details). However before participants who indicated that they were members of
an environmental organisation were deleted from the sample, a one-way MANOVA was
CH. 7 STUDY 4: STEREOTYPES, IDENTITY & GREEN CONSUMERISM 161
conducted to check whether there were any statistically significant differences between
members and non-members on key variables. As with Study 3 (see Chapter 6), responses
to the environmental organisation membership item were recoded before analysis, with
participants indicating that they were either a member (n = 23), not sure (n = 7) or
preferred not to indicate their membership status (n = 4) recoded as being members of
environmental organisations (total n = 34) for the sake of statistical simplicity.
Using Pillai’s Trace, a significant multivariate effect of environmental
organisation membership emerged, V =.16, F(5, 276) = 10.31, p < .001, η2 partial = .16.
As shown in Table 7.3, separate univariate ANOVAs on key variables revealed
significant main effects of environmental organisation membership for four of the five
variables. Those who belonged to environmental organisations (i.e., were
environmentalist ingroup members) had significantly higher levels of environmentalist
social identity, ecological worldviews, and green consumerism engagement.
Furthermore, although non-members were significantly more likely to endorse negative
traits as stereotypical of the environmentalist social category, there was no significant
difference between members and non-members in their level of endorsement of positive
traits as stereotypical of environmentalists.
Given that the MANOVA demonstrated a significant effect of environmental
organisation membership on four of the five measures, participants who indicated that
they were members of an environmental organisation were therefore deleted from
further analysis (n = 34). This ensured that the remaining data were only from outgroup
members of the environmentalist social category (i.e., non-environmentalists) (n = 248).
CH. 7 STUDY 4: STEREOTYPES, IDENTITY & GREEN CONSUMERISM 162
Table 7.3
Univariate F-Tests for Environmentalist Social Identity, Green Consumerism and
Stereotypical Traits by Environmental Organisation Membership
F p η2
partial
Environmental
organisation
member
(n = 34)
Non-member
(n = 248)
Variables M (SD) M (SD)
Environmentalist
social identityᵃ
36.10 .000 .114 5.62 (1.00) 3.97 (1.56)
Ecological
worldviewsᵃ
11.89 .001 .041 5.49 (1.15) 4.75 (1.18)
Green consumerismᵃ 44.03 .000 .136 5.49 (0.88) 3.83 (1.42)
Positive
stereotypical traitsᵇ
0.52 .470 .002 3.79 (0.73) 3.71 (0.59)
Negative
stereotypical traitsᵇ
4.53 .034 .016 2.82 (0.80) 3.12 (0.75)
Note. For all univariate F-tests, df = 1, 280. F = F-ratio; p = probability value; η2 partial = eta squared
partial; M = mean; SD = standard deviation.
ᵃ = measured on a 7-point Likert-type scale; ᵇ = measured on a 5-point Likert-type scale.
Group salience manipulation check. In order to further verify that the
remaining participants did not consider themselves to be ingroup members of the
environmentalist social category, mean scores on the two group salience manipulation
checks were reviewed. The remaining participants generally felt (M = 5.24; SD = 1.62)
and saw (M = 5.29, SD = 1.62) themselves to be individuals rather than members of the
environmentalist social category (where 7 = very much like an individual).
Regression Analysis
A two-step hierarchical multiple regression analysis using 5,000 bias-corrected
and accelerated bootstrapped resamples was conducted to investigate the unique
contribution positive and negative stereotypical environmentalist traits had on
environmentalist social identification (after controlling for participants ecological
worldviews).
CH. 7 STUDY 4: STEREOTYPES, IDENTITY & GREEN CONSUMERISM 163
Table 7.4
Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis Predicting Environmentalist Social Identity
Δ R² F (df) b (SE) BCa 95%
CI
β
Step 1 .33 123.26 (1,
246)***
Constant 0.33
(0.28)
[-0.19,
0.90]
Ecological
worldviews
0.77
(0.06)***
[0.64,
0.88]
.58
Step 2 .14 73.93 (3,
244)***
Constant .71 (0.72) [-0.68,
2.07]
Ecological
worldviews
0.48
(0.07)***
[0.35,
0.62]
.36
Positive
stereotypical traits
0.70
(0.14)***
[0.42,
0.98]
.27
Negative
stereotypical traits
-0.53
(0.11)***
[-0.74,
-0.30]
-.25
Note. Δ R² = change in explained variance; F = F-ratio; df = degrees of freedom for F-ratio; b =
unstandardized regression coefficient; SE = standard error for b; BCa 95% CI = 95% bias corrected and
accelerated confidence intervals for b based on 5,000 bootstrapped resamples; β = standardised b.
***p < .001.
As shown in Table 7.4, the hierarchical multiple regression revealed that at Step
1, ecological worldviews accounted for 33% of the variance in environmentalist social
identity, significantly predicting environmentalist social identity for those who did not
belong to environmental organisations (i.e., non-environmentalists).
At Step 2, positive and negative stereotypical environmentalist traits were added
to the regression model, and accounted for a statistically significant additional 14%
variance in environmentalist social identity. Ecological worldviews, and endorsement of
positive stereotypical traits and negative stereotypical traits, were also found to all
significantly predict environmentalist social identity, with ecological worldviews the
CH. 7 STUDY 4: STEREOTYPES, IDENTITY & GREEN CONSUMERISM 164
strongest predictor of the three for those who did not belong to environmental
organisations (i.e., non-environmentalists).
Mediation Analysis
A mediation analysis, using ordinary least squares path analysis, was conducted
in order to determine whether environmentalist social identity mediated the relationship
between environmentalist stereotypes and green consumerism for non-environmentalists
(see Figure 7.1). This analysis included positive and negative stereotypical traits as two
separate variables to compare the indirect effect of each.
The PROCESS macro developed by Hayes (2013) was employed in SPSS to
conduct the mediation analysis, with bootstrapping and confidence intervals
subsequently used to determine the significance of mediational effects (Hayes, 2013;
Preacher & Hayes, 2008)28. The analysis employed 95% bias-corrected and accelerated
confidence intervals based on 5,000 bootstrapped resamples (as recommended by
Preacher & Hayes, 2008). When the value of zero was not contained within a confidence
interval, then that specific mediational effect was considered to be statistically
significant (Hayes, 2013).
Total effect of environmentalist stereotypical traits on green consumerism.
Without the inclusion of environmentalist social identity in the mediation model, a
statistically significant total effect of environmentalist stereotypical traits on green
28 Currently, there are three approaches to conducting mediation analyses. These are following that causal
steps as outlined by Baron and Kenny (1986); examining product coefficients and conducting a Sobel test
(1982); and conducting bootstrapping and examining confidence intervals (Hayes, 2013; Preacher &
Hayes, 2008). Given that the first two methods are based on unrealistic assumptions concerning the
normality of indirect effects and have therefore been found to be unreliable (Hayes, 2013), the third
method was implemented.
CH. 7 STUDY 4: STEREOTYPES, IDENTITY & GREEN CONSUMERISM 165
consumerism emerged for non-environmentalists, with stereotypical traits accounting for
17% of the variance in green consumerism (R² = .17; F(2, 245) = 24.56, p < .001).
Table 7.5
Total Effect of Environmentalist Stereotypical Traits on Green Consumerism
b (SE) p BCa 95% CI
β
Positive
stereotypical traits
0.75 (0.15) < .001 [0.45, 1.05] .31
Negative
stereotypical traits
-0.32 (0.12) .007 [-0.56, -0.09] -.17
Note. b = unstandardised regression coefficient; SE = standard error of b; p = probability value for b; BCa
95% CI = 95% bias corrected and accelerated confidence intervals for b based on 5,000 bootstrapped
resamples; β = standardised b.
In particular, as shown in Table 7.5, the more environmentalist outgroup
members perceived positive traits to be stereotypical of the environmentalist social
category, the more likely they were to engage in green consumerism. However, the more
they perceived negative traits to be stereotypical of the environmentalist social category,
the less likely they were to engage in green consumerism.
Effect of environmentalist stereotypical traits on environmentalist social
identity (paths a1 and a2). A statistically significant effect of environmentalist
stereotypical traits on environmentalist social identity was found, with environmentalist
stereotypes accounting for 37% of the variance in environmentalist social identity for
non-environmentalists (R² = .37; F(2, 245) = 73.31, p < .001). In particular, as shown in
Table 7.6, the more participants saw positive traits as stereotypical of environmentalists,
the more likely they identified as an environmentalist. However, the more they saw
negative traits as stereotypical of environmentalists, the less likely they identified as an
environmentalist.
CH. 7 STUDY 4: STEREOTYPES, IDENTITY & GREEN CONSUMERISM 166
Table 7.6
Regression Coefficients, Confidence Intervals, and Effect Sizes for Paths in the
Mediation Model
b (SE) p BCa 95% CI
β
Path a1 (Positive
stereotypical traits → green
consumerism)
0.99 (0.15) < .001 [0.70, 1.27] .38
Path a2 (Negative
stereotypical traits → green
consumerism)
-0.74 (0.11) < .001 [-0.97, -0.52] -.36
Path b (Environmentalist
social identity → green
consumerism)
0.68 (0.05) < .001 [0.58, 0.78] .75
Path c’1 (Direct effect of
positive stereotypical traits
→ green consumerism)
0.07 (0.13) .581 [-0.18, 0.32] .03
Path c’2 (Direct effect of
negative stereotypical traits
→ green consumerism)
0.18 (0.10) .063 [-0.01, 0.38] .10
Note. b = unstandardised regression coefficient; SE = standard error of b; p = probability value for b; BCa
95% CI = 95% bias corrected and accelerated confidence intervals for b based on 5,000 bootstrapped
resamples; β = standardised regression coefficient.
Effect of environmentalist social identity on green consumerism (path b). A
statistically significant effect of environmentalist social identity on green consumerism
was found, with environmentalist social identity accounting for 51% of the variance in
green consumerism engagement for non-environmentalists (R² = .51; F(1, 246) = 256.04,
p < .001). As seen in Table 7.6, the stronger the participant’s environmentalist social
identity, the more likely they were to engage in green consumerism (even though they
were not members of environmental organisations).
Direct effect of environmentalist stereotypical traits on green consumerism
(paths c’1 and c’2). As shown in Table 7.6, after controlling for environmentalist social
identity, the mediation analysis demonstrated a non-significant effect of positive and
negative stereotypical traits on green consumerism.
CH. 7 STUDY 4: STEREOTYPES, IDENTITY & GREEN CONSUMERISM 167
Indirect effect of environmentalist stereotypical traits on green consumerism
through environmentalist social identity (paths a1xb and a2xb). There was a
statistically significant indirect effect of positive stereotypical traits on green
consumerism through environmentalist social identity for non-environmentalists, b (SE)
= .68 (.10), β = .28, BCa 95% CI [.48, .89]. Given there were two independent variables,
the effect size was measured using the index of mediation (as recommended by Field,
2013), which indicated statistical significance, .27, BCa 95% CI [.19, .35].
There was also a statistically significant indirect effect of negative stereotypical
traits on green consumerism through environmentalist social identity for non-
environmentalists, b (SE) = -.51 (.09), β = -.27, 95% BCa 95% CI [-.69, -.34]. Again, the
effect size was measured using the index of mediation, and indicated statistical
significance, -.27, BCa 95% CI [-.36, -.18].
Overall, the indirect effects of positive and negative environmentalist
stereotypical traits were statistically significant, suggesting that environmentalist
stereotypes exerted an effect on green consumerism indirectly through participant’s
strength of environmentalist social identity. More specifically, when non-
environmentalists strongly endorsed positive traits (i.e., caring, informed, and dedicated)
as stereotypical of environmentalists, they were more likely to identify with the
environmentalist social category, and consequently more likely to engage in green
consumerism (a behaviour that is normative of the environmentalist social category, see
Studies 1 and 2). However, when non-environmentalists strongly endorsed negative
traits (i.e., pushy, stubborn, and arrogant) as stereotypical of environmentalists, they
were less likely to identify as an environmentalist, and consequently less likely to
engage in green consumerism.
CH. 7 STUDY 4: STEREOTYPES, IDENTITY & GREEN CONSUMERISM 168
Indirect effect of positive stereotypical traits; β = .28, BCa 95% CI [.48, .89]
Indirect effect of negative stereotypical traits; β = -.27, BCa 95% CI [-.69, -.34]
Figure 7.2. Standardised regression coefficients (β) for the indirect effects of positive
and negative stereotypical traits on green consumerism through environmentalist social
identity.
Non-significant paths denoted by dotted lines. BCa 95% CI = 95% bias corrected and
accelerated confidence intervals based on 5,000 bootstrapped resamples
*** p < .001.
Note. Standardised regression coefficients presented reflect tests of the full model and
may slightly differ from standardised regression coefficients of separate hypotheses.
Positive
Environmentalist
Stereotypical Traits
Negative
Environmentalist
Stereotypical Traits
Environmentalist
Social Identity Green
Consumerism
β = -.36***
β = .38***
β =
.75***
β = .03
β = .10
CH. 7 STUDY 4: STEREOTYPES, IDENTITY & GREEN CONSUMERISM 169
Discussion
Although Study 3 demonstrated that identification with the environmentalist
social category was predictive of green consumerism engagement, the stereotypes that
the general public hold of environmentalists may have consequences on whether they
are willing to identify as an environmentalist and subsequently engage in green
consumerism – even if these individuals initially hold an ecological worldview (as
suggested by Study 1). Given these considerations then, the present study had two
primary aims. Firstly, it aimed to investigate whether the endorsement of positive and
negative traits as stereotypical of environmentalists, particularly when one controls for
ecological worldviews, would be associated with non-environmentalists willingness to
identify as an environmentalist. The second aim was to investigate, through a mediation
analysis, whether positive and negative environmentalist stereotypical traits would exert
an indirect effect on green consumerism through environmentalist social identity in
iniviuduals who were considered environmentalist outgroup members.
Firstly, findings of the current study demonstrated that although ecological
worldviews did significantly predict environmentalist social identity in environmentalist
outgroup members, environmentalist stereotypes were also uniquely predictive of
environmentalist social identity when ecological worldviews were controlled for. This
therefore suggests that the positive or negative environmentalist stereotypes
environmentalist outgroup members hold of the environmentalist social category may
contribute to whether they identify as an environmentalist, regardless of whether they
initially hold ecological worldviews. As such, this finding extends on Study 1 where
many participants were found to be reluctant to identify as an environmentalist by
demonstrating that stereotypes can contribute to this possible lack of identification for
CH. 7 STUDY 4: STEREOTYPES, IDENTITY & GREEN CONSUMERISM 170
non-environmentalists. It also extends on previous research that has shown that those
who are aware of the negative evaluations others hold of environmentalists are often
reluctant to label themselves as environmentalists by also showing that both negative
and positive environmentalist stereotypes contribute to environmentalist social
identification (Perera, 2014; Shirani et al., 2015; Whitehouse & Evans, 2010; Wright et
al., 2010). Furthermore, it must also be noted that environmentalist social identity was
found to be moderately predictive of green consumerism engagement, thus replicating
the finding of Study 3. This adds to the literature which has shown a relationship
between social identity and pro-environmental behaviour (e.g., Bamberg et al., 2015;
Bartels & Hoogendam, 2011; Bartels & Reinders, 2016; Bertolodo & Castro, 2016;
Dono et al., 2010; Fielding et al., 2008; Prati et al., 2015; Sweetman & Whitmarsh,
2016) and emphasises the potential that increasing people’s environmentalist social
identity can have in also increasing green consumerism.
The mediation analysis conducted in this study also demonstrated that the
endorsement of environmentalist stereotypes exerted an indirect effect on green
consumerism though environmentalist social identity. In particular, individuals who
endorsed negative traits as stereotypical of environmentalists were less likely to identify
with the environmentalist social category, which lead to lower rates of green
consumerism, adding to what has been seen in qualitative studies (Perera, 2014; Shirani
et al., 2015), whilst also reflecting the feminist literature (Nelson et al., 2008; Roy et al.,
2007). This finding also extends on those of Bashir et al. (2013), by demonstrating that
not only do negative stereotypes decrease individuals’ likelihood of interacting with
environmentalist activists and engaging in the activist behaviours they promote, negative
stereotypes of the superordinate environmentalist social category can make individuals
CH. 7 STUDY 4: STEREOTYPES, IDENTITY & GREEN CONSUMERISM 171
less willing to identify as an environmentalist and engage in less contentious or ‘extreme’
pro-environmental behaviours such as green consumerism. Therefore, as evidenced by
this finding, this lack of identification may have important implications for whether one
engages in numerous types of pro-environmental behaviour, given that social
identification with relevant social categories leads to engaging in group normative
behaviour (Abrams & Hogg, 1990; Hogg & Terry, 2000; Spears, 2011; Tajfel & Turner,
1979).
Nevertheless, this study also demonstrated that when positive traits were seen as
stereotypical of environmentalists, participants had higher rates of environmentalist
social identity, which lead to higher rates of green consumerism. Indeed, it was found
that the strength of the effect that positive environmentalist stereotypes had on
identification was comparable to negative environmentalist stereotypes (that is, the
standardised regression coefficients were very similar, see Figure 7.2). This is consistent
with research showing that positive evaluations of feminists leads to higher levels of
feminist social identification, and subsequent increases in gender-equality behaviours
(Robnett et al., 2012; Roy et al., 2007), and accords with evidence from the social
identity approach that individuals identify with groups to achieve a sense of positive
distinctiveness (Abrams & Hogg, 1990; Hogg & Abrams, 1988; Rubin & Hewstone,
1998). Through the lens of the social identity perspective, this finding therefore
underscores how accentuating the positive aspects of social categories for non-
environmentalists, even those who hold ecological worldviews, provides a mechanism
for boosting environmentalist social identification and therefore identity congruent
behaviours.
CH. 7 STUDY 4: STEREOTYPES, IDENTITY & GREEN CONSUMERISM 172
Finally, another finding worth noting is that whilst participants who were
members of an environmentalist organisation endorsed negative traits as less
stereotypical of the environmentalist social category than non-group members, there was
no statistically significant difference between these two groups in terms of their
endorsement of positive stereotypical traits for the environmentalist social category.
These findings therefore show that the stereotypes both ingroup and outgroup members
(at least if not in an oppositional relationship) hold of the environmentalist social
category are similar in content in respect to positivity. However, this finding may have
occurred given the samples generally ecological worldview to begin with, possibly
making non-environmentalists more predisposed to acknowledge the positive aspects of
the environmentalist social category. Nonetheless, this finding does suggest that it is
only the negative environmentalist stereotypes that vary between ingroup and outgroup
members. It may be that the valence of these negative stereotypes may depend much
more on the social context – such as if individuals are in direct conflict with
environmentalist ingroup members (Colvin et al., 2015; Fielding et al., 2005; Opotow &
Brook, 2003) or whether environmentalists are engaging in ‘extreme’ behaviour (as
suggested in Study 2, also see Bashir et al., 2013; Hoffarth & Hodson, 2016). Further
research should therefore not only examine how environmentalists self-stereotype, to
further determine whether ingroup members hold the same positive stereotype of the
category as outgroup members, but also to examine how the prototypically of their traits
may change depending on the social context and intergroup comparisons, as argued by
the social identity approach (Haslam et al., 1992, 1999).
CH. 7 STUDY 4: STEREOTYPES, IDENTITY & GREEN CONSUMERISM 173
Limitations
A key limitation of the current study is that due to its correlational methodology,
conclusions about causality cannot be concretely made (even if the mediational model
postulates directional relationships). Indeed, it is possible that the causal relationships
specified in the mediational model exist in different directions – such as social
identification leading to the endorsement of stereotypes. Another limitation is also how
environmentalist stereotypes were not measured simultaneously with those of other
groups. In fact, although the vignette given before the environmentalist stereotype
measure did reference a relevant outgroup (e.g., miners) to create an intergroup context
for stereotypes to arise, it is still unclear how the environmentalist social category is
stereotyped when directly compared to other relevant outgroups. Future research
therefore could go towards examining how these intergroup comparisons on stereotypes
contribute to environmentalist social identification and pro-environmental behaviour.
Related to this, given individuals can hold multiple social identities (Reicher, 2004;
Spears, 2011; Tajfel & Turner, 1979; Turner, 1982; Turner et al., 1994), it is worth
exploring whether the strength of environmentalist stereotypes also differs as a result of
the social identities non-environmentalists already hold (e.g., how does one holding a
national identity contribute to the endorsement of these environmentalist stereotypes?).
One methodology limitation evident within the current study was that the
vignette which made the intergroup context salient for participants made reference to
environmentalists being seen as intelligent – a trait that was outlined by outgroup
members as beign positive of the environmentalist social category (see Study 2 for more
details). As such it is possibly that this vignette may inadvertenly contributed to the
finding that ingroup members and outgroup members both have positive streotypes of
CH. 7 STUDY 4: STEREOTYPES, IDENTITY & GREEN CONSUMERISM 174
environmentalists. Therefore future research should ensure vignettes that are developed
in order to create an intergroup context do not make reference to either negative and
positive traits of the environmentalist social category.
Conclusion
To summarise, this study investigated whether environmentalist stereotypes
contributed to social identification as environmentalist, and subsequent engagement in
green consumerism – particularly for those individuals who were not members of
environmental organisations (i.e., environmentalist outgroup members or non-
environmentalists). Findings of this study indicated that that even if non-
environmentalists held an ecological worldview, positive traits were just as important to
their environmentalist social identification as the endorsement of negative traits were to
their reluctance to identify as an environmentalists. Furthermore, environmentalist social
identity was found to mediate the relationship between environmentalist stereotypes and
green consumerism. This finding suggested that emphasising the positive traits of the
environmentalist social category could increase environmentalist social identity,
consequently increasing rates of pro-environmental behaviours such as green
consumerism.
CH. 8. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUDING REMARKS 175
Chapter 8
General Discussion and Concluding Remarks
Introduction
The present thesis applied a social identity perspective to explore how social
identification and group stereotypes contributed to green consumerism amongst those
who did not perceive themselves to be environmentalists (i.e., ‘non-environmentalists’
or ‘environmentalist outgroup members’). In particular, across four empirical studies,
the present thesis explored how environmentalists and non-environmentalists alike made
sense of green consumerism (Study 1, Chapter 4), what was the content of the
stereotypes that non-environmentalists held of the superordinate environmentalist social
category (Study 2, Chapter 5), and whether both environmentalist social identity (Study
3, Chapter 6) and environmentalist stereotypes (Study 4, Chapter 7) were predictive of
green consumerism amongst non-environmentalists.
This concluding chapter now provides an extensive discussion of the general
findings and implications of the four empirical studies. It first begins with restating the
four research questions of the thesis, followed by reviewing the answers that emerged
for these research questions. This chapter then discusses the theoretical implications of
the empirical findings, for both the pro-environmental behaviour and the social identity
literatures. Practical implications of the findings for researchers, environmentalists, and
policy makers are then outlined, including possible research-based ways to encourage
non-environmentalists to identify with the environmentalist social category and to
increase their engagement in green consumerism. A discussion of limitations of the
research program, and of avenues for future research, concludes the chapter.
CH. 8. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUDING REMARKS 176
Summary of the Empirical Findings
As outlined at the end of Chapter 3, the central aim of the present thesis was to
determine: Do outgroup stereotypes of environmentalists and environmentalist social
identity each contribute to engagement in green consumerism, particularly amongst
individuals’ in the general public who are not members of environmental organisations
(i.e.,‘environmentalist outgroup members’ or ‘non-environmentalists’)? Arising from
this aim, the present thesis consequently sought to answer four research questions across
four empirical studies. These questions were:
1. What do environmentalists and non-environmentalists perceive to be involved in
green consumerism? (answered in Study 1)
2. What is the content of the stereotypes that non-environmentalists hold of the
superordinate environmentalist social category? (answered in Study 2)
3. Is environmentalist social identity predictive of green consumerism amongst non-
environmentalists? (answered in Study 3)
4. Does environmentalist social identity mediate the relationship between outgroup
stereotypes of environmentalists and green consumerism for non-
environmentalists? (answered in Study 4)
A summary of each study’s findings is now presented, with comments on how these
findings address each research question.
Study 1: Making Sense of Green Consumerism and its Relationship to
Environmentalism and Social Identity
Study 1 sought to answer the first research question, regarding what
environmentalists and non-environmentalists perceived to be involved in green
consumerism. Using qualitative one-on-one interviews that were analysed with inductive
CH. 8. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUDING REMARKS 177
thematic analysis it was found that environmentalists and non-environmentalists made
sense of green consumerism in the same way – that is, they shared similar perceptions of
green consumerism. More specifically, it was demonstrated that environmentalists and
non-environmentalists alike saw green consumerism as a complex array of
environmentally friendly consumption behaviours, as recently suggested by some
researchers (e.g., Peattie, 2010; Polonsky et al., 2012).
Green consumerism was also seen as effective in reducing environmental
problems as both a private sphere action enacted as part of a green lifestyle, and as a
collective activist behaviour that could punish and/or reward institutions through
individuals consumer choices. These findings are significant for researchers in the field
of pro-environmental behaviour as they show that green consumerism is not just a type
of simplistic, individualised ‘green’ purchasing as often assumed (Peattie, 2010; Stern,
2000), whilst also highlighting the mechanisms through which green consumerism is
perceived by individuals to address environmental issues (Moisander, 2007; Moisander
& Pesonen, 2002). Furthermore these findings also emphasise how although green
consumerism may be normative of environmentalists (Horton, 2004), group membership
as an environmentalist does not appear to alter the way in which people perceive green
consumerism.
Whilst this study did not aim to investigate environmentalist social identity per
se, its findings also revealed the general reluctance of many participants to outright
identify as environmentalists, with many of the participants instead engaging in what
appeared to be lengthy reflections concerning what it meant to be member of this group.
Although previous research has touched upon how some individuals may be hesitant to
self-identify as an environmentalist (e.g., Perera, 2014; Whitehouse & Evans, 2010;
CH. 8. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUDING REMARKS 178
Wright et al., 2012), the analysis of participants’ discourse in this study was able to
elucidate specific reasons as to why this may be the case. In particular, it was found that
those who did not self-identify as an environmentalist felt that they did not engage in
enough ‘active’ pro-environmental behaviours to be considered one, or felt that there
were too many negative perceptions surrounding the environmentalist social category to
affiliate or identify themselves with the group. This finding therefore adds to this
emerging literature by qualitatively demonstrating that identification as an
environmentalist depends not only on one’s perceived fit to the environmentalist group
prototype, but also on how the group itself is perceived in the given social context –
findings that were further supported in Study 4, when environmentalist stereotypes
emerged as being predictive of environmentalist social identity for non-
environmentalists.
Study 2: “Not all environmentalists are like that…”: Exploring How Outgroup
Members Perceive the Environmentalist Social Category
Study 2 went on to answer the second research question of the thesis regarding
the content of the stereotypes that non-environmentalists held of the superordinate
environmentalist social category. Findings from both the thematic analysis and
qualitative content analysis demonstrated that both positive traits (caring, informed,
dedicated) and negative traits (pushy, stubborn, arrogant) were perceived by non-
environmentalists to be stereotypical of the category – a finding that was replicated
quantitatively in Study 4. Furthermore, non-environmentalists saw all environmentalists
as protective and concerned for the natural environment, yet also acknowledged that
environmentalists would not all engage in the same pro-environmental behaviours. Thus
the content of the stereotype that non-environmentalists held of the group contained both
CH. 8. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUDING REMARKS 179
negative and positive components, with many outgroup members referencing
environmentalists beliefs and behaviours alongside these positive and negative
perceptions.
Additionally, Study 2 was able to demonstrate, through their strategic use of
language, that outgroup members simultaneously perceived the superordinate
environmentalist social category to be both negative and positive, that is, these
conflicting views of environmentalist ingroup members were not mutually exclusive. In
fact, the majority of outgroup members initially evaluated environmentalists positively
by overwhelming employing the terms “caring” or “concerned” to describe them.
However, this baseline positive impression appeared to be conditional on how
environmentalists behaved, and only applied “so long as” environmentalists did not
promote “unrealistic” solutions or “go to extremes to push their views”, such as
engaging in socially non-normative “extreme” or “aggressive” actions. Indeed, this
finding built on what was found in Study 1, where participants also suggested
environmentalists could be “extreme” when they engaged in highly contentious actions
such as “tying themselves to trees”. Nonetheless, by often specifying that only “some”
environmentalists were extreme or aggressive, environmentalist outgroup members in
Study 2 were also able to emphasise that they did not see all environmentalists as
inherently “negative” or “bad”.
Another significant finding of Study 2 was that environmentalists were seen to
be defined by both their shared beliefs and their “active” engagement in conserving the
natural environment. This replicated findings from Study 1, where individuals felt they
had to be sufficiently “active” or “actively involved” in conserving the natural
environment to legitimately self-identify as an environmentalist. Although it has been
CH. 8. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUDING REMARKS 180
previously suggested that the defining feature of the environmentalist social category are
members’ shared environmentalist ideology and valuing of nature (Brulle, 1996;
Holland et al., 2000; Ogrodnik & Staggenborg, 2016), Studies 1 and 2 showed that
‘active’ engagement in numerous pro-environmental behaviours was also considered to
be a specific defining feature of the category. In fact, these behaviours were not just
normative for the environmentalist social category, but appeared to be a prerequisite to
even being considered as an environmentalist. Yet, given that participants in Study 2
acknowledged that all environmentalists did not engage in the same pro-environmental
behaviours, whether there was one specific pro-environmental behaviour one must
engage in to be considered an environmentalist was not clear.
Study 3: Investigating Whether Environmentalist Social Identity is Predictive of
Green Consumerism in Members of the General Public
Study 3 aimed to answer the third research question of the present thesis,
whether environmentalist social identity was predictive of green consumerism in
environmentalist outgroup members. Furthermore, drawing upon the findings of Study 1
where green consumerism was perceived to be both an individual and collective pro-
environmental behaviour, Study 3 also went on to investigate whether pro-
environmental behaviours that are individuallyother individualistic (willingness to
sacrifice) or collectively employed (environmental activism and political consumerism)
were also directly predictive of green consumerism in non-environmentalists, and
whether these behaviours themselves meditated the relationship between
environmentalist social identity and green consumerism.
A path analysis demonstrated that environmentalist social identity was indeed
moderately and directly predictive of green consumerism in environmentalist outgroup
CH. 8. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUDING REMARKS 181
members, a finding that was also replicated in Study 4. Furthermore, environmentalist
social identity was also a stronger predictor of green consumerism when compared to the
other pro-environmental behaviours measured in the study. Yet political consumerism,
environmental activism, and willingness to sacrifice each partially mediated the
relationship between environmentalist social identity and green consumerism, although
only weakly.
These findings therefore suggest that perhaps the relationships between these
variables can be better conceptualised as one where social identification as an
environmentalist underpins all of these group-normative behaviours (as previously
suggested in the case of environmental self-identity by van der Werff et al., 2014 and
Whitmarsh & O’Neill, 2010). As such, these findings subsequently extend upon
previous research showing identification with the environmentalist social category, or
even with psychologically meaningful groups that hold pro-environmental norms,
predicts numerous pro-environmental behaviours such as the purchasing of organic
products, recycling, energy conservation, and environmental activism (e.g., Bamberg et
al., 2015; Bartels & Hoogendam, 2011; Dono et al., 2010; Fielding et al., 2008a; Prati et
al., 2015; Sweetman & Whitmarsh, 2016; Terry et al., 1999).
Study 4: The Contribution of Social Identity and Group Stereotypes to
Engagement in Green Consumerism among Non-Environmentalists
Study 4 sought to answer the fourth and final research question, whether
environmentalist social identity mediated the relationship between environmentalist
stereotypes and green consumerism within non-environmentalists. Mediation analysis
demonstrated that not only did the endorsement of negative and positive outgroup
stereotypes of environmentalists exert a moderate direct effect on environmentalist
CH. 8. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUDING REMARKS 182
social identification for non-environmentalists, but that these negative and positive
environmentalist stereotypes also had an indirect effect on green consumerism, through
its impact on environmentalist social identity.
This finding confirmed what was hinted at in the qualitative interpretations of
Study 1, by showing that the broader social context, as manifested in group stereotypes,
contribute to non-environmentalists’ willingness to identify as an environmentalist. In
particular, when non-environmentalists endorsed positive traits (caring, informed, and
dedicated) as stereotypical of environmentalists, they were more likely to identify with
the environmentalist social category, and consequently more likely to engage in green
consumerism. Yet when non-environmentalists endorsed negative traits (pushy, stubborn,
and arrogant) as stereotypical of environmentalists, they were less likely to identify as an
environmentalist, and consequently less likely to engage in green consumerism. This
finding thus makes a significant contribution to the research literature by demonstrating
that whilst environmentalist social identification may underpin green consumerism, it is
also important to consider how non-environmentalists perceive the environmentalist
social category within the broader social context, as these perceptions may contribute
both directly, and indirectly through social identification, to their willingness to engage
in green consumerism.
Broadly speaking, Study 4 also quantitatively replicated Study 2’s finding in that
the stereotypes non-environmentalists held of environmentalists contained both positive
and negative components, and was therefore contrary to previous researchers concluding
that environmentalists tend to be perceived entirely negatively by the general public (e.g.,
Hutchings, 2005; Murphy & Dee, 1996; Shirani et al., 2015; Whitehouse & Evans,
2010; Wright et al., 2012). Furthermore, those participants who belonged to
CH. 8. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUDING REMARKS 183
environmental organisation members (i.e., environmentalist ingroup members) were less
likely to endorse negative traits as stereotypical of the group when compared to non-
members (outgroup members), yet there was no statistically significant difference
between ingroup and outgroup members when endorsing positive traits. That is,
environmental organisation members and non-members (the general public) were in
agreement about the positive aspects of the superordinate environmentalist social
category – a finding that is certainly a unique contribution to the pro-environmental
behaviour literature. Yet this finding is entirely in line with the social identity approach
(Haslam et al., 1992, 1995a, 1995b; Hogg & Turner, 1987), as ingroup and outgroup
members may equally endorse a group’s positive attributes when outgroup members are
not in a confrontational relationship with the ingroup, as was the case in Study 4.
Theoretical Implications for the Pro-Environmental Behaviour Literature
As the first set of studies to investigate how green consumerism and the
superordinate environmentalist social category are perceived, and to investigate the
relationships between environmentalist social identity, outgroup stereotypes of
environmentalists, and green consumerism, this thesis has a number of theoretical
implications for the pro-environmental behaviour literature.
Firstly, the thesis provides further evidence for the utility of the social identity
approach for pro-environmental behaviour research, building upon prior arguments for
the usefulness of social identity-based research in this field (see Batalha & Reynolds,
2012; Fielding & Hornsey, 2016). As argued in Chapters 2 and 3, most of the current
pro-environmental behaviour research employs theoretical paradigms that emphasise
individual-level variables, and neglect group processes and the role of social context (for
some summaries, see the seminal papers by Bamberg & Möser, 2007; Gifford & Nilsson,
CH. 8. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUDING REMARKS 184
2014; Hines, Hungerford, & Tomera, 1987; Peattie, 2010; Stern, 2000). However, as
demonstrated in this thesis, the well-established theoretical framework of the social
identity approach can help to elucidate how group-level variables, such as group
stereotypes and social identification itself, can account for green consumerism, among
other pro-environmental behaviours. The approach also offers an account of how the
broader social context can interact with social identity and other group processes to
impact on such behaviours.
As social identification is said to be the psychological mechanism that drives
‘groupy’ behaviour (Ellemers et al., 2002; Hogg, 2006a; Spears, 2011), the social
identity approach can also be employed by pro-environmental behaviour researchers to
explain both intra- and intergroup processes that are relevant to pro-environmental
attitudes and behaviours, such as social influence and intergroup conflict (as has been
also suggested by Colvin et al., 2015; Fielding & Hornsey, 2016; Opotow & Brook,
2003). For example, the social identity framework could help to explain why some
members of the environmentalist social category are more influential than others, given
that social identity research shows that group members who better represent a group’s
prototype are more influential than those who are less prototypical (Hogg, 2001a; Hogg
et al., 2006b; Turner & Oakes, 1986). Furthermore, the approach can help to explain
why certain pro-environmental messages are more effective than others (Greenway et al.,
2015; Hogg & Reid, 2006; Hornsey et al., 2002; McGarty et al., 1992). For example,
recent research has shown scientists only obtained public support for recycled water
schemes when they emphasised the regional identity they shared with the public
(Schultz & Fielding, 2014).
CH. 8. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUDING REMARKS 185
Moreover, not only does the social identity approach provide a rich theoretical
paradigm to understand how group processes contribute to pro-environmental
behaviours such as green consumerism (as suggested by Fielding & Hornsey, 2016), it
also provides a useful framework for clarifying the range of identity concepts currently
seen within the pro-environmental behaviour literature (Clayton, 2003, 2012; Clayton &
Myers, 2015), and the ways in which they operate to impact on pro-environmental
behaviours. Indeed, the social identity approach specifies that people can have multiple
identities that are either personal or social (Hogg et al., 1995; Tajfel & Turner, 1979;
Turner, 1982; Turner et al., 1994). Accordingly, by anchoring these conceptualisations
of identity within the social identity approach, researchers can be more precise in terms
of what kind of identity they are measuring, what type of behaviour such identity may be
predict, and in what contexts.
From a social identity perspective, then, the constructs of ‘environmental identity’
(Clayton, 2003) and ‘environmental self-identity’ (Sparks & Shepherd, 1992; van der
Werff et al., 2014) appear to be personal identities, at the interpersonal end of the
interpersonal-intergroup continuum (Tajfel & Turner, 1979; Turner, 1999; Turner et al.,
1994), as they reflect idiosyncratic personal experiences and relationships such as one’s
personal relationship with the natural environment (Clayton, 2003; Clayton & Myers,
2015). Such identities are therefore likely to have more influence on behaviour when
people are operating as individuals, and group membership is not salient – for instance,
if completing a survey on their own, interacting with personal friends and family, or out
in nature by oneself. If this pro-environmental self-identity is made salient then it is
likely to be related to certain pro-environmental behaviours that tap into that identity,
and in particular more individualistic private sphere pro-environmental behaviours (as
CH. 8. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUDING REMARKS 186
seen in Gatersleben et al., 2012; Kashima et al., 2014; van der Werff et al., 2014;
Whitmarsh & O’Neill, 2010).
However, when individuals identify themselves as members of a group (e.g., of
environmentalists), and that identity is salient in that context, group members (as they
see themselves to be) will be more likely to engage in pro-environmental behaviours that
are normative for the environmentalist social category. Where the behaviour is
intrinsically collective and therefore requires a group, such as environmental activism,
one would expect that these behaviours would be even more likely when this group-
based identity is made salient, consistent with the findings of several social identity-
informed studies (Brunsting & Postmes, 2002; Dono et al., 2010; Fielding et al., 2008a).
Greater cohesion among group members (Hogg, 2001b), and pro-environmental
behaviour messages from prototypical group members and group leaders (Hogg, 2001a),
will also further strengthen the likelihood of such behaviours.
The findings of the present thesis also have important implications for how green
consumerism is defined and conceptualised within the pro-environmental behaviour
literature. Firstly, as outlined in Chapter 2, there is currently no clear consensus
regarding the way in which green consumerism should be conceptualised (Dembkowski
& Hanmer-Lloyd, 1994; Fisher et al., 2012; Griskevicius et al., 2010; Stern, 2000). Yet,
and consistent with the suggestions of other researchers (Antil, 1984; Barr & Gilg, 2006;
Barr, Shaw, & Gilg, 2011; Gilg, Barr, & Ford, 2005; Grønhøj, 2006; Peattie, 2010;
Roberts, 1996), this thesis demonstrated that green consumerism may be better
conceptualised as extending beyond purchasing given behaviours such as shared
purchasing, intentional non-purchase, use, re-use, comparative decision making, and
CH. 8. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUDING REMARKS 187
searching for reputable information were all considered by participants to be part of
green consumerism.
Furthermore, empirical findings of the thesis also demonstrated that green
consumerism was seen in capitalist societies such as Australia and the US as both an
individual behaviour and a collective, activist behaviour, and that green consumerism
was moderately related to environmental activism, as well as to political consumerism.
These findings are in line with recent suggestions that consumption may be better seen
as a collective behaviour, given that it can be leveraged by groups of consumers to enact
positive environmental change (Autio et al., 2009; Harrison, 2006; Peattie, 2010). It
could even be possible that some consumers perhaps even prefer consumption practices
as an activist strategy over ‘traditional’ activism such as protesting and petitioning
(Autio et al., 2009; Cherrier et al., 2011; Peattie, 2010). Indeed, the findings imply that
green consumerism is not simply about reflecting individuals’ moralistic concerns for
the environment and for others (as suggested by Thøgersen, 1999, 2011), but could also
be a ‘new’ form of environmental collective action (Peattie, 2010). This calls into
question whether it is appropriate to distinguish green consumerism from environmental
activism because it is an individualistic behaviour (as suggested by Stern), as it is with a
group of like-minded individuals that green consumerism achieves the most positive
environmental change (Dalton et al., 2003; Friedman, 1996; Micheletti & Stolle, 2012).
Theoretical Implications for the Social Identity Approach
Consistent with the idea that social identity processes contribute to our day-to-
day lives (Abrams & Hogg, 1990; Hogg & Abrams, 1988; Tajfel & Turner, 1979), this
thesis is part of a current push within the social identity literature to apply the approach
to numerous practical domains including health and well-being (Greenaway et al., 2015;
CH. 8. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUDING REMARKS 188
Haslam et al., 2016; Jetten et al., 2012), organisational behaviour (Cornelissen et al.,
2007; Haslam, 2004), and educational outcomes (Bizumic et al., 2009; Bliuc et al.,
2011) The current thesis consequently adds to this applied literature by showing that the
social identity processes of environmentalist social identification and environmentalist
stereotypes can help to explain green consumerism, and therefore pro-environmental
behaviour more generally, as previously proposed by a number of researchers (Batalha
& Reynolds, 2012; Fielding & Hornsey, 2016; Postmes et al., 2014). Indeed, only
recently has research begun to use the social identity perspective to investigate pro-
environmental behaviour, even though such behaviour is inherently ideological and
politicised and, as such, is likely to make one’s social identity more salient, and foster
intergroup behaviour such as stereotyping, hostility, and conflict (as suggested by Colvin
et al., 2015; Opotow & Brook, 2003).
Given that much of the social identity literature still investigates more ‘fixed’
social categories (such as ethnicity and gender), less politicised groups (such as
occupations or student groups), or employs experimentally constructed nominal groups
devoid of social context (Brown, 2000; Hornsey, 2008; Huddy, 2001), the current thesis
also contributes to social identity-based research by focusing on a superordinate social
identity that is based on shared ideology – that is, an opinion-based social identity (Bliuc
et al., 2007; Thomas et al., 2010, 2012). These opinion-based groups are ones that
individuals can choose to join, with permeable, fluid and unfixed boundaries, and fuzzy
prototypes, changing in parallel with the social context (Bliuc et al., 2015; McGarty et
al., 2009). The current thesis therefore makes a useful contribution by exploring with
mixed methods what individuals perceive to be the defining (prototypical) features of
one opinion-based group, that of environmentalists, and the impact that the content of
CH. 8. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUDING REMARKS 189
such identities have on people’s willingness to consider joining and identifying with
opinion-based groups (Postmes & Jetten, 2006).
For instance, in Studies 1 and 2, participants suggested that in order for one to
even consider identifying as an environmentalist one has to hold pro-environmental
beliefs and engage in a range of group-normative behaviour, although there was no clear
agreement about which behaviours were central to the prototype of this opinion-based
social category. This finding demonstrates the importance of the perceived content of an
identity to self-categorisation as a group member (Cruwys, Haslam, Dingle, Haslam, &
Jetten, 2014; Jetten, Postmes, & Mcauliffe, 2002; Postmes & Jetten, 2006), as although
shared ideology may be important in initially distinguishing the environmentalist group
from other groups, sharing this ideology is insufficient for someone to consider
themselves part of the group. Instead, individuals need to consistently enact this
ideology to be considered part of the group, by themselves and by others (Barr, 2004;
Holland et al., 2000; Ruiz-Junco, 2011; Tesch & Kempton, 2004; Tranter, 2010).
Furthermore as the social identity approach suggests that personal identity is more
strongly related to individualistic behaviours, whilst social identity is instead related to
collectively employed behaviours, it is therefore possible that collective pro-
environmental behaviours would strengthen the extent to which one sees themselves as
an ingroup member of the environmentalist social category.
These findings also show that identification and behaviour may be mutually
reinforcing of one another for opinion-based social groups, operating in a ‘virtuous
circle’ (as has been previously suggested in clinical and health arenas, see Cruwys et al.,
2014; Jetten, Haslam, Haslam, & Branscombe, 2009; Haslam & Reicher, 2006). While
identification fosters further engagement in pro-environmental action, engaging in pro-
CH. 8. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUDING REMARKS 190
environmental behaviours may be essential for forming an environmentalist social
identity in the first place (Matsuba et al., 2012; van der Werff, Steg, & Keizer, 2013a,
2014). Indeed, previous longitudinal research has shown a recursive relationship
between identity and collective action, where social identification helps to foster protest
participation, and protest participation then going on to reinforce group identification
(Klandermans, 2002).
Yet it is important to note that this particular emphasis on behaviour as an
important component of environmentalist social identity may have emerged because
concern for the natural environment is a widely held belief amongst residents of
westernised, educated, industrialised, rich, and democratic (WEIRD) societies (Bamberg,
2003; Barr, 2004; Castro, 2006; Dunlap, 1991), such as those sampled in this thesis. As
a consequence, it may be that to consider oneself a ‘true’ environmentalist within these
societies, it is not enough to say you are concerned for the environment, given most
people do so; you must also be consistently acting on this belief (Ruiz-Junco, 2011).
Practical Implications for Fostering Green Consumerism and Other Pro-
Environmental Behaviour
Taken together, the findings of the present thesis suggest that social identity
processes can be harnessed to help increase rates of green consumerism, thereby
potentially decreasing the severity of current global environmental issues arising from
unsustainable consumption (Girod et al., 2014; IPCC, 2013; Niva & Timonen, 2001).
Indeed, fostering identification with the environmentalist social category could be used
as one of the underlying psychological mechanisms for future interventions that attempt
to increase pro-environmental behaviours more generally in the public, in line with
CH. 8. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUDING REMARKS 191
previous proposals by social identity researchers (Batalha & Reynolds, 2012; Fielding &
Hornsey, 2016; Postmes et al., 2013; Rabinovich et al., 2012).
However, according to the social identity approach, for a social identity to
contribute to behaviour individuals not only need to identify with the relevant social
category or group, but the social category or group also needs to be one which hold
norms that encourage the behaviour, and this social identity must be salient in the
behavioural context (Hogg & Reid, 2006; Reynolds et al., 2015; Tajfel & Turner, 1979;
Terry & Hogg, 2000; Terry et al., 1999; Turner et al., 1987). Therefore, if attempting to
use social identity to foster green consumerism or other pro-environmental behaviours in
the general public, environmentalists and policy makers need to ensure that the group
with which individuals are encouraged to identify endorses pro-environmental norms (as
also suggested by Fielding & Hornsey, 2016; Reynolds et al., 2015). This identity should
also be made salient in contexts in which they wish individuals to engage in pro-
environmental behaviours.
Findings from this thesis also suggest that whilst encouraging identification with
the environmentalist social category could be used to increase rates of green
consumerism, environmentalists and policy makers need to be aware of how non-
environmentalists perceive the superordinate environmentalist social category (Bashir et
al., 2013; Castro et al., 2016). This is because the stereotypes held of this group can have
consequences on whether someone identifies with the environmentalist social category
in the first place, and therefore engages in group normative behaviours such as green
consumerism – as shown in Study 4. Furthermore, Study 2 also showed that although
non-environmentalists generally held positive impressions of the environmentalist social
category, these positive evaluations were also conditional on how ingroup members
CH. 8. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUDING REMARKS 192
behaved, and if they were engaged in conflict, and with whom. Indeed, these finding are
especially important to be aware of in situations where environmentalists engage in
intergroup conflict with stakeholders such as governments and industry (Colvin et al.,
2015; Fielding et al., 2005; Opotow & Brook, 2003), or in radical forms of collective
action that are seen as disruptive or socially deviant, but are essential to engage in
because they achieve positive environmental outcomes (Bashir et al., 2013; Castro et al.,
2016).
Given these considerations, environmentalists and policy makers should
emphasise the positive aspects of the superordinate environmentalist social category in
order to encourage members of the general public who do not perceive themselves as
environmentalists to choose to join the group, and subsequently to engage in pro-
environmental behaviours. This could include highlighting the altruistic and self-
sacrificing nature of environmentalists (which emerged in Study 2), as well as their
positive traits (which emerged in Studies 2 and 4). In addition, negative components of
the environmentalist stereotype could also be reframed. For example, the ‘extreme’ or
disruptive behaviour environmentalists are perceived to engage in could be reframed as
being ultimately altruistic and beneficial for the general public (Bashir et al., 2013),
whilst the intergroup conflict they engage in could be reframed as fulfilling goals of
another group with which the general public already identify, such as a national identity
(Clayton & Myers, 2015; Colvin et al., 2015; Opotow & Brook, 2003). For example,
engaging in collective action against industries that are negatively impacting on the
Great Barrier Reef could be reframed as helping Australians save an icon that is an
important part of their national identity.
CH. 8. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUDING REMARKS 193
Another potential way to encourage members of the general public to identify as
an environmentalist is to also challenge their perception that they do not engage in
enough pro-environmental behaviours to even consider self-identifying as a group
member in the first place (as shown in Studies 1 and 2). Indeed, emphasising how the
behaviours members of the general public already engage in are actually protective of
the environment could help them to perceive themselves as ‘active’ enough. This
reframing or re-establishing of past or current behaviour as being pro-environmental
may increase willingness to identify as an environmentalist ingroup member, and
thereby strengthen potential engagement in subsequent pro-environmental behaviours
such as green consumerism, as was also suggested by van der Werff et al. (2013a, 2014).
This could include, for example, emphasising to individuals who ride a bicycle for
health or cost reasons that cycling also avoids the greenhouse gas emissions produced
when cars are driven.
More broadly, a practical suggestion that also arises from the social identity
approach is the utility of employing a superordinate social category to encourage
individuals to engage in identity congruent behaviours. Individuals can be members of
smaller, interactive subgroups as well as of broader, superordinate categories (Hornsey
& Hogg, 2000a, 2000b; Turner et al., 1987), and whilst previous research has showed
that certain subgroups of environmentalists such as activists are perceived negatively
(Bashir et al., 2013; Castro et al., 2016), the present thesis demonstrated that non-
environmentalists generally perceived the superordinate environmentalist social category
positively. Environmentalists and policymakers should therefore emphasise the
superordinate social environmentalist category when attempting to increase social
identification and group normative behaviour, rather than the subgroups of
CH. 8. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUDING REMARKS 194
environmentalism with which many of the general public may disagree. These
subgroups of environmentalism could include those who perhaps engage in contentious
intergroup conflict or in radical forms of collective action that are seen as disruptive.
By extension, highlighting other superordinate social categories to which
individuals already belong could also be used as a strategy to encourage engagement in
pro-environmental behaviour, particularly if the norms of these group are already pro-
environmental or can be changed to be more pro-environmental (a tactic also suggested
by Batalha & Reynolds, 2012; Fielding & Hornsey, 2016). For instance, encouraging
non-environmentalists to identify with a national identity could be particularly useful for
this task, if the national identity is seen to hold pro-environmental norms, as is the case
with some European countries. Similarly, as the superordinate social category of
humanity is also important to some individuals self-concept (Hornsey, 2008; Turner et
al., 1987), non-environmentalists could also be encouraged to identify with the common
human group, as suggested by Reese (2016), given social identification to this group has
been found to predict pro-environmental behaviours and fair trade consumption (Reese
& Kohlmann, 2015; Reysen & Katzarska-Miller, 2013). Such strategies therefore could
circumvent the impact that negative stereotypes of environmentalists have on
environmentalist social identification all together, by removing the need to make
environmentalist social identity salient in the first place.
Limitations of the Research and Directions for Future Research
Although the current thesis was exploratory in nature, findings from the four
empirical studies clearly suggest that environmentalist stereotypes and environmentalist
social identity each contribute to engagement in green consumerism, even amongst
individuals of the general public who do not belong environmental organisations (i.e.,
CH. 8. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUDING REMARKS 195
non-environmentalists or environmentalist outgroup members). Yet, as only qualitative
and cross-sectional correlational research methods were utilised in the present thesis,
whether the relationships are causal has yet to be confirmed. Furthermore, if causal
relationships exist between these variables, the direction of such relationships, and
whether they are unidirectional or bidirectional, has also to be verified.
However it must be noted that the current thesis employed the social identity
approach, which posits that social identity is a precursor to both social behaviour and
group processes (Tajfel & Turner, 1979/1986; Turner et al., 1987), with a plethora of
studies demonstrating this is be the case (see Ellemers et al., 2002; Jetten et al., 2004, for
example, for some reviews). Nevertheless, it is still possible that the link between social
identification and pro-environmental behaviour may be in the opposite direction, with
behaviour strengthening identity, given participants in Studies 1 and 2 indicated that one
needed to be ‘active’ in their pro-environmental behaviours in order to identify oneself
as an environmentalist. Indeed, previous studies have showed that individuals’ strength
of environmentalist self-identity increases when they are alerted to their past behaviour
being pro-environmental, with self-identity and pro-environmental behaviour found to
mutually reinforce one another (Matsuba et al., 2012; van der Werff, Steg, & Keizer,
2013a, 2014). Identification and stereotypes may also have a reciprocal relationship,
with positive stereotypes of environmentalists fostering identification with that identity,
and stronger environmentalist social identity further strengthening this positive
stereotype by exposure to consensual validation of the stereotype from ingroup members
(Haslam et al., 1996, 1999).
Given these considerations, then, future research should employ experimental
and longitudinal methodologies in order to clarify the causal influence social identity
CH. 8. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUDING REMARKS 196
processes such as social identification and group stereotypes have on green consumerism
(and pro-environmental behaviour more generally). Future research could include, but is
not limited to, manipulating the content and salience of both environmentalist social
identity and environmentalist stereotypes, and measuring whether these manipulations
change individuals’ green consumerism. By employing longitudinal methodologies that
employ cross-lagged designs in particular, future research could also go on to investigate
whether the variables investigated within the current thesis also mutually reinforce one
another.
Another limitation of this research project is the reliance on behavioural self-
reports to measure pro-environmental constructs as well as the use of plain language
statements that stated the purpose of the studies (see Appendix A). For instance, in
Studies 3 and 4, participants were asked to rate their level of green consumerism, rather
than their actual consumption behaviour being measured, whilst all of the studies within
the present thesis contained statements that outlined the aims of the studies (as was
required by the ethics board). Some within the pro-environmental literature (e.g.,
Gatersleben et al., 2002; Gifford, 2014; Stern, 2011) have raised concerns about whether
using such self-report measures accurately reflect pro-environmental behaviour,
especially given social desirability pressures, and difficulties in recalling pro-
environmental behaviours. Furthermore it is possible that indicating the purpose of each
of the studies may have set up demand characteristics. As such, to further strengthen the
conclusions made in this thesis, future research should therefore measure green
consumerism more directly, either with behavioural observation, or through the proxy
measurement of consumption (such as energy or water consumption), as suggested by
Stern (2011).
CH. 8. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUDING REMARKS 197
It is also important to acknowledge that whilst this thesis was predominantly
interested in exploring how social identity processes were related to green consumerism,
this does not mean that self-identity is no longer considered to be predictive of green
consumerism (or pro-environmental behaviour more generally). In fact, previous
research has consistently shown that personal ‘green’ or ‘environmental’ identities are
also predictive of a wealth of pro-environmental behaviours (e.g., Clayton, 2003, 2012;
Gatersleben et al., 2014; Sparks & Shepherd, 1992; Whitmarsh & O’Neill, 2010). As it
was outside the scope of this thesis to measure such personal identities, this thesis cannot
conclude whether environmentalist social identity is a ‘better’ predictor of pro-
environmental behaviour when compared to such personal identities. Nevertheless, the
integration of personal and social identity in relation to environmentalism, including
which of the two is a stronger predictor of pro-environmental behaviours and in what
social contexts, presents a fruitful area for future research.
On a related point, although the focus of the research program was upon social
identity processes, warranting the exclusion of other individual-level variables, findings
of Studies 1 and 2 did suggest that biospheric values and political ideology were
potentially important to environmentalist social identification as well as outgroup
stereotypes of environmentalists. For instance, in Studies 1 and 2 participants discussed
how valuing nature was a key aspect of the environmentalist social category, suggesting
the need for one to hold biospheric values to share that social identity. As biospheric
values have been found to precede environmental self-identity (Gatersleben et al., 2014;
Ruepert et al., 2016; van der Werff, Steg, & Keizer, 2013a, 2013c), it is possible that
fostering biospheric values in non-environmentalists could further strengthen non-
environmentalists’ willingness to identify as an environmentalist ingroup member.
CH. 8. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUDING REMARKS 198
Furthermore, Studies 1 and 2 also showed that many participants saw
environmentalists as left-leaning and politically contentious. It is important to highlight
that environmental issues have become increasingly politically polarised (Dunlap et al.,
2016; Fielding et al., 2012; McCright et al., 2014), and that those who hold right wing
ideologies have been shown to be threatened by environmentalists due to the social
change they promote (Hoffarth & Hodson, 2016). Given this, it is also possible that
those who hold conservative political ideologies may have stronger negative stereotypes
of environmentalists, leading them to be less likely to identify as an environmentalist
ingroup member than would their liberal or moderate counterparts. This avoidance of the
environmentalist social category could in turn contribute to their possible lower levels of
green consumerism (and pro-environmental behaviour more generally). Future research
should pursue these possibilities, especially the contribution of biospheric values and
political ideology, in order to gain a greater understanding of what leads to and limits
one from identifying as an environmentalist and engaging in identity congruent
behaviour.
At a broader level, another potential limitation of this work is that it can only be
safely generalised to the national contexts from which samples were recruited. Although
the use of samples from Australia (Study 1) and the US (Studies 2, 3, and 4) was
warranted given these countries’ focus on green consumerism as a means to address
environmental concerns (Connor, 2012; Erickson, 2011; Jackson, 2005; Ölander &
Thøgersen, 1995; Stern, 1998), the findings of this thesis are likely to reflect the social
realities of these countries. In fact, in other westernised countries where
environmentalism is seen as more normative of their cultural or national identity, such as
Germany or Scandinavian countries, green consumerism may not even be perceived as
CH. 8. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUDING REMARKS 199
something that is solely the domain of environmentalists (Gifford, 2014). That is, some
cultures may have incorporated environmentalism and pro-environmental norms as part
of their national belief system, with consequences for how they view environmentalists.
Further research should therefore investigate the relationships between environmentalist
social identities, environmentalist stereotypes, and green consumerism, in both
developing nations and other westernised nations where environmentalism is part of
their national identity, to determine how these relationships differ cross-culturally.
Concluding Remarks
Given the need to mitigate current global environmental issues that arise from
unsustainable consumption practices (Girod et al., 2014; IPCC, 2013; Niva & Timonen,
2001; Peattie, 2010; Stern, 1999), the current thesis aimed to investigate how social
identity processes, especially those related to social identification and group stereotypes,
could help to encourage engagement in green consumerism amongst individuals who did
not perceive themselves to be environmentalists. In particular, the current thesis was the
first to explore what environmentalists and non-environmentalists alike perceived to be
involved in green consumerism, what stereotypes non-environmentalists held of the
superordinate environmentalist social category, and whether environmentalist social
identity and outgroup stereotypes of environmentalists were predictive of green
consumerism in non-environmentalists.
Across four empirical studies that employed complementary research approaches,
this thesis illustrated that not only could green consumerism be seen as a pro-
environmental that could be individually and collectively employed and that
encompassed multiple environmentally friendly consumption acts, it was also
moderately related to other individualistic (i.e., willingness to sacrifice) and
CH. 8. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUDING REMARKS 200
collectivistic (i.e., political consumerism and environmental activism) behaviours
intended to preserve the environment. Furthermore, environmentalist social identity was
found to be moderately predictive of engagement in green consumerism, with outgroup
members’ stereotypes of environmentalists exerting an indirect effect on green
consumerism through their strength of environmentalist social identity.
As such, the results of the four studies presented provide further evidence that
social identity processes, especially the psychological mechanism of social identification,
may underpin green consumerism. Indeed, findings of the present thesis support the
suggestion of Fielding and Hornsey (2016) that enhancing social identity may serve as a
fruitful strategy to help increase pro-environmental attitudes and behaviours, and thereby
mitigate environmental problems such as climate change. Yet, the findings of the present
thesis also show that although engaging in green consumerism and ‘voting with your
dollar’ is perceived to create positive outcomes for the environment, one’s identification
as a ‘greenie’, and the perceptions one has of ‘greenies’, are important for researchers,
environmentalists, and policy makers alike to consider when attempting to increase such
green consumerism, and perhaps even pro-environmental behaviour more generally.
REFERENCES 201
References
Abrams, D., & Hogg, M. A. (1990). Social identification, self-categorization and social
influence. European Review of Social Psychology, 1(1), 195-228.
doi:10.1080/14792779108401862
Aguilar-Luzón, M. C., García-Martínez, J. M. Á., Calvo-Salguero, A., & Salinas, J. M.
(2012). Comparative study between the theory of planned behavior and the
value-belief-norm model regarding the environment, on Spanish housewives’
recycling behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 42(11), 2797-2833.
doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2012.00962.x
Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behaviour. New York:
Springer-Verlag.
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 50(2), 179-211. doi:10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
Akehurst, G., Afonso, C., & Gonçalves, H. M. (2012). Re-examining green purchase
behaviour and the green consumer profile: New evidences. Management
Decision, 50(5), 972-988. doi:10.1108/00251741211227726
Akenji, L. (2014). Consumer scapegoatism and limits to green consumerism. Journal of
Cleaner Production, 63, 13-23. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.05.022
Alfredsson, E. C. (2004). “Green” consumption—No solution for climate change.
Energy, 29(4), 513-524. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2003.10.013
Amiot, C. E., Sansfaçon, S., & Louis, W. R. (2014). How normative and social
identification processes predict self-determination to engage in derogatory
behaviours against outgroup hockey fans. European Journal of Social
Psychology, 44, 216-239. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2006
Anderson, J. (2010). From ‘zombies’ to ‘coyotes’: Environmentalism where we are.
Environmental Politics, 19(6), 973-991. doi:10.1080/09644016.2010.518684
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A
review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3),
411-423. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.411
REFERENCES 202
Antil, J. H. (1984). Socially responsible consumers: Profile and implications for public
policy. Journal of Macromarketing, 4(2), 18-39.
doi:10.1177/027614678400400203
Arvola, A., Vassallo, M., Dean, M., Lampila, P., Saba, A., Lähteenmäki, L., & Shepherd,
R. (2008). Predicting intentions to purchase organic food: The role of affective
and moral attitudes in the Theory of Planned Behaviour. Appetite, 50(2–3), 443-
454. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2007.09.010
Autio, M., Heiskanen, E., & Heinonen, V. (2009). Narratives of ‘green’ consumers - The
antihero, the environmental hero and the anarchist. Journal of Consumer
Behaviour, 8(1), 40-53. doi:10.1002/cb.272
Balch, O. (2014, October 15). Fighting over groundwater: Water companies vs
environmentalists. The Guardian. Retrieved from
http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2014/oct/14/water-companies-
environmentalists-fight-groundwater-over-abstraction
Balderjahn, I. (1988). Personality variables and environmental attitudes as predictors of
ecologically responsible consumption patterns. Journal of Business Ethics, 17,
51-56.
Balderjahn, I., Peyer, M., & Paulssen, M. (2013). Consciousness for fair consumption:
Conceptualization, scale development and empirical validation. International
Journal of Consumer Studies, 37(5), 546-555. doi:10.1111/ijcs.12030
Bamberg, S. (2002). Implementation intention versus monetary incentive comparing the
effects of interventions to promote the purchase of organically produced food.
Journal of Economic Psychology, 23(5), 573-587. doi:10.1016/S0167-
4870(02)00118-6
Bamberg, S. (2003). How does environmental concern influence specific
environmentally related behaviors? A new answer to an old question. Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 23(1), 21-32. doi:10.1016/S0272-4944(02)00078-6
Bamberg, S., & Möser, G. (2007). Twenty years after Hines, Hungerford, and Tomera:
A new meta-analysis of psycho-social determinants of pro-environmental
behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 27(1), 14-25.
doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2006.12.002
REFERENCES 203
Bamberg, S., Rees, J., & Seebauer, S. (2015). Collective climate action: Determinants of
participation intention in community-based pro-environmental initiatives.
Journal of Environmental Psychology, 43, 155-165.
doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2015.06.006
Bang, H. K., Ellinger, A. E., Hadjimarcou, J., & Traichal, P. A. (2000). Consumer
concern, knowledge, belief, and attitude toward renewable energy: An
application of the reasoned action theory. Psychology and Marketing, 17(6), 449-
468.
Barbarossa, C., Beckmann, S. C., De Pelsmacker, P., Moons, I., & Gwozdz, W. (2015).
A self-identity based model of electric car adoption intention: A cross-cultural
comparative study. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 42, 149-160.
doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2015.04.001
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in
social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical
considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173-1182.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173
Barr, S. (2004). Are we all environmentalists now? Rhetoric and reality in
environmental action. Geoforum, 35(2), 231-249.
doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2003.08.009
Barr, S. (2007). Factors influencing environmental attitudes and behaviors: A U.K. case
study of household waste management. Environment and Behavior, 39(4), 435-
473. doi:10.1177/0013916505283421
Barr, S., & Gilg, A. (2006). Sustainable lifestyles: Framing environmental action in and
around the home. Geoforum, 37(6), 906-920.
doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2006.05.002
Barr, S., Shaw, G., & Gilg, A. W. (2011). The policy and practice of ‘sustainable
lifestyles’. Journal of Environmental Planning & Management, 54(10), 1331-
1350. doi:10.1080/09640568.2011.574996
Bartels, J., & Hoogendam, K. (2011). The role of social identity and attitudes toward
sustainability brands in buying behaviors for organic products. Journal of Brand
Management, 18(9), 697-708. doi:10.1057/bm.2011.3
REFERENCES 204
Bartels, J., & Onwezen, M. C. (2014). Consumers’ willingness to buy products with
environmental and ethical claims: The roles of social representations and social
identity. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 38(1), 82-89.
doi:10.1111/ijcs.12067
Bartels, J., & Reinders, M. J. (2016). Consuming apart, together: The role of multiple
identities in sustainable behaviour. International Journal of Consumer Studies,
40(4), 444-452. doi:10.1111/ijcs.12269
Bartels, J., & van den Berg, I. (2011). Fresh fruit and vegetables and the added value of
antioxidants: Attitudes of non-, light, and heavy organic food users. British Food
Journal, 113(11), 1339-1352.
Bashir, N. Y. (2010). “Green” doesn’t always make good impressions: Evaluations of
different types of environmentalists (Doctoral thesis, University of Toronto,
Canada). Retrieved from http://tspace.library.utoronto.ca
Bashir, N. Y., Lockwood, P., Chasteen, A. L., Nadolny, D., & Noyes, I. (2013). The
ironic impact of activists: Negative stereotypes reduce social change influence.
European Journal of Social Psychology, 43(7), 614-626. doi:10.1002/ejsp.1983
Batalha, L., & Reynolds, K. J. (2012). ASPIRing to mitigate climate change:
Superordinate identity in global climate negotiations. Political Psychology, 33(5),
743-760. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9221.2012.00896.x
Baumeister, R. F., & Twenge, J. M. (2003). The social self. In Handbook of psychology
Part three: Social psychology, 14, 327-352.
Berinsky, A. J., Huber, G. A., & Lenz, G. S. (2012). Evaluating online labor markets for
experimental research: Amazon.com’s Mechanical Turk. Political Analysis,
20(3), 351-368. doi:10.1093/pan/mpr057
Berryman-Fink, C., & Verderber, K. S. (1985). Attributions of the term feminist: A
factor analytic development of a measuring instrument. Psychology of Women
Quarterly, 9(1), 51-64.
Bertoldo, R., & Castro, P. (2016). The outer influence inside us: Exploring the relation
between social and personal norms. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 112,
45-53.
Bizumic, B., Reynolds, K. J., Turner, J. C., Bromhead, D., & Subasic, E. (2009). The
role of the group in individual functioning: School identification and the
REFERENCES 205
psychological well-being of staff and students. Applied Psychology: An
International Review, 58(1), 171-192. doi:10.1111/j.1464-0597.2008.00387.x
Black, I. (2010). Sustainability through anti-consumption. Journal of Consumer
Behaviour, 9(6), 403-411. doi:10.1002/cb.340
Black, I. R., & Cherrier, H. (2010). Anti-consumption as part of living a sustainable
lifestyle: Daily practices, contextual motivations and subjective values. Journal
of Consumer Behaviour, 9(6), 437-453.
Black, J. S., Stern, P. C., & Elworth, J. T. (1985). Personal and contextual influences on
household energy adaptations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70(1), 3-21.
Bliuc, A.-M., Ellis, R., Goodyear, P., & Hendres, D. (2011). Understanding student
learning in context: Relationships between university students’ social identity,
approaches to learning, and academic performance. European Journal of
Psychology of Education, 26(3), 417-433. doi:10.1007/s10212-011-0065-6
Bliuc, A.-M., McGarty, C., Reynolds, K., & Muntele, D. (2007). Opinion-based group
membership as a predictor of commitment to political action. European Journal
of Social Psychology, 37(1), 19-32. doi:10.1002/ejsp.334
Bliuc, A.-M., McGarty, C., Thomas, E. F., Lala, G., Berndsen, M., & Misajon, R. (2015).
Public division about climate change rooted in conflicting socio-political
identities. Nature: Climate Change, 5, 226-229. doi:10.1038/nclimate2507
Bohlen, G., Schlegelmilch, B. B., & Diamantopoulos, A. (1993). Measuring ecological
concern: A multi-construct perspective. Journal of Marketing Management, 9(4),
415-430.
Borin, N., Lindsey-Mullikin, J., & Krishnan, R. (2013). An analysis of consumer
reactions to green strategies. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 22(2),
118-128. doi:10.1108/10610421311320997
Bossy, S. (2014). The utopias of political consumerism: The search of alternatives to
mass consumption. Journal of Consumer Culture, 14(2), 179-198.
doi:10.1177/1469540514526238
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative
Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101. doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2013). Successful qualitative research: A practical guide for
beginners. London: Sage.
REFERENCES 206
Brécard, D., Hlaimi, B., Lucas, S., Perraudeau, Y., & Salladarré, F. (2009).
Determinants of demand for green products: An application to eco-label demand
for fish in Europe. Ecological Economics, 69(1), 115-125.
doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.07.017
Brewer, M. B., & Brown, R. J. (1998). Intergroup relations. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Brown, R. (2000). Social identity theory: Past achievements, current problems and
future challenges. European Journal of Social Psychology, 30(6), 745-778.
Brown, R., Condor, S., Mathews, A., Wade, G., & Williams, J. (1986). Explaining
intergroup differentiation in an industrial organization. Journal of Occupational
Psychology, 59(4), 273-286.
Brügger, A., Kaiser, F. G., & Roczen, N. (2011). One for all? Connectedness to nature,
inclusion of nature, environmental identity, and implicit association with nature.
European Psychologist, 16(4), 324-333. doi:10.1027/1016-9040/a000032
Brulle, R. J. (1996). Environmental discourse and social movement organizations: A
historical and rhetorical perspective on the development of U.S. environmental
organizations. Sociological Inquiry, 66(1), 58-83.
Brunsting, S., & Postmes, T. (2002). Social movement participation in the digital age:
Predicting offline and online collective action. Small Group Research, 33, 525-
554. doi:10.1177/104649602237169
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(1), 3-5. doi:10.1177/1745691610393980
Byrne, B. M. (2001). Structural equation modeling with AMOS, EQS, and LISREL:
Comparative approaches to testing for the factorial validity of a measuring
instrument. International Journal of Testing, 1(1), 55-86.
Carrington, M. J., Neville, B. A., & Whitwell, G. J. (2010). Why ethical consumers
don’t walk their talk: Towards a framework for understanding the gap between
the ethical purchase intentions and actual buying behaviour of ethically minded
consumers. Journal of Business Ethics, 97, 139-158.
Carter, S. M., & Little, M. (2007). Justifying knowledge, justifying method, taking
action: Epistemologies, methodologies, and methods in qualitative research.
REFERENCES 207
Qualitative Health Research, 17(10), 1316-1328.
doi:10.1177/1049732307306927
Castro, P. (2006). Applying social psychology to the study of environmental concern
and environmental worldviews: Contributions from the social representations
approach. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 16(4), 247-266.
Castro, P., Uzelgun, M. A., & Bertolodo, R. (2016). Climate change activism between
weak and strong environmentalism: Advocating social change with moderate
argumentation strategies? In C. Howarth & E. Andreouli (Eds.), The social
psychology of everyday politics (pp. 1-22). London: Routledge.
Chan, R. Y. K. (2000). The effectiveness of environmental advertising: The role of
claim type and the source country green image. International Journal of
Advertising, 19(3), 349-375.
Chan, R. Y. K., & Lau, L. B. Y. (2000). Antecedents of green purchases: A survey in
China. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 17(4), 338-357.
doi:10.1108/07363760010335358
Chatard, A., Selimbegović, L., & Konan, P. N. D. (2008). Leftists’ and rightists’ IQ as a
function of stereotype salience. Journal of Research in Personality, 42(6), 1602-
1606. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2008.05.004
Chen, Y.-S. (2010). The drivers of green brand equity: Green brand image, green
satisfaction, and green trust. Journal of Business Ethics, 93(2), 307-319.
doi:10.1007/s10551-009-0223-9
Cherrier, H. (2009). Anti-consumption discourses and consumer-resistant identities.
Journal of Business Research, 62(2), 181-190. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2008.01.025
Cherrier, H., Black, I. R., & Lee, M. (2011). Intentional non‐consumption for
sustainability. European Journal of Marketing, 45(11/12), 1757-1767.
doi:10.1108/03090561111167397
Clark, C. F., Kotchen, M. J., & Moore, M. R. (2003). Internal and external influences on
pro-environmental behavior: Participation in a green electricity program. Journal
of Environmental Psychology, 23(3), 237-246. doi:10.1016/S0272-
4944(02)00105-6
REFERENCES 208
Clayton, S. (2003). Environmental identity: A conceptual and an operational definition.
In S. Clayton & S. Opotow (Eds.), Identity and the natural environment: The
psychological significance of nature (pp. 45-65). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Clayton, S. (2012). Environment and identity. In S. Clayton (Ed.), The Oxford handbook
of environmental and conservation psychology (pp. 164-180). New York: Oxford
University Press.
Clayton, S., & Brook, A. (2005). Can psychology help save the world? A model for
conservation psychology. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 5(1), 87-
102.
Clayton, S., Fraser, J., & Burgess, C. (2011). The role of zoos in fostering environmental
identity. Ecopsychology, 3(2), 87-96. doi:10.1089/eco.2010.0079
Clayton, S. D., & Myers, G. (2015). Conservation psychology: Understanding and
promoting human care for nature (2nd ed.). Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley
Blackwell.
Clayton, S. D., & Opotow, S. (Eds.) (2003). Identity and the natural environment: The
psychological significance of nature: Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Clifford, S., Jewell, R. M., & Waggoner, P. D. (2015). Are samples drawn from
Mechanical Turk valid for research on political ideology? Research & Politics,
2(4), 1-9. doi:10.1177/2053168015622072
Colvin, R. M., Witt, G. B., & Lacey, J. (2015). The social identity approach to
understanding socio-political conflict in environmental and natural resources
management. Global Environmental Change, 34, 237-246.
Connolly, J., & Prothero, A. (2003). Sustainable consumption: Consumption, consumers
and the commodity discourse. Consumption, Markets & Culture, 6(4), 275-291.
doi:10.1080/1025386032000168311
Connor, L. H. (2012). Experimental publics: Activist culture and political intelligibility
of climate change action in the Hunter Valley, southeast Australia. Oceania,
82(3), 228-249. doi:10.1002/j.1834-4461.2012.tb00131.x
Cook, A. J., Kerr, G. N., & Moore, K. (2002). Attitudes and intentions towards
purchasing GM food. Journal of Economic Psychology, 23, 557-572.
doi:10.1016/S0167-4870(02)00117-4
REFERENCES 209
Cornelissen, J. P., Haslam, S. A., & Balmer, J. T. (2007). Social identity, organizational
identity and corporate identity: Towards an integrated understanding of processes,
patternings and products. British Journal of Management, 18(S1), S1-S16.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-8551.2007.00522.x
Costa Pinto, D., Herter, M. M., Rossi, P., & Borges, A. (2014). Going green for self or
for others? Gender and identity salience effects on sustainable consumption.
International Journal of Consumer Studies, 38(5), 540-549.
doi:10.1111/ijcs.12114
Costarelli, S., & Callà, R. M. (2007). Cross-dimension-ambivalent in-group stereotypes:
The moderating roles of social context of stereotype endorsement and in-group
identification. Journal of Social Psychology, 147(5), 543-554.
Crane, D. (2010). Environmental change and the future of consumption: Implications for
consumer identity. Anuario Filosófico, 43(2), 353-379.
Cruwys, T., Haslam, S. A., Dingle, G. A., Haslam, C., & Jetten, J. (2014). Depression
and social identity: An integrative review. Personality and Social Psychology
Review, 18(3), 215-238. doi:10.1177/1088868314523839
Cundiff, J. L., Vescio, T. K., Loken, E., & Lo, L. (2013). Do gender–science stereotypes
predict science identification and science career aspirations among
undergraduate science majors? Social Psychology of Education, 16(4), 541-554.
doi:10.1007/s11218-013-9232-8
Dalton, R. J. (2015). Waxing or waning? The changing patterns of environmental
activism. Environmental Politics, 24(4), 441-459.
Dalton, R. J., Recchia, S., & Rohrschneider, R. (2003). The environmental movement
and the modes of political action. Comparative Political Studies, 36(7), 743-771.
Dangelico, R. M., & Pontrandolfo, P. (2010). From green product definitions and
classifications to the Green Option Matrix. Journal of Cleaner Production,
18(16–17), 1608-1628. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2010.07.007
Dauvergne, P., & Lister, J. (2010). The prospects and limits of eco-consumerism:
Shopping our way to less deforestation? Organization & Environment, 23(2),
132-154. doi:10.1177/1086026610368370
REFERENCES 210
Davis, J. L., Le, B., & Coy, A. E. (2011). Building a model of commitment to the natural
environment to predict ecological behavior and willingness to sacrifice. Journal
of Environmental Psychology, 31(3), 257-265. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2011.01.004
Dean, M., Raats, M. M., & Shepherd, R. (2008). Moral concerns and consumer choice
of fresh and processed organic foods. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,
38(8), 2088-2107. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2008.00382.x
Dembkowski, S., & Hanmer-Lloyd, S. (1994). The environmental value-attitude-system
model: A framework to guide the understanding of environmentally-conscious
consumer behaviour. Journal of Marketing Management, 10, 593-603.
Dermody, J., Hanmer-Lloyd, S., Koenig-Lewis, N., & Zhao, A. L. (2015). Advancing
sustainable consumption in the UK and China: The mediating effect of pro-
environmental self-identity. Journal of Marketing Management, 31, 1472-1502.
doi:10.1080/0267257X.2015.1061039
de Weerd, M., & Klandermans, B. (1999). Group identification and political protest:
Farmers’ protest in the Netherlands. European Journal of Social Psychology,
29(8), 1073-1095.
Diamantopoulos, A., Schlegelmilch, B. B., Sinkovics, R. R., & Bohlen, G. M. (2003).
Can socio-demographics still play a role in profiling green consumers? A review
of the evidence and an empirical investigation. Journal of Business Research,
56(6), 465-480. doi:10.1016/S0148-2963(01)00241-7
Dietz, T., Stern, P. C., & Guagnano, G. A. (1998). Social structural and social
psychological bases of environmental concern. Environment and Behavior, 30(4),
450-471. doi:10.1177/001391659803000402
Dolnicar, S., & Grün, B. (2009). Environmentally friendly behavior: Can heterogeneity
among individuals and contexts/environments be harvested for improved
sustainable management? Environment and Behavior, 41(5), 693-714.
doi:10.1177/0013916508319448
Dono, J., Webb, J., & Richardson, B. (2010). The relationship between environmental
activism, pro-environmental behaviour and social identity. Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 30(2), 178-186. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2009.11.006
Dresner, M., Handelman, C., Braun, S., & Rollwagen-Bollens, G. (2015).
Environmental identity, pro-environmental behaviors, and civic engagement of
REFERENCES 211
volunteer stewards in Portland area parks. Environmental Education Research,
21(7), 991-1010. doi:10.1080/13504622.2014.964188
D’Souza, C., Taghian, M., & Khosla, R. (2007). Examination of environmental beliefs
and its impact on the influence of price, quality and demographic characteristics
with respect to green purchase intention. Journal of Targeting, Measurement &
Analysis for Marketing, 15(2), 69-78. doi:10.1057/palgrave.jt.5750039
Duncan, L. E. (2010). Women’s relationship to feminism: Effects of generation and
feminist self-labeling. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 34(4), 498-507.
doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.2010.01599.x
Dunlap, R. E. (1991). Trends in public opinion toward environmental issues: 1965–1990.
Society and Natural Resources, 4(3), 285-312. doi:10.1080/08941929109380761
Dunlap, R. E., McCright, A. M., & Yarosh, J. H. (2016). The political divide on climate
change: Partisan polarization widens in the U.S. Environment: Science and
Policy for Sustainable Development, 58(5), 4-23.
doi:10.1080/00139157.2016.1208995
Dunlap, R. E., van Liere, K. D., Mertig, A. G., & Jones, R. E. (2000). New trends in
measuring environmental attitudes: Measuring endorsement of the new
ecological paradigm: A revised NEP Scale. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 425-
442. doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00176
Durif, F., Roy, J., & Boivin, C. (2012). Could perceived risks explain the ‘green gap’ in
green product consumption? Electronic Green Journal, 1(33), 1-15.
Easton, G. (2010). Critical realism in case study research. Industrial Marketing
Management, 39, 118-128. doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2008.06.004
Ellemers, N., Kortekaas, P., & Ouwerkerk, J. W. (1999). Self-categorisation,
commitment to the group and group self-esteem as related but distinct aspects of
social identity. European Journal of Social Psychology, 29(2/3), 371-389.
Ellemers, N., Spears, R., & Doosje, B. (2002). Self and social identity. Annual Review of
Psychology, 53(1), 161-186. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135228
Ellemers, N., van Knippenberg, A., de Vries, N., & Wilke, H. (1988). Social
identification and permeability of group boundaries. European Journal of Social
Psychology, 18(6), 497-513.
REFERENCES 212
Ellemers, N., van Knippenberg, A., & Wilke, H. A. (1990). The influence of
permeability of group boundaries and stability of group status on strategies of
individual mobility and social change. British Journal of Social Psychology,
29(3), 233-246.
Ellemers, N., Wilke, H., & van Knippenberg, A. (1993). Effects of the legitimacy of low
group or individual status on individual and collective status-enhancement
strategies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(5), 766-778.
Ellen, P. S. (1994). Do we know what we need to know? Objective and subjective
knowledge effects on pro-ecological behaviors. Journal of Business Research,
30(1), 43-52.
Environment Victoria. (2014). Why ‘I’m not a greenie but...’. Retrieved from
http://environmentvictoria.org.au/whynotagreenie
Erickson, B. (2011). Recreational activism: Politics, nature, and the rise of neoliberalism.
Leisure Studies, 30(4), 477-494. doi:10.1080/02614367.2011.594078
Ferguson, M. A., Branscombe, N. R., & Reynolds, K. J. (2011). The effect of intergroup
comparison on willingness to perform sustainable behavior. Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 31(4), 275-281. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2011.04.001
Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. London: Sage.
Fielding, K. S., Head, B. W., Laffan, W., Western, M., & Hoegh-Guldberg, O. (2012).
Australian politicians’ beliefs about climate change: Political partisanship and
political ideology. Environmental Politics, 21(5), 712-733.
doi:10.1080/09644016.2012.698887
Fielding, K. S., & Hornsey, M. J. (2016). A social identity analysis of climate change
and environmental attitudes and behaviors: Insights and opportunities. Frontiers
in Psychology, 7, 121. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00121
Fielding, K. S., McDonald, R., & Louis, W. R. (2008a). Theory of planned behaviour,
identity and intentions to engage in environmental activism. Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 28(4), 318-326. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2008.03.003
Fielding, K. S., Terry, D. J., Masser, B. M., Bordia, P., & Hogg, M. A. (2005).
Explaining landholders’ decisions about riparian zone management: The role of
behavioural, normative, and control beliefs. Journal of Environmental
Management, 77(1), 12-21. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2005.03.002
REFERENCES 213
Fielding, K. S., Terry, D. J., Masser, B. M., & Hogg, M. A. (2008b). Integrating social
identity theory and the theory of planned behaviour to explain decisions to
engage in sustainable agricultural practices. British Journal of Social Psychology,
47(1), 23-48. doi:10.1348/014466607X206792
Fisher, C., Bashyal, S., & Bachman, B. (2012). Demographic impacts on
environmentally friendly purchase behaviors. Journal of Targeting,
Measurement & Analysis for Marketing, 20(3/4), 172-184.
doi:10.1057/jt.2012.13
Follows, S. B., & Jobber, D. (2000). Environmentally responsible purchase behaviour: A
test of a consumer model. European Journal of Marketing, 34(5/6), 723-746.
FoodDrinkEurope. (2012). Environmental sustainability vision toward 2030:
Achievements, challenges and opportunities (3rd ed.). Brussels: Author.
Retrieved from http://sustainability.fooddrinkeurope.eu
Forman, J., & Damschroder, L. (2008). Qualitative content analysis. In L. Jacoby & L. A.
Siminoff (Eds.), Empirical methods for bioethics: A primer (pp. 39-62). Oxford,
UK: JAI Press.
Forno, F., & Graziano, P. R. (2014). Sustainable community movement organisations.
Journal of Consumer Culture, 14(2), 139-157. doi:10.1177/1469540514526225
Fraj, E., & Martinez, E. (2006). Environmental values and lifestyles as determining
factors of ecological consumer behaviour: An empirical analysis. Journal of
Consumer Marketing, 23(3), 133-144. doi:10.1108/07363760610663295
Friedman, M. (1995). On promoting a sustainable future through consumer activism.
Journal of Social Issues, 51(4), 197-215. doi:O22-4537/95/lJ0O-O197$03.OO
Friedman, M. (1996). A positive approach to organized consumer action: The ‘boycott’
as an alternative to the boycott. Journal of Consumer Policy, 19(4), 439-451.
Frith, H., & Gleeson, K. (2008). Dressing the body: The role of clothing in sustaining
body pride and managing body distress. Qualitative Research in Psychology,
5(4), 249-264. doi:10.1080/14780880701752950
Fuentes, C. (2014). Managing green complexities: Consumers’ strategies and techniques
for greener shopping. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 38(5), 485-492.
doi:10.1111/ijcs.12124
REFERENCES 214
Gaffney, A. M., Hogg, M. A., Cooper, J., & Stone, J. (2012). Witness to hypocrisy:
Reacting to ingroup hypocrites in the presence of others. Social Influence, 7(2),
98-112. doi:10.1080/15534510.2012.663741
Gatersleben, B. (2012). Measuring environmental behaviour. In L. Steg, A. E. van den
Berg & J. I. M. de Groot (Eds.), Environmental psychology: An introduction (pp.
132-140). Chichester, West Sussex; Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Gatersleben, B., Murtagh, N., & Abrahamse, W. (2014). Values, identity and pro-
environmental behaviour. Contemporary Social Science, 9(4), 374-392.
doi:10.1080/21582041.2012.682086
Gatersleben, B., Steg, L., & Vlek, C. (2002). Measurement and determinants of
environmentally significant consumer behavior. Environment & Behavior, 34(3),
335-362. doi:10.1177/0013916502034003004
Gatersleben, B., White, E., Abrahamse, W., Jackson, T., & Uzzell, D. (2010). Values
and sustainable lifestyles. Architectural Science Review, 53(1), 37-50.
doi:10.3763/asre.2009.0101
Gifford, R. (2014). Environmental psychology matters. Annual Review of Psychology,
65, 541-579. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115048
Gifford, R., & Nilsson, A. (2014). Personal and social factors that influence pro-
environmental concern and behaviour: A review. International Journal Of
Psychology, 49(3), 141-157. doi:10.1002/ijop.12034
Gilg, A., Barr, S., & Ford, N. (2005). Green consumption or sustainable lifestyles?
Identifying the sustainable consumer. Futures, 37(6), 481-504.
doi:10.1016/j.futures.2004.10.016
Girod, B., van Vuuren, D. P., & Hertwich, E. G. (2014). Climate policy through
changing consumption choices: Options and obstacles for reducing greenhouse
gas emissions. Global Environmental Change, 25, 5-15.
doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.01.004
Graham, J., Haidt, J., & Nosek, B. A. (2009). Liberals and conservatives rely on
different sets of moral foundations. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 96(5), 1029-1046.
Greenaway, K. H., Haslam, S. A., Cruwys, T., Branscombe, N. R., Ysseldyk, R., &
Heldreth, C. (2015). From ‘we’ to ‘me’: Group identification enhances perceived
REFERENCES 215
personal control with consequences for health and well-being. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 109(1), 53-74. doi:10.1037/pspi0000019
Greenaway, K. H., Wright, R. G., Willingham, J., Reynolds, K. J., & Haslam, S. A.
(2015). Shared identity is key to effective communication. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 41(2), 171-182.
Griskevicius, V., Tybur, J. M., & Van den Bergh, B. (2010). Going green to be seen:
Status, reputation, and conspicuous conservation. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 98(3), 392-404.
Grønhøj, A. (2006). Communication about consumption: A family process perspective
on ‘green’ consumer practices. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 5(6), 491-503.
Gupta, S., & Ogden, D. T. (2009). To buy or not to buy? A social dilemma perspective
on green buying. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 26(6), 376-391.
doi:10.1108/07363760910988201
Harland, P., Staats, H., & Wilke, H. A. M. (1999). Explaining proenvironmental
intention and behavior by personal norms and the theory of planned behavior.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29(12), 2505-2528.
Harth, N. S., Leach, C. W., & Kessler, T. (2013). Guilt, anger, and pride about in-group
environmental behaviour: Different emotions predict distinct intentions. Journal
of Environmental Psychology, 34, 18-26. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2012.12.005
Harrison, B. (2006). Shopping to save: Green consumerism and the struggle for northern
Maine. Cultural Geographies, 13(3), 395-420. doi:10.1191/1474474006eu365oa
Haslam, C., Cruwys, T., Haslam, S. A., Dingle, G., & Chang, M. X. (2016). GROUPS 4
HEALTH: Evidence that a social-identity intervention that builds and
strengthens social group membership improves mental health. Journal of
Affective Disorders, 194, 188-195. doi:10.1016/j.jad.2016.01.010
Haslam, S. A. (2004). Psychology in organizations. London: Sage.
Haslam, S. A., Oakes, P. J., McGarty, C., Turner, J. C., & Onorato, R. S. (1995a).
Contextual changes in the prototypicality of extreme and moderate outgroup
members. European Journal of Social Psychology, 25(5), 509-530.
Haslam, S. A., Oakes, P. J., McGarty, C., Turner, J. C., Reynolds, K. J., & Eggins, R. A.
(1996). Stereotyping and social influence: The mediation of stereotype
applicability and sharedness by the views of in-group and out-group members.
REFERENCES 216
British Journal of Social Psychology, 35(3), 369-397. doi:10.1111/j.2044-
8309.1996.tb01103.x
Haslam, S. A., Oakes, P. J., Reynolds, K. J., & Turner, J. C. (1999). Social identity
salience and the emergence of stereotype consensus. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 25(7), 809-818. doi:10.1177/0146167299025007004
Haslam, S. A., Oakes, P. J., Turner, J. C., & McGarty, C. (1995b). Social categorization
and group homogeneity: Changes in the perceived applicability of stereotype
content as a function of comparative context and trait favourableness. British
Journal of Social Psychology, 34(2), 139-160. doi:10.1111/j.2044-
8309.1995.tb01054.x
Haslam, S. A., & Reicher, S. (2006). Stressing the group: Social identity and the
unfolding dynamics of responses to stress. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(5),
1037-1052.
Haslam, S. A., Turner, J. C., Oakes, P. J., McGarty, C., & Hayes, B. K. (1992). Context-
dependent variation in social stereotyping 1: The effects of intergroup relations
as mediated by social change and frame of reference. European Journal of Social
Psychology, 22(1), 3-20.
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process
analysis: A regression-based approach. New York: Guilford Press.
Heath, Y., & Gifford, R. (2006). Free-market ideology and environmental degradation:
The case of belief in global climate change. Environment and Behavior, 38(1),
48-71. doi:10.1177/0013916505277998
Henion, K. E., Gregory, R., & Clee, M. A. (1981). Trade-offs in attribute levels made by
ecologically concerned and unconcerned consumers when buying detergents.
Advances in Consumer Research, 8(1), 624-629.
Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world?
Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 33(2-3), 61-135.
doi:10.1017/S0140525X0999152X
Herter, M., Costa-Pinto, D., Borges, A., & Nique, W. (2011). Going green for friends,
family or community? How different levels of subject norms and identity
influence green behavior. Advances in Consumer Research, 39, 707-708.
REFERENCES 217
Hilton, J. L., & van Hippel, W. (1996). Stereotypes. Annual Review of Psychology, 47(1),
237-271. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.47.1.237
Hinds, J., & Sparks, P. (2008). Engaging with the natural environment: The role of
affective connection and identity. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 28(2),
109-120. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2007.11.001
Hines, J. M., Hungerford, H. R., & Tomera, A. N. (1987). Analysis and synthesis of
research on responsible environmental behavior: A meta-analysis. Journal of
Environmental Education, 18(2), 1-8. doi:10.1080/00958964.1987.9943482
Hitlin, S. (2003). Values as the core of personal identity: Drawing links between two
theories of self. Social Psychology Quarterly, 66(2), 118-137.
Hoffarth, M. R., & Hodson, G. (2016). Green on the outside, red on the inside:
Perceived environmentalist threat as a factor explaining political polarization of
climate change. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 45, 40-49.
doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2015.11.002
Hogg, M. A. (2000). Subjective uncertainty reduction through self-categorization: A
motivational theory of social identity processes. European Review of Social
Psychology, 11(1), 223-255.
Hogg, M. A. (2001a). A social identity theory of leadership. Personality and Social
Psychology Review, 5(3), 184-200. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0503_1
Hogg, M. A. (2001b). Social categorization, depersonalization, and group behavior. In
M. A. Hogg & R. S. Tindale (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of social psychology:
Group processes (pp. 56-85). Oxford: Blackwell.
Hogg, M. A. (2006a). Social identity theory. In P. J. Burke (Ed.), Contemporary social
psychological theories (pp. 111-136). Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
Hogg, M. A., & Abrams, D. (1988). Social identifications: A social psychology of
intergroup relations and group processes. London: Routledge.
Hogg, M. A., Fielding, K. S., Johnson, D., Masser, B., Russell, E., & Svensson, A.
(2006b). Demographic category membership and leadership in small groups: A
social identity analysis. Leadership Quarterly, 17(4), 335-350.
doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.04.007
Hogg, M. A., & Reid, S. A. (2006). Social identity, self‐categorization, and the
communication of group norms. Communication Theory, 16(1), 7-30.
REFERENCES 218
Hogg, M. A., Terry, D. J., & White, K. M. (1995). A tale of two theories: A critical
comparison of identity theory with social identity theory. Social Psychology
Quarterly, 58(4), 255-269.
Hogg, M. A., & Turner, J. C. (1987). Intergroup behaviour, self-stereotyping and the
salience of social categories. British Journal of Social Psychology, 26(4), 325-
340. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8309.1987.tb00795.x
Holland, D., Tesch, D., Kitchell, A., & Kempton, W. (2000). Identities and actions
within environmental groups. Human Ecology Review, 7(2), 1-20.
Hornsey, M. J. (2006). Ingroup critics and their influence on groups. In T. Postmes & J.
Jetten (Eds.), Individuality and the group: Advances in social identity (pp. 74–
91). London: Sage.
Hornsey, M. J. (2008). Social identity theory and self-categorization theory: A historical
review. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2(1), 204-222.
Hornsey, M. J., & Hogg, M. A. (2000a). Assimilation and diversity: An integrative
model of subgroup relations. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4(2),
143-156.
Hornsey, M. J., & Hogg, M. A. (2000b). Subgroup relations: A comparison of mutual
intergroup differentiation and common ingroup identity models of prejudice
reduction. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(2), 242-256.
Hornsey, M. J., Oppes, T., & Svensson, A. (2002). “It’s OK if we say it, but you can’t”:
Responses to intergroup and intragroup criticism. European Journal of Social
Psychology, 32(3), 293-307.
Horton, D. (2004). Green distinctions: The performance of identity among
environmental activists. Sociological Review, 52(Supp 1), 63-77.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-954X.2004.00451.x
Houston, S. (2001). Beyond social constructionism: Critical realism and social work.
British Journal of Social Work, 31(6), 845-861.
Hsieh, H.-F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis.
Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277-1288. doi:10.1177/1049732305276687
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure
analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation
REFERENCES 219
Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1-55.
doi:10.1080/10705519909540118
Huddy, L. (2001). From social to political identity: A critical examination of social
identity theory. Political Psychology, 22(1), 127-156. doi:10.1111/0162-
895X.00230
Huff, C., & Tingley, D. (2015). “Who are these people?” Evaluating the demographic
characteristics and political preferences of MTurk survey respondents. Research
& Politics, 2(3), 1-12. doi:10.1177/2053168015604648
Hutchings, K. (2005). Don’t call me a tree hugger!: Sticks, stones, and stereotypes in
ecocriticism. Interdisciplinary Literary Studies, 7(1), 5-26.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). (2013). Summary for policymakers.
In T. F. Stocker, D. Quin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S. K. Allen, J. Boschung, A.
Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex & P. M. Midgley (Eds.). Climate change 2013: The
Physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment
Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge
University Press: Cambridge, and New York.
Jackson, T. (2005). Motivating sustainable consumption: A review of evidence on
consumer behaviour and behavioural change (Report to the Sustainable
Development Research Network). Retrieved from
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.337.433&rep=rep1&ty
pe=pdf
Jacob, S. A., & Furgerson, S. P. (2012). Writing interview protocols and conducting
interviews. The Qualitative Report, 17(6), 1-10.
Jacoby, J. (2001). Consumer psychology. In N. J. Smelser & P. B. Baltes (Eds.),
International encyclopedia of the social and behavioral sciences (pp. 2674-2678).
Oxford: Pergamon.
Jansson, J., Marell, A., & Nordlund, A. (2010). Green consumer behavior: Determinants
of curtailment and eco-innovation adoption. Journal of Consumer Marketing,
27(4), 358-370. doi:10.1108/07363761011052396
Jetten, J., Haslam, C., & Haslam, S. A. (Eds.) (2012). The social cure: Identity, health
and well-being. New York: Psychology Press.
REFERENCES 220
Jetten, J., Haslam, C., Haslam, S. A., & Branscombe, N. R. (2009). The social cure.
Scientific American Mind, 20(5), 26-33.
Jetten, J., Postmes, T., & McAuliffe, B. J. (2002). ‘We’re all individuals’: Group norms
of individualism and collectivism, levels of identification and identity threat.
European Journal of Social Psychology, 32(2), 189-207. doi:10.1002/ejsp.65
Jetten, J., Spears, R., & Postmes, T. (2004). Intergroup distinctiveness and
differentiation: A meta-analytic investigation. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 86, 862-879.
Johe, M. H., & Bhullar, N. (2016). To buy or not to buy: The roles of self-identity,
attitudes, perceived behavioral control and norms in organic consumerism.
Ecological Economics, 128, 99-105. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.02.019
Jones, D. (2010). A WEIRD view of human nature skews psychologists’ studies.
Science, 328(5986), 1627-1627.
Kaiser, F. G. (1998). A general measure of ecological behavior. Journal of Applied
Social Psychology, 28(5), 395-422.
Kaiser, F. G., & Wilson, M. (2000). Assessing people’s general ecological behavior: A
cross-cultural measure. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30(5), 952-978.
Kashima, Y., Paladino, A., & Margetts, E. A. (2014). Environmentalist identity and
environmental striving. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 38, 64-75.
doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2013.12.014
Kelly, C. (1993). Group identification, intergroup perceptions and collective action.
European Review of Social Psychology, 4(1), 59-83.
doi:10.1080/14792779343000022
Kelly, C., & Breinlinger, S. (1995). Attitudes, intentions, and behavior: A study of
women’s participation in collective action. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,
25(16), 1430-1445.
Kim, G. S., Lee, G. Y., & Park, K. (2010). A cross-national investigation on how ethical
consumers build loyalty toward fair trade brands. Journal of Business Ethics,
96(4), 589-611.
Kim, H., Lee, E.-J., & Hur, W.-M. (2012). The mediating role of norms in the
relationship between green identity and purchase intention of eco-friendly
products. Human Ecology Review, 19(2), 125-135.
REFERENCES 221
Kim, Y., & Choi, S. M. (2005). Antecedents of green purchase behavior: An
examination of collectivism, environmental concern, and PCE. Advances in
Consumer Research, 32(1), 592-599.
Kline, R. B. (2004). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York:
Guilford Press.
Kozinets, R. V., & Handelman, J. M. (2004). Adversaries of consumption: Consumer
movements, activism, and ideology. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(3), 691-
704.
Laffoley, D., & Baxter, J. M. (Eds.). (2016). Explaining ocean warming: Causes, scale,
effects and consequences. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN.
Larson, L. R., Stedman, R. C., Cooper, C. B., & Decker, D. J. (2015). Understanding the
multi-dimensional structure of pro-environmental behavior. Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 43, 112-124. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2015.06.004
Layman, G. C., Carsey, T. M., & Horowitz, J. M. (2006). Party polarization in American
politics: Characteristics, causes, and consequences. Annual Review of Political
Science, 9, 83-110. doi:10.1146/annurev.polisci.9.070204.105138
Leiber, N. (2003, June). 3 questions for Anna Lappé. O, The Oprah Magazine, 4, 72.
Leonidou, L. C., Leonidou, C. N., & Kvasova, O. (2010). Antecedents and outcomes of
consumer environmentally friendly attitudes and behaviour. Journal of
Marketing Management, 26(13/14), 1319-1344.
doi:10.1080/0267257X.2010.523710
Levay, K. E., Freese, J., & Druckman, J. N. (2016). The demographic and political
composition of Mechanical Turk samples. SAGE Open, 6(1), 1-17.
Light, A. (2000). What is an ecological identity? Environmental Politics, 9(4), 59-81.
Lim, W. M., Ting, D. H., Bonaventure, V. S., Sendiawan, A. P., & Tanusina, P. P.
(2013). What happens when consumers realise about green washing? A
qualitative investigation. International Journal of Global Environmental Issues,
13(1), 14-24. doi:10.1504/IJGENVI.2013.057323
Lindblom, J., & Jacobsson, K. (2014). A deviance perspective on social movements:
The case of animal rights activism. Deviant Behavior, 35(2), 133-151.
Liss, M., Crawford, M., & Popp, D. (2004). Predictors and correlates of collective action.
Sex Roles, 50(11/12), 771-779.
REFERENCES 222
Liss, M., O’Connor, C., Morosky, E., & Crawford, M. (2001). What makes a feminist?
Predictors and correlates of feminist social identity in college women.
Psychology of Women Quarterly, 25(2), 124-133. doi:10.1111/1471-6402.00014
López-Mosquera, N., Garcia, T., & Barrena, R. (2014). An extension of the Theory of
Planned Behavior to predict willingness to pay for the conservation of an urban
park. Journal of Environmental Management, 135, 91-99.
doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.01.019
Mancha, R. M., & Yoder, C. Y. (2015). Cultural antecedents of green behavioral intent:
An environmental theory of planned behavior. Journal of Environmental
Psychology, 43, 145-154. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2015.06.005
Mannetti, L., Pierro, A., & Livi, S. (2004). Recycling: Planned and self-expressive
behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24(2), 227-236.
Markle, G. L. (2013). Pro-environmental behavior: Does it matter how it’s measured?
Development and validation of the Pro-Environmental Behavior Scale (PEBS).
Human Ecology, 41(6), 905-914. doi:10.1007/s10745-013-9614-8
Matsuba, M. K., Pratt, M. W., Norris, J. E., Mohle, E., Alisat, S., & McAdams, D. P.
(2012). Environmentalism as a context for expressing identity and generativity:
Patterns among activists and uninvolved youth and midlife adults. Journal of
Personality, 80(4), 1091-1115. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2012.00765.
Mayring, P. (2004). Qualitative content analysis. In U. Flick, E. von Kardorff & I.
Steinke (Eds.), A companion to qualitative research (pp. 266-269). London: Sage.
McCright, A. M., Xiao, C., & Dunlap, R. E. (2014). Political polarization on support for
government spending on environmental protection in the USA, 1974-2012.
Social Science Research, 48, 251-260. doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.201.06.008
McDonald, R. I., Fielding, K. S., & Louis, W. R. (2014). Conflicting norms highlight the
need for action. Environment and Behavior, 46, 139-162.
doi:10.1177/0013916512453992
McDonald, S., Oates, C., Thyne, M., Alevizou, P., & McMorland, L.-A. (2009).
Comparing sustainable consumption patterns across product sectors.
International Journal of Consumer Studies, 33(2), 137-145. doi:10.1111/j.1470-
6431.2009.00755.x
REFERENCES 223
McFarlane, B. L., & Boxall, P. C. (2003). The role of social psychological and social
structural variables in environmental activism: An example of the forest sector.
Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23(1), 79-87. doi:10.1016/S0272-
4944(02)00080-4
McFarlane, B. L., & Hunt, L. M. (2006). Environmental activism in the forest sector:
Social psychological, social-cultural, and contextual effects. Environment &
Behavior, 38(2), 266-285. doi:10.1177/0013916505277999
McGarty, C. (2001). Social Identity Theory does not maintain that identification
produces bias, and Self-categorization Theory does not maintain that salience is
identification: Two comments on Mummendey, Klink and Brown. British
Journal of Social Psychology, 40(2), 173–176.
McGarty, C., Bliuc, A.-M., Thomas, E. F., & Bongiorno, R. (2009). Collective action as
the material expression of opinion-based group membership. Journal of Social
Issues, 65(4), 839-857.
McGarty, C., Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., David, B., & Wetherell, M. S. (1992). Group
polarization as conformity to the prototypical group member. British Journal of
Social Psychology, 31(1), 1-19. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8309.1992.tb00952.x
McGarty, C., Yzerbyt, V. Y., & Spears, R. (Eds.) (2002). Stereotypes as explanations:
The formation of meaningful beliefs about social groups. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Micheletti, M., & Stolle, D. (2012). Sustainable citizenship and the new politics of
consumption. Annals of the American Academy of Political & Social Science,
644(1), 88-120. doi:10.1177/0002716212454836
Mintel International Group Ltd. (2014). Marketing to the green consumer – US – March
2013. Retrieved from http://www.marketresearch.com/Mintel-International-
Group-Ltd-v614/Green-Consumer-March-7502261/
Minton, A. P., & Rose, R. L. (1997). The effects of environmental concern on
environmentally friendly consumer behavior: An exploratory study. Journal of
Business Research, 40(1), 37-48. doi:10.1016/S0148-2963(96)00209-3
Moisander, J. (2007). Motivational complexity of green consumerism. International
Journal of Consumer Studies, 31(4), 404-409. doi:10.1111/j.1470-
6431.2007.00586.x
REFERENCES 224
Moisander, J., & Pesonen, S. (2002). Narratives of sustainable ways of living:
Constructing the self and the other as a green consumer. Management Decision,
40(4), 329-342. doi:10.1108/00251740210426321
Morse, J. M. (1995). Editorial: The significance of saturation. Qualitative Health
Research, 5(2), 147-149.
Morse, J. M. (2008). Confusing categories and themes. Qualitative Health Research,
18(6), 727-728. doi:10.1177/1049732308314930
Mostafa, M. M. (2007). Gender differences in Egyptian consumers’ green purchase
behaviour: The effects of environmental knowledge, concern and attitude.
International Journal of Consumer Studies, 31(3), 220-229. doi:10.1111/j.1470-
6431.2006.00523.x
Muldoon, A. (2006). Where the green is: Examining the paradox of environmentally
conscious consumption. Electronic Green Journal, 1(23).
Mullin, B.-A., & Hogg, M. A. (1999). Motivations for group membership: The role of
subjective importance and uncertainty reduction. Basic & Applied Social
Psychology, 21(2), 91-102.
Murphy, P., & Dee, J. (1996). Reconciling the preferences of environmental activists
and corporate policymakers. Journal of Public Relations Research, 8(1), 1-33.
Neilson, L. A. (2010). Boycott or buycott? Understanding political consumerism.
Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 9(3), 214-227. doi:10.1002/cb.313
Nelson, J. A., Liss, M., Erchull, M. J., Hurt, M. M., Ramsey, L. R., Turner, D. L., &
Haines, M. E. (2008). Identity in action: Predictors of feminist self-identification
and collective action. Sex Roles, 58(9/10), 721-728. doi:10.1007/s11199-007-
9384-0
Nielsen. (2011). Sustainable efforts and environmental concerns. Retrieved from
www.nielsen.com/us/en/insights/reports-downloads/2011/sustainable-eíforts-
environmentalconcerns.html
Nigbur, D., Lyons, E., & Uzzell, D. (2010). Attitudes, norms, identity and environmental
behaviour: Using an expanded theory of planned behaviour to predict
participation in a kerbside recycling programme. British Journal of Social
Psychology, 49(2), 259-284. doi:10.1348/014466609X449395
REFERENCES 225
Niva, M., & Timonen, P. (2001). The role of consumers in product-oriented
environmental policy: Can the consumer be the driving force for environmental
improvements? International Journal of Consumer Studies, 25(4), 331-338.
doi:10.1046/j.1470-6431.2001.00204.x
Oakes, P. (2002). Psychological groups and political psychology: A response to Huddy’s
“Critical examination of social identity theory”. Political Psychology, 23(4),
809-824. doi:10.1111/0162-895X.00308
Oakes, P. J. (1987). The salience of social categories. In J. C. Turner, M. A. Hogg, P. J.
Oakes, S. D. Reicher & M. S. Wetherell (Eds.), Rediscovering the social group:
A self-categorization theory (pp. 117-141). Oxford: Blackwell.
Oakes, P. J., Haslam, S. A., & Reynolds, K. J. (1999). Social categorization and social
context: Is stereotype change a matter of information or of meaning? In D.
Abrams, M. A. Hogg, D. Abrams & M. A. Hogg (Eds.), Social identity and
social cognition. (pp. 55-79). Malden: Blackwell Publishing.
Oakes, P. J., Haslam, S. A., & Turner, J. C. (1994). Stereotyping and social reality.
Oxford: Blackwell.
Oakes, P. J., Turner, J. C., & Haslam, S. A. (1991). Perceiving people as group
members: The role of fit in the salience of social categorizations. British Journal
of Social Psychology, 30(2), 125-144. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8309.1991.tb00930.x
Ogrodnik, C., & Staggenborg, S. (2016). The ebb and flow of environmentalism.
Sociology Compass, 10(3), 218-229.
Ölander, F., & Thøgersen, J. (1995). Understanding of consumer behaviour as a
prerequisite for environmental protection. Journal of Consumer Policy, 18, 345-
385.
Olli, E., Grendstad, G., & Wollebaek, D. (2001). Correlates of environmental behaviors:
Bringing back social context. Environment and Behavior, 33(2), 181-208.
doi:10.1177/0013916501332002
Olson, E. (2013). It’s not easy being green: The effects of attribute tradeoffs on green
product preference and choice. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
41(2), 171-184. doi:10.1007/s11747-012-0305-6
REFERENCES 226
Opotow, S., & Brook, A. T. (2003). Identity and exclusion in rangeland conflict. In S.
Clayton & S. Opotow (Eds.), Identity and the natural environment (pp. 249–272).
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Opotow, S., & Weiss, L. (2000). Denial and the process of moral exclusion in
environmental conflict. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 475-490.
doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00179
Opperman, E., Braun, V., Clarke, V., & Rogers, C. (2014). “It feels so good it almost
hurts”: Young adults’ experiences of orgasm and sexual pleasure. Journal of Sex
Research, 51(5), 503-515. doi:10.1080/00224499.2012.753982
O’Reilly, M., & Parker, N. (2012). ‘Unsatisfactory saturation’: A critical exploration of
the notion of saturated sample sizes in qualitative research. Qualitative Research,
13(2), 190-197. doi:10.1177/1468794112446106
Osbaldiston, R. (2013). Synthesizing the experiments and theories of conservation
psychology. Sustainability, 5(6), 2770-2795. doi:10.3390/su5062770
Osbaldiston, R., & Schott, J. P. (2012). Environmental sustainability and behavioral
science: Meta-analysis of proenvironmental behavior experiments. Environment
and Behavior, 44(2), 257-299. doi:10.1177/0013916511402673
Oskamp, S. (2000). Psychology of promoting environmentalism: Psychological
contributions to achieving an ecologically sustainable future for humanity.
Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 373-390. doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00173
Owen, A., Videras, J., & Wu, S. (2010). Identity and environmentalism: the influence of
community characteristics. Review of Social Economy, 68(4), 465-486.
doi:10.1080/00346760903480533
Pagiaslis, A., & Krontalis, A. K. (2014). Green consumption behavior antecedents:
Environmental concern, knowledge, and beliefs. Psychology & Marketing, 31(5),
335-348. doi:10.1002/mar.20698
Paladino, A. (2005). Understanding the green consumer: An empirical analysis. Journal
of Customer Behaviour, 4(1), 69-102. doi:10.1362/1475392053750306
Papaoikonomou, E., Ryan, G., & Valverde, M. (2011). Mapping ethical consumer
behavior: Integrating the empirical research and identifying future directions.
Ethics & Behavior, 21(3), 197-221. doi:10.1080/10508422.2011.570165
REFERENCES 227
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Peattie, K. (2001). Golden goose or wild goose? The hunt for the green consumer.
Business Strategy & the Environment, 10(4), 187-199. doi:10.1002/bse.292
Peattie, K. (2010). Green consumption: Behavior and norms. Annual Review of
Environment & Resources, 35(1), 195-228. doi:10.1146/annurev-environ-
032609-094328
Pedersen, E. R., & Neergaard, P. (2006). Caveat emptor – Let the buyer beware!
Environmental labelling and the limitations of ‘green’ consumerism. Business
Strategy & the Environment, 15(1), 15-29. doi:10.1002/bse.434
Pelletier, L. G., Lavergne, K. J., & Sharp, E. C. (2008). Environmental psychology and
sustainability: Comments on topics important for our future. Canadian
Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne, 49(4), 304-308. doi:10.1037/a0013658
Perera, L. C. R. (2014). A processual theory of green identity formation: The case of
young environmentalists in Australia. International Journal of Consumer Studies,
38(3), 289-296. doi:10.1111/ijcs.12096
Peters, K., Ryan, M. K., & Haslam, S. A. (2015). Marines, medics, and machismo: Lack
of fit with masculine occupational stereotypes discourages men’s participation.
British Journal of Psychology, 106(4), 635-655. doi:10.1111/bjop.12106
Pieters, R., Bijmolt, T., van Raaij, F., & de Kruijk, M. (1998). Consumers’ attributions
of proenvironmental behavior, motivation, and ability to self and others. Journal
of Public Policy & Marketing, 17(2), 215-225.
Polonsky, M. J., Vocino, A., Grau, S. L., Garma, R., & Ferdous, A. S. (2012). The
impact of general and carbon-related environmental knowledge on attitudes and
behaviour of US consumers. Journal of Marketing Management, 28(3/4), 238-
263. doi:10.1080/0267257X.2012.659279
Poortinga, W., Steg, L., & Vlek, C. (2004). Values, environmental concern, and
environmental behavior: A study into household energy use. Environment and
Behavior, 36(1), 70-93. doi:10.1177/0013916503251466
Postmes, T., & Jetten, J. (Eds.). (2006). Individuality and the group: Advances in social
identity. London: Sage.
REFERENCES 228
Postmes, T., Rabinovich, A., Morton, T. A., & van Zomeren, M. (2014). Toward
sustainable social identities: Including our collective future into the self-concept.
In H. C. M. van Trijp (Ed.), Encouraging sustainable behavior: Psychology and
the environment (pp. 185-202). New York: Psychology Press.
Potter, J., & Hepburn, A. (2005). Qualitative interviews in psychology: Problems and
possibilities. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 2(4), 281-307.
doi:10.1191/1478088705qp045oa
Prati, G., Albanesi, C., & Pietrantoni, L. (2015). The interplay among environmental
attitudes, pro-environmental behavior, social identity, and pro-environmental
institutional climate. A longitudinal study. Environmental Education Research.
Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/13504622.2015.1118752
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for
assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior
Research Methods, 40(3), 879-891.
Rabinovich, A., Morton, T. A., Postmes, T., & Verplanken, B. (2012). Collective self
and individual choice: The effects of inter‐group comparative context on
environmental values and behaviour. British Journal of Social Psychology, 51(4),
551-569. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8309.2011.02022.x
Rees, J. H., & Bamberg, S. (2014). Climate protection needs societal change:
Determinants of intention to participate in collective climate action. European
Journal of Social Psychology, 44(5), 466-473. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2032
Reese, G. (2016). Common human identity and the path to global climate justice.
Climatic Change, 134(4), 521-531. doi:10.1007/s10584-015-1548-2
Reese, G., & Kohlmann, F. (2015). Feeling global, acting ethically: Global identification
and fairtrade consumption. Journal of Social Psychology, 155(2), 98-106.
doi:10.1080/00224545.2014.992850
Reicher, S. (1984). The St. Pauls’ riot: An explanation of the limits of crowd action in
terms of a social identity model. European Journal of Social Psychology, 14, 1-
21. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2420140102
Reicher, S. (2004). The context of social identity: Domination, resistance, and change.
Political Psychology, 25(6), 921-94
REFERENCES 229
Reicher, S., Spears, R., & Haslam, S. A. (2010). The social identity approach in social
psychology. In M. Wetherell & C. Mohanty (Eds.), The SAGE identities
handbook (pp. 45-62). London: Sage.
Reisch, L. A., & Thøgersen, J. (Eds.) (2015). Handbook of research on sustainable
consumption. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Reynolds, K. J., Subašić, E., & Tindall, K. (2015). The problem of behaviour change:
From social norms to an ingroup focus. Social and Personality Psychology
Compass, 9(1), 45-56. doi:10.1111/spc3.12155
Reysen, S., & Katzarska-Miller, I. (2013). A model of global citizenship: Antecedents
and outcomes. International Journal of Psychology, 48(5), 858-870.
Roberts, J. A. (1996). Green consumers in the 1990s: Profile and implications for
advertising. Journal of Business Research, 36, 217-231.
Roberts, J. A., & Bacon, D. R. (1997). Exploring the subtle relationships between
environmental concern and ecologically conscious consumer behavior. Journal
of Business Research, 40(1), 79-89. doi:10.1016/S0148-2963(96)00280-9
Robinson, O. C. (2014). Sampling in interview-based qualitative research: Theoretical
and practical guide. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 11(1), 25-41.
doi:10.1080/14780887.2013.801543
Robnett, R., Anderson, K., & Hunter, L. (2012). Predicting feminist identity:
Associations between gender-traditional attitudes, feminist stereotyping, and
ethnicity. Sex Roles, 67(3-4), 143-157. doi:10.1007/s11199-012-0170-2
Roe, B., Teisl, M. F., Levy, A., & Russell, M. (2001). US consumers’ willingness to pay
for green electricity. Energy Policy, 29(11), 917-925.
Roy, R. E., Weibust, K. S., & Miller, C. T. (2007). Effects of stereotypes about feminists
on feminist self-identification. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 31(2), 146-156.
Rubin, M., & Hewstone, M. (1998). Social identity theory’s self-esteem hypothesis: A
review and some suggestions for clarification. Personality and Social
Psychology Review, 2(1), 40-62.
Ruepert, A., Keizer, K., Steg, L., Maricchiolo, F., Carrus, G., Dumitru, A., . . . Moza, D.
(2016). Environmental considerations in the organizational context: A pathway
to pro-environmental behaviour at work. Energy Research and Social Science,
17, 59-70. doi:10.1016/j.erss.2016.04.004
REFERENCES 230
Ruiz-Junco, N. (2011). “Losing neutrality in your everyday life”: Framing experience
and activist identity construction in the Spanish environmental movement.
Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 40(6), 709-729.
doi:10.1177/0891241611420842
Sandelowski, M. (1994). Notes on qualitative methods: Notes on transcriptions.
Research in Nursing & Health, 17, 311-314.
Sandelowski, M. (1995). Sample size in qualitative research. Research in Nursing &
Health, 18(2), 179-183. doi:10.1002/nur.4770180211
Sandelowski, M. (2001). Real qualitative researchers do not count: The use of numbers
in qualitative research. Research in Nursing & Health, 24(3), 230-240.
Schlegelmilch, B. B., Bohlen, G. M., & Diamantopoulos, A. (1996). The link between
green purchasing decisions and measures of environmental consciousness.
European Journal of Marketing, 30(5), 35-55.
Schultz, T., & Fielding, K. (2014). The common in-group identity model enhances
communication about recycled water. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 40,
296-305. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2014.07.006
Schultz, P. W., Gouveia, V. V., Cameron, L. D., Tankha, G., Schmuck, P., & Franëk, M.
(2005). Values and their relationship to environmental concern and conservation
behavior. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 36(4), 457-475.
doi:10.1177/0022022105275962
Séguin, C., Pelletier, L. G., & Hunsley, J. (1998). Toward a model of environmental
activism. Environment and Behavior, 30(5), 628-652.
doi:10.1177/001391659803000503
Shirani, F., Henwood, K., Parkhill, K., Pidgeon, N., & Butler, C. (2015). ‘I’m not a tree
hugger, I’m just like you’: Changing perceptions of sustainable lifestyles.
Environmental Politics, 24(1), 57-74. doi:10.1080/09644016.2014.959247
Shrum, L. J., McCarty, J. A., & Lowrey, T. M. (1995). Buyer characteristics of the green
consumer and their implications for advertising strategy. Journal of Advertising,
24(2), 71-82.
Sims-Schouten, W., Riley, S. C. E., & Willig, C. (2007). Critical realism in discourse
analysis. Theory & Psychology, 17(1), 101-124. doi:10.1177/0959354307073153
REFERENCES 231
Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural
equation models. In S. Leinart (Ed.), Sociological methodology (Vol. 13, pp.
290-312). New York: Wiley.
Soron, D. (2010). Sustainability, self-identity and the sociology of consumption.
Sustainable Development, 18(3), 172-181. doi:10.1002/sd.457
Spaargaren, G. (2003). Sustainable consumption: A theoretical and environmental policy
perspective. Society and Natural Resources, 16, 687-701.
doi:10.1080/089419203920390217429
Sparks, P. (2013). The psychology of sustainability: Attitudes, identities, actions, and
engaging with the welfare of others. In H. C. M. van Trijp (Ed.), Encouraging
sustainable behavior: Psychology and the environment (pp. 169-184). New
York: Psychology Press.
Sparks, P., & Guthrie, C. A. (1998). Self-identity and the theory of planned behavior: A
Useful addition or an unhelpful artifice? Journal of Applied Social Psychology,
28(15), 1393-1410. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1998.tb01683.x
Sparks, P., & Shepherd, R. (1992). Self-identity and the theory of planned behavior:
Assessing the role of identification with “green consumerism”. Social
Psychology Quarterly, 55(4), 388-399.
Spears, R. (2011). Group identities: The social identity perspective. In S. J. Schwartz, K.
Luyckx, & V. L. Vignoles (Eds.), Handbook of identity theory and research (pp.
201-224). New York: Springer New York.
Stapleton, S. R. (2015). Environmental identity development through social interactions,
action, and recognition. Journal of Environmental Education, 46(2), 94-113.
doi:10.1080/00958964.2014.1000813
Steg, L. (2015). Environmental psychology and sustainable consumption. In L. A.
Reisch & J. Thøgersen (Eds.), Handbook of research on sustainable consumption
(pp. 70-83). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Steg, L., & de Groot, J. I. M. (2012). Environmental values. In S. D. Clayton (Ed.), The
Oxford handbook of environmental and conservation psychology (pp. 81-92).
New York: Oxford University Press.
REFERENCES 232
Steg, L., & Nordlund, A. (2012). Models to explain environmental behaviour. In L. Steg,
A. E. van den Berg & J. I. M. de Groot (Eds.), Environmental psychology: An
Introduction (pp. 185-194). Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.
Steg, L., van den Berg, A. E., & de Groot, J. I. M. (Eds.). (2012). Environmental
psychology: An introduction. Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.
Steg, L., & Vlek, C. (2009). Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: An integrative
review and research agenda. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29(3), 309-
317. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2008.10.004
Stemler, S. (2001). An overview of content analysis. Practical Assessment, Research &
Evaluation, 7(17).
Stern, P. C. (1999). Information, incentives, and proenvironmental consumer behavior.
Journal of Consumer Policy, 22(4), 461-478.
Stern, P. C. (2000). New environmental theories: Toward a coherent theory of
environmentally significant behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 407-424.
doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00175
Stern, P. C. (2011). Contributions of psychology to limiting climate change. American
Psychologist, 66(4), 303-314. doi:10.1037/a0023235
Stern, P. C., Dietz, T., & Guagnano, G. A. (1995). The new ecological paradigm in
social-psychological context. Environment and Behavior, 27(6), 723-743.
doi:10.1177/0013916595276001
Stern, P. C., Dietz, T., Kalof, L., Guagnano, G. A., & Abel, T. (1999). A value-belief-
norm theory of support for social movements: The case of environmentalism.
Human Ecology Review, 6(2), 82-97.
Stets, J. E., & Biga, C. F. (2003). Bringing identity theory into environmental sociology.
Sociological Theory, 21(4), 398-423. doi:10.1046/j.1467-9558.2003.00196.x
Stets, J. E., & Burke, P. J. (2000). Identity theory and social identity theory. Social
Psychology Quarterly, 63(3), 224-237.
Stolle, D., Hooghe, M., & Micheletti, M. (2005). Politics in the supermarket: Political
consumerism as a form of political participation. International Political Science
Review, 26(3), 245-269. doi:10.1177/0192512105053784
REFERENCES 233
Straughan, R. D., & Roberts, J. A. (1999). Environmental segmentation alternatives: A
look at green consumer behavior in the new millennium. Journal of Consumer
Marketing, 16(6), 531-575.
Sweetman, J., & Whitmarsh, L. E. (2016). Climate justice: High‐status ingroup social
models increase pro‐environmental action through making actions seem more
moral. Topics in Cognitive Science, 8(1), 196-221. doi:10.1111/tops.12178
Swim, J. K., Clayton, S., & Howard, G. S. (2011a). Human behavioral contributions to
climate change: Psychological and contextual drivers. American Psychologist,
66(4), 251-264. doi:10.1037/a0023472
Swim, J. K., Stern, P. C., Doherty, T. J., Clayton, S., Reser, J. P., Weber, E. U., . . .
Howard, G. S. (2011b). Psychology’s contributions to understanding and
addressing global climate change. American Psychologist, 66(4), 241-250.
doi:10.1037/a0023220
Swirsky, J. M., & Angelone, D. (2014). Femi-nazis and bra burning crazies: A
qualitative evaluation of contemporary beliefs about feminism. Current
Psychology, 33(3), 229-245.
Tajfel, H. (1957). Value and the perceptual judgement of magnitude. Psychological
Review, 64, 192-204.
Tajfel, H. (1959). Quantitative judgement in social perception. British Journal of
Psychology, 50, 16-29.
Tajfel, H. (1981). Social stereotypes and social groups. In J. C. Turner & H. Giles (Eds.),
Intergroup behaviour (pp. 144-167). Oxford: Blackwell.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G.
Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp.
33-47). Monterey, CA: Brooks-Cole.
Tajfel, H., & Wilkes, A. L. (1963). Classification and quantitative judgement. British
Journal of Social Psychology, 54, 101-114.
Tanner, C., & Kast, S. W. (2003). Promoting sustainable consumption: Determinants of
green purchases by Swiss consumers. Psychology & Marketing, 20(10), 883-902.
Terry, D. J., & Hogg, M. A. (Eds.). (2000). Attitudes, behavior, and social context: The
role of norms and group membership. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
REFERENCES 234
Terry, D. J., Hogg, M. A., & White, K. M. (1999). The theory of planned behaviour:
Self-identity, social identity and group norms. British Journal of Social
Psychology, 38(3), 225-244. doi:10.1348/014466699164149
Tesch, D., & Kempton, W. (2004). Who is an environmentalist? The polysemy of
environmentalist terms and correlated environmental actions. Journal of
Ecological Anthropology, 8(1), 67-83. doi:10.5038/2162-4593.8.1.4
Thatcher, V. L. (2014). The atypical environmentalist: The rhetoric of environmentalist
identity and citizenship in the Texas coal plant opposition movement (Doctoral
thesis, University of Texas at Austin, US). Retrieved from http://utexas-ir.tdl.org
Thøgersen, J. (1999). The ethical consumer. Moral norms and packaging choice. Journal
of Consumer Policy, 22(4), 439-460.
Thøgersen, J. (2011). Green shopping: For selfish reasons or the common good?
American Behavioral Scientist, 55(8), 1052-1076.
doi:10.1177/0002764211407903
Thøgersen, J., & Ölander, F. (2002). Human values and the emergence of a sustainable
consumption pattern: A panel study. Journal of Economic Psychology, 23(5),
605-630.
Thøgersen, J., & Ölander, F. (2003). Spillover of environment-friendly consumer
behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23(3), 225-236.
doi:10.1016/S0272-4944(03)00018-5
Thøgersen, J., & Ölander, F. (2006). The dynamic interaction of personal norms and
environment-friendly buying behavior: A panel study. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 36(7), 1758-1780. doi:10.1111/j.0021-9029.2006.00080.x
Thomas, E. F., Mavor, K. I., & McGarty, C. (2012). Social identities facilitate and
encapsulate action-relevant constructs: A test of the social identity model of
collective action. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 15(1), 75-88.
doi:10.1177/1368430211413619
Thomas, E., McGarty, C., & Mavor, K. (2010). Social psychology of Making Poverty
History: Motivating anti-poverty action in Australia. Australian Psychologist,
45(1), 4-15. doi:10.1080/00050060903447095
Thomashow, M. (1996). Ecological identity: Becoming a reflective environmentalist.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
REFERENCES 235
Toeriena, M., & Wilkinson, S. (2004). Exploring the depilation norm: A qualitative
questionnaire study of women’s body hair removal. Qualitative Research in
Psychology, 1(1), 69-92. doi:10.1191/1478088704qp006oa
Tranter, B. (2010). Environmental activists and non-active environmentalists in
Australia. Environmental Politics, 19(3), 413-429.
doi:10.1080/09644011003690898
Turaga, R. M. R., Howarth, R. B., & Borsuk, M. E. (2010). Pro-environmental behavior:
Rational choice meets moral motivation. Annals of the New York Academy of
Sciences, 1185, 211-224.
Turner, J. C. (1982). Towards a cognitive redefinition of the social group. In H. Tajfel
(Ed.), Social identity and intergroup relations (pp. 15-40). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Turner, J. C. (1991). Social influence. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
Turner, J. C. (1999). Some current issues in research on social identity and self-
categorization theories. In N. Ellemers, R. Spears, & B. Doosje (Eds.), Social
identity: Context, commitment, content (pp. 6-34). Oxford: Blackwell.
Turner, J. C., & Oakes, P. J. (1986). The significance of the social identity concept for
social psychology with reference to individualism, interactionism and social
influence. British Journal of Social Psychology, 25(3), 237-252.
doi:10.1111/j.2044-8309.1986.tb00732.x
Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987).
Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Oxford, UK:
Blackwell.
Turner, J. C., Oakes, P. J., Haslam, S. A., & McGarty, C. (1994). Self and collective:
Cognition and social context. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20(5),
454-463.
Turner, J. C., Wetherell, M. S., & Hogg, M. A. (1989). Referent informational influence
and group polarization. British Journal of Social Psychology, 28, 135-147.
doi:10.1111/j.2044-8309.1989.tb00855.x
Twenge, J. M., & Zucker, A. N. (1999). What is a feminist? Psychology of Women
Quarterly, 23(3), 591-605.
REFERENCES 236
van der Werff, E., Steg, L., & Keizer, K. (2013a). I am what I am, by looking past the
present: The influence of biospheric values and past behavior on environmental
self-identity. Environment and Behavior, 46(5), 626-657.
doi:10.1177/0013916512475209
van der Werff, E., Steg, L., & Keizer, K. (2013b). It is a moral issue: The relationship
between environmental self-identity, obligation-based intrinsic motivation and
pro-environmental behaviour. Global Environmental Change, 23(5), 1258-1265.
doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.07.018
van der Werff, E., Steg, L., & Keizer, K. (2013c). The value of environmental self-
identity: The relationship between biospheric values, environmental self-identity
and environmental preferences, intentions and behaviour. Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 34, 55-63. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2012.12.006
van der Werff, E., Steg, L., & Keizer, K. (2014). Follow the signal: When past pro-
environmental actions signal who you are. Journal of Environmental Psychology,
40(0), 273-282. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2014.07.004
Veenstra, A. S., Lyons, B. A., & Fowler-Dawson, A. (2016). Conservatism vs.
conservationism: Differential influences of social identities on beliefs about
fracking. Environmental Communication, 10(3), 322-336.
doi:10.1080/17524032.2015.1127851
Vermeir, I., & Verbeke, W. (2008). Sustainable food consumption among young adults
in Belgium: Theory of planned behaviour and the role of confidence and values.
Ecological Economics, 64(3), 542-553. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.03.007
Vidal, J. (2012, October 20). ‘Environmental Taliban’ is the latest in a series of insults
aimed at the greens. The Guardian. Retrieved from
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2012/oct/19/environmental-
taliban-george-osborne
Vlek, C., & Steg, L. (2007). Human behavior and environmental sustainability:
Problems, driving forces, and research topics. Journal of Social Issues, 63(1), 1-
19. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.2007.00493.x
Wagner-Tsukamoto, S., & Tadajewski, M. (2006). Cognitive anthropology and the
problem-solving behaviour of green consumers. Journal of Consumer Behaviour,
5(3), 235-244. doi:10.1002/cb.175
REFERENCES 237
Wang, X., Tu, M., Yang, R., Guo, J., Yuan, Z., & Liu, W. (2016). Determinants of pro-
environmental consumption intention in rural China: The role of traditional
cultures, personal attitudes and reference groups. Asian Journal of Social
Psychology, 19(3), 215-224. doi:10.1111/ajsp.12142
Watt, J. (2014, May 6). Brazil’s ‘chainsaw queen’ takes on environmentalists. The
Guardian. Retrieved from
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/may/05/brazil-chainsaw-queen-
katia-abreu-amazon-deforestation
Webb, D. J., Mohr, L. A., & Harris, K. E. (2008). A re-examination of socially
responsible consumption and its measurement. Journal of Business Research,
61(2), 91-98. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2007.05.007
Welsch, H., & Kühling, J. (2009). Determinants of pro-environmental consumption: The
role of reference groups and routine behavior. Ecological Economics, 69(1), 166-
176. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.08.009
White, K. J., & Simpson, B. (2013). When do (and don’t) normative appeals influence
sustainable consumer behaviors. Journal of Marketing, 77(2), 78-95.
White, K. M., & Hyde, M. K. (2012). The role of self-perceptions in the prediction of
household recycling behavior in Australia. Environment & Behavior, 44(6), 785-
799. doi:10.1177/0013916511408069
White, K. M., Smith, J. R., Terry, D. J., Greenslade, J. H., & McKimmie, B. M. (2009).
Social influence in the theory of planned behaviour: The role of descriptive,
injunctive, and in-group norms. British Journal of Social Psychology, 48(1), 135-
158. doi:10.1348/014466608X295207
White, K., & Simpson, B. (2013). When do (and don't) normative appeals influence
sustainable consumer behaviors. Journal of Marketing, 77(2), 78-95.
Whitehouse, H. (2001). ‘Not greenies’ at school: Investigating the discourses of
environmental activism in regional Australia. Australian Journal of
Environmental Education, 17, 71-76.
Whitehouse, H., & Evans, N. (2010). “I am not a greenie, but”: Negotiating a cultural
discourse. Australian Journal of Environmental Education, 26, 19-31.
Whitmarsh, L., & O’Neill, S. (2010). Green identity, green living? The role of pro-
environmental self-identity in determining consistency across diverse pro-
REFERENCES 238
environmental behaviours. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(3), 305-314.
doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.01.003
Wikgren, M. (2005). Critical realism as a philosophy and social theory in information
science? Journal of Documentation, 61(1), 11-22.
doi:10.1108/00220410510577989
Williams, R., & Wittig, M. A. (1997). “I’m not a feminist, but…”: Factors contributing
to the discrepancy between pro-feminist orientation and feminist social identity.
Sex Roles, 37(11), 885-904. doi:10.1007/bf02936345
Willig, C. (2001). Introducing qualitative research in psychology: Adventures in theory
and method. Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.
Worthington, R. L., & Whittaker, T. A. (2006). Scale development research: A content
analysis and recommendations for best practices. Counseling Psychologist, 34(6),
806-838. doi:10.1177/0011000006288127
Wright, C., Nyberg, D., & Grant, D. (2012). “Hippies on the third floor”: Climate
change, narrative identity and the micro-politics of corporate environmentalism.
Organization Studies, 33(11), 1451-1475. doi:10.1177/0170840612463316
Wright, O. (2012, October 18). ‘The environmental Taliban’: George Orborne slams
Parliamentary climate change campaigners as Treasury fights to water down
Energy Bill commitments. The Independent. Retrieved from
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/the-environmental-taliban-
george-osborne-slams-parliamentary-climate-change-campaigners-as-treasury-
fights-to-water-down-energy-bill-commitments-8215495.html
Yoder, J. D., Tobias, A., & Snell, A. F. (2011). When declaring “I am a feminist”
matters: Labeling is linked to activism. Sex Roles, 64(1), 9-18.
doi:10.1007/s11199-010-9890-3
Zamwel, E., Sasson-Levy, O., & Ben-Porat, G. (2014). Voluntary simplifiers as political
consumers: Individuals practicing politics through reduced consumption. Journal
of Consumer Culture, 14(2), 199-217.
Zucker, A. N. (2004). Disavowing social identities: What it means when women say,
“I’m not a feminist, but...”. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 28(4), 423-435.
doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.2004.00159.x
APPENDICES 239
Appendix A
Ethics Approval for Studies
A.1 Ethics Approval for Study 1 HEAG-H 59_2014
APPENDICES 243
Appendix B
Plain Language Statements and Consent Forms for Studies
B.1 Study 1 HEAG-H 59_2014
PLAIN LANGUAGE STATEMENT
TO: Participant
Plain Language Statement
Date:
Full Project Title: BUYING ‘GREEN’ PRODUCTS TO ACHIEVE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE:
AN INVESTIGATION INTO CONSUMER’S PERCEPTIONS OF ‘GREEN CONSUMERISM’
Principal Researcher: Dr Janine McGuinness
Student researcher: Ms Annamaria Klas
Associate Researcher(s): Nil
You are invited to participate in this research project. Participation in any
research project is voluntary. If you do not wish to take part in this research
project, you are not obliged to.
This Plain Language Statement contains detailed information about the
research project. Its purpose is to explain to you as openly and clearly as possible all
the procedures involved in this project so that you can make a fully informed
decision about whether you are going to participate.
Please read this Plain Language Statement carefully. Feel free to ask questions
about any information in the document. You may also wish to discuss the project
with a relative, friend or colleague. Feel free to do this.
APPENDICES 244
Once you have read this form and agree to participate, please sign the
attached consent form and return it to the research team. You may keep this copy
of the Plain Language Statement.
Purpose
The purpose of this project is to investigate perceptions and experiences of
‘green consumerism’. ‘Green consumerism’ loosely refers to the phenomenon of
individuals purchasing certain products in the hope of reducing environmental harm.
Even though some research has examined individuals perceptions of price and
effectiveness of these products, it is still unclear how consumers perceive ‘green
consumerism’ overall.
You do not need to be a consumer who buys these products to participate
within this study. We are just interested in how the average consumer perceives
‘green consumerism’.
The student researcher on this project is currently studying a Doctor of
Philosophy (PhD) at Deakin University under the supervision of Dr Janine
McGuinness. The results of this research will be used to help the student researcher
to obtain their PhD in the discipline of Psychology.
Methods
This research project will be an interview of approximately 40 minutes. It
will be conducted either over the phone or at Deakin University. The interview will
also be audio-recorded. It is expected that up to 20 people will participate in this
project.
Demands
By agreeing to be a participant in this study, you are agreeing to take part in
an interview that will be audio-recorded and last up to 40 minutes. This interview
will be either conducted face to face or over the phone. You will also not be
reimbursed for the time it takes to conduct the interview. If you choose to do the
interview in person, you will be required to travel to Deakin University, Burwood.
You will not be reimbursed for this travel.
Within the interview, you will be asked about your perceptions of ‘green
consumerism’. Indicative interview questions include:
Please describe what comes to mind when you hear the term ‘green
consumerism’?
What do you think is involved in ‘green consumerism’?
You will also be asked some questions relating to demographics such as your
age and level of education obtained.
APPENDICES 245
Payments
A lottery will be held so that you will have the opportunity to win a $100
Coles-Myer voucher to compensate you for your time. One winner will be selected
at random.
Funding
This research is totally funded by the School of Psychology at Deakin
University.
Risks and potential benefits to participants
The risk of harm to you is not expected to be greater than that experienced
in everyday life. We cannot guarantee or promise that you will receive any benefits
from this project.
Expected benefits to the wider community
It is expected that this project will benefit the wider community as it will
assist us in examining green consumerism and how it may be related to other
behaviours.
Provision of services to participants adversely affected by the research
If you have any queries, complaints or concerns about the research project,
you can contact principal investigator on this project Dr Janine McGuinness on (03)
9244 3735 or at janine.mcguinness@deakin.edu.au
How your privacy and confidentiality will be protected
Only researchers associated within this project will have access to the
collected data. The collected data will be kept in secure storage at Deakin University
for a minimum of 6 years, in line with Deakin University regulations. Tape
recordings of interviews will be stored in separate documents to other collected
data. Once the data (including the tape recordings) are no longer needed after 6
years, it will then be destroyed.
A report of the study may be submitted for publication but individual
participants will not be identifiable in such a report as only pseudonyms will be used.
For participants who choose to participate in the lottery, your email address
will be kept for the duration of the study and stored within the School of
Psychology’s storage system. Once the lottery is drawn, and a winner is contacted,
your email addresses will be destroyed.
How you can access the results of the study, including publications
The research, using pseudonyms, will be reported in a PhD thesis and may
be presented at a conference. You are able to contact Dr Janine McGuinness on (03)
9244 3735 or at janine.mcguinness@deakin.edu.au at the completion of this study
APPENDICES 246
for a copy of the results. If you seek out this information, you will receive a brief
written or verbal summary of the results.
The research may also be submitted to a professional journal for publication
if deemed appropriate. In this case, you are able to contact Dr Janine McGuinness
for a copy of the publication.
How will the research will be monitored
At all stages of this study, the research will be monitored by Dr Janine
McGuinness (principal investigator).
Your rights as a research participant
The interview is completely voluntary and you are in no way obliged to
participate in this research project. If you do choose to participate, you also have
the right to withdraw from the research project at any time. You may also ask up to
the time of publication of the study that any information collected at your interview
be destroyed and not used for the research project.
Deciding not to participate or withdrawing your consent will not affect your
relationship to the researchers or Deakin University.
You have the right to decline to answer any questions if you experience
discomfort.
You also have the right to access transcripts of your interview. You can edit
them if you wish.
Complaints
Approval to undertake this project has been given by the Human Research
Ethics Committee of Deakin University.
If you have any complaints about any aspect of the project, the way it is
being conducted or any questions about your rights as a research participant, then
you may contact:
The Manager, Research Integrity, Deakin University, 221 Burwood Highway,
Burwood Victoria 3125, Telephone: 9251 7129, research-ethics@deakin.edu.au
Please quote project number [HEAG-H 59_2014].
APPENDICES 247
CONSENT FORM
TO: Participant
Consent Form
Date:
Full Project Title: Buying ‘Green’ Products to Achieve Environmental Change: An
Investigation into Consumer Perceptions of ‘Green Consumerism’
Reference Number: [HEAG-H 59_2014].
I have read and I understand the attached Plain Language Statement.
I freely agree to participate in this project according to the conditions in the Plain
Language Statement.
I have been given a copy of the Plain Language Statement and Consent Form to
keep.
The researcher has agreed not to reveal my identity and personal details, including
where information about this project is published, or presented in any public form.
I understand that my participation will include audio taping. I understand that this
audio data will be kept in secure storage for a minimum of 6 years, in line with
Deakin University regulations.
I also understand that I have the option of reviewing and editing my interview
transcript from the research project.
Participant’s Name (printed) ……………………………………………………………………
Signature ……………………………………………………… Date …………………………
APPENDICES 248
B.2 Study 2 HEAG-H 128_2015
LANDING PAGE
Thank you for your interest in our study.
The purpose of this research project is to investigate people’s beliefs regarding
various social groups.
Participation in this anonymous online survey is completely voluntary. The survey
will take between 10-15 minutes to complete. You will receive $1.50 upon
completing the survey.
If you wish to participate, you must be at least 18 years of age. Please click the
button below to direct you to beginning of the study.
Approval to undertake this project has been given by the Human Research Ethics Committee
of Deakin University, Australia.
APPENDICES 249
PLAIN LANGUAGE STATEMENT AND CONSENT FORM
TO: Participant
Plain Language Statement and Consent Form
Full Project Title: BELIEFS ABOUT ENVIRONMENTALISTS AND THEIR RELATIONSHIP
TO IDENTITY, CONSUMERISM AND ACTIVISM
Principal Researcher: Dr Janine McGuinness (until 22/10/15), Dr Ben Richardson
(from 23/10/15)
Student Researcher: Ms Annamaria Klas
You are invited to participate in this research project. You are not obliged to
participate if you do not wish to.
Please read this Plain Language Statement carefully. Its purpose is to clearly
explain all the procedures involved in this research project so you can make a fully
informed decision about whether you wish to participate.
If you decide to participate, this anonymous online survey will take 10-15
minutes to complete. You will receive $1.50 upon completing the survey.
Purpose
Current research is unclear whether people’s perceptions of
environmentalists are related to their tendency to both engage in environmental
behaviours and to identify as an environmentalist. We wish to investigate this
possibility in more detail.
As we are interested in getting a wide range of perspectives and opinions,
you do not need to consider yourself an environmentalist to participate. You only
need to be 18 or above to participate.
APPENDICES 250
Procedure and Demands
This study will utilize a 10-15 minute anonymous online survey. This survey
will contain items designed to assess your level of environmental identity and
engagement in various environmental behaviours.
You will also be asked some questions relating to your views on
environmentalists as well as some demographic items (such as your age and annual
income).
You will indicate your consent to participate in the study by submitting the
survey online.
Data will then be screened to ensure valid responding. Subsequent analysis
will be undertaken by the research team with the non-identified data. Amazon
MTurk will not have access to this data.
Payments and Funding
As a reimbursement for your time and effort, you will receive $1.50 as
dispensed through the Amazon MTurk service.
This research is totally funded by the School of Psychology at Deakin
University, Melbourne, Australia.
Risk and Benefits
The risk of harm to you is not expected to be greater than that experienced
in everyday life. We cannot guarantee that you will receive any benefits from this
project.
Privacy and Confidentiality Protection
As your responses will be collected anonymously, there is no way the
research team can connect participant responses to specific individuals.
Only researchers associated with this project will have access to the non-
identified, anonymous data. It will be kept in a secure storage at Deakin University
for a minimum of 5 years – in line with Deakin University regulations – before it is
permanently destroyed.
Access to the Results
The research will be reported in a PhD thesis and may be presented at a
conference. The research may also be submitted to a professional journal for
publication. Only group averages will be reported.
If you wish to do so, you are able to contact Ms Annamaria Klas at
aklas@deakin.edu.au for a copy of the results. If you seek out this information, you
will receive a brief written summary once it is available.
APPENDICES 251
Provision of services to participants adversely affected by the research
At all stages of this study, the research will be monitored by Dr Janine
McGuinness (until 22/10/15) and Dr Ben Richardson (from 23/10/15) (principal
investigators).
If you have any queries, complaints or concerns about the research project,
you can contact the principal investigators Dr Janine McGuinness (School of
Psychology, Deakin University) at janine.mcguinness@deakin.edu.au (until
22/10/15), or Dr Ben Richardson (School of Psychology, Deakin University) at
ben.richardson@deakin.edu.au (from 23/10/15).
If you are experiencing a crisis, cannot contact a counsellor and need help
urgently, we recommend contacting a mental health professional for further
guidance (see http://www.mentalhealthamerica.net/find-affiliate).
Your Rights as a Research Participant
Participation in this anonymous survey is completely voluntary. You are in
no way obliged to participate.
You also have the right to withdraw at any time up to the completion of your
online questionnaire. However, due to our privacy protocols, removal of your
responses from the sample after this time is impossible.
Deciding not to participate or withdrawing your consent will not affect your
relationship to the researchers or Deakin University.
You also have the right to decline to answer any questions if you experience
any discomfort.
Complaints
If you have any complaints about any aspect of the project, the way it is
being conducted or any questions about your rights as a research participant, then
you may contact:
The Manager, Ethics and Biosafety, Deakin University, 221 Burwood Highway,
Burwood Victoria 3125, Telephone: +61 03 9251 7129, research-
ethics@deakin.edu.au
Please quote project number [HEAG-H 128_2015].
By clicking the button below, you agree that you have read and understood the
Plain Language Statement and that you consent to participate in this research.
Thank you for your generosity in participating; it is sincerely appreciated.
APPENDICES 252
B.3 Study 3 HEAG-H 06_2015
RECRUITMENT NOTICE
Thank you for your interest in our study.
The purpose of this research project is to investigate people’s engagement in
certain behaviours. It also aims to investigate whether these behaviours are related
to one's identity.
Participation in this anonymous online survey is completely voluntary. The survey
will take between 10-15 minutes to complete.
You will receive $1.00 upon completing the survey. If you wish to participate, you
must be at least 18 years of age.
Please click the button below to direct you to beginning of the study.
Approval to undertake this project has been given by the Human Research Ethics Committee
of Deakin University, Australia.
APPENDICES 253
PLAIN LANGUAGE STATEMENT AND CONSENT FORM
TO: Participant
Plain Language Statement and Consent Form
Full Project Title: THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN GREEN CONSUMERISM AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ACTIVISM
Principal Researcher: Dr Lucy Zinkiewicz
Student Researcher: Ms Annamaria Klas
You are invited to participate in this research project. Participation in any research
project is voluntary. You are not obliged to participate if you do not wish to.
Please read this Plain Language Statement carefully. Its purpose is to clearly
explain all the procedures involved in this research project so you can make a fully
informed decision about whether you wish to participate.
To participate in this study, you are required to be over the age of 18 years.
If you decide to participate, this anonymous online survey will take 10-15 minutes
to complete. You will receive $1.00 upon completing the survey.
Purpose
Current research is unclear regarding the relationship between various
environmental behaviors and environmentalist identity. We therefore wish to
investigate this in more detail.
As we are interested in getting a wide range of perspectives and opinions,
you do not need to consider yourself an environmentalist to participate. You only
need to be 18 or above to participate.
APPENDICES 254
Procedure and Demands
This study will utilize an anonymous online survey. This survey will contain
items designed to assess your level of environmentalist identity and engagement in
various environmental behaviours.
You will also be asked some questions relating to demographics (such as
your age and annual income).
You will indicate your consent to participate in the study by submitting the
survey online.
Data will then be screened to ensure valid responding. Subsequent analysis
will be undertaken by the research team with the non-identified data. Amazon
MTurk will not have access to this data.
Payments and Funding
As a reimbursement for your time and effort, you will receive $1.00 as
dispensed through the Amazon MTurk service.
Risk and Benefits
The risk of harm to you is not expected to be greater than that experienced
in everyday life. We cannot guarantee that you will receive any benefits from this
project.
Privacy and Confidentiality Protection
As your responses will be collected anonymously, there is no way the
research team can connect participant responses to specific individuals.
Only researchers associated with this project will have access to the non-
identified, anonymous data. It will be kept in a secure storage at Deakin University
for a minimum of 6 years – in line with Deakin University regulations – before it is
permanently destroyed.
Access to the Results
The research will be reported in a PhD thesis and may be presented at a
conference. The research may also be submitted to a professional journal for
publication. Only group averages will be reported.
If you wish to do so, you are able to contact Ms Annamaria Klas at
aklas@deakin.edu.au for a copy of the results. If you seek out this information, you
will receive a brief written summary once it is available.
Provision of services to participants adversely affected by the research
At all stages of this study, the research will be monitored by Dr Lucy
Zinkiewicz (principal investigator).
APPENDICES 255
If you have any queries, complaints or concerns about the research project,
you can contact the principal investigator Dr Lucy Zinkiewicz (School of Psychology,
Deakin University) at lucy.zinkiewicz@deakin.edu.au
If you are experiencing a crisis, cannot contact a counsellor and need help
urgently, we recommend contacting a mental health professional for further
guidance (see http://www.mentalhealthamerica.net/find-affiliate).
Your Rights as a Research Participant
Participation in this anonymous survey is completely voluntary. You are in
no way obliged to participate.
You also have the right to withdraw at any time up to the completion of your
online questionnaire. However, due to our privacy protocols, removal of your
responses after submission of the survey is impossible.
Deciding not to participate or withdrawing your consent will not affect your
relationship to the researchers or Deakin University.
You also have the right to decline to answer any questions if you experience
any discomfort.
Ethical Guidelines
This project will be carried out according to the National Statement on
Ethical Conduct in Human Research (2007) produced by the National Health and
Medical Research Council of Australia. This statement has been developed to
protect the interests of people who agree to participate in human research studies.
Approval to undertake this project has been given by the Human Research Ethics
Committee of Deakin University.
Complaints
If you have any complaints about any aspect of the project, the way it is
being conducted or any questions about your rights as a research participant, then
you may contact:
The Manager, Ethics and Biosafety, Deakin University, 221 Burwood Highway,
Burwood Victoria 3125, Telephone: +61 03 9251 7129, research-
ethics@deakin.edu.au
Please quote project number [HEAG-H 06_2015].
By clicking the button below, you agree that you have read and understood the
Plain Language Statement and that you consent to participate in this research.
Thank you for your generosity in participating; it is sincerely appreciated.
APPENDICES 256
B.4 Study 4 HEAG-H 128_2015
LANDING PAGE
Thank you for your interest in our study.
The purpose of this research project is to investigate people’s beliefs regarding
certain social groups. It also aims to investigate whether these beliefs are related to
one's identity and behaviour.
Participation in this anonymous online survey is completely voluntary. The survey
will take between 10-15 minutes to complete.
You will receive $1.50 upon completing the survey. If you wish to participate, you
must be at least 18 years of age.
Please click the button below to direct you to beginning of the study.
Approval to undertake this project has been given by the Human Research Ethics Committee
of Deakin University, Australia.
APPENDICES 257
PLAIN LANGUAGE STATEMENT AND CONSENT FORM
TO: Participant
Plain Language Statement and Consent Form
Full Project Title: THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN GREEN CONSUMERISM AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ACTIVISM
Principal Researcher: Dr Lucy Zinkiewicz, Dr Ben Richardson
Student Researcher: Ms Annamaria Klas
You are invited to participate in this research project. You are not obliged to
participate if you do not wish to.
Please read this Plain Language Statement carefully. Its purpose is to clearly
explain all the procedures involved in this research project so you can make a fully
informed decision about whether you wish to participate.
If you decide to participate, this anonymous online survey will take 10-15
minutes to complete. You will receive $1.50 upon completing the survey.
Purpose
Current research is unclear whether people’s perceptions of environmentalists
are related to their tendency to both engage in environmental behaviours and to
identify as an environmentalist. We wish to investigate this possibility in more detail.
As we are interested in getting a wide range of perspectives and opinions, you
do not need to consider yourself an environmentalist to participate. You only need to
be 18 or above to participate.
APPENDICES 258
Procedure and Demands
This study will utilize an anonymous online survey. This survey will contain items
designed to assess your level of environmental identity and engagement in various
environmental behaviours.
You will also be asked some questions relating to your views on environmentalists as well
as some demographic items (such as your age and annual income).
You will indicate your consent to participate in the study by submitting the
survey online.
Data will then be screened to ensure valid responding. Subsequent analysis will
be undertaken by the research team with the non-identified data. Amazon MTurk will
not have access to this data.
Payments and Funding
As a reimbursement for your time and effort, you will receive $1.50 as
dispensed through the Amazon MTurk service.
This research is totally funded by the School of Psychology at Deakin University,
Melbourne, Australia.
Risk and Benefits
The risk of harm to you is not expected to be greater than that experienced in
everyday life. We cannot guarantee that you will receive any benefits from this project.
Privacy and Confidentiality Protection
As your responses will be collected anonymously, there is no way the research
team can connect participant responses to specific individuals.
Only researchers associated with this project will have access to the non-
identified, anonymous data. It will be kept in a secure storage at Deakin University for a
minimum of 5 years – in line with Deakin University regulations – before it is
permanently destroyed.
Access to the Results
The research will be reported in a PhD thesis and may be presented at a
conference. The research may also be submitted to a professional journal for
publication. Only group averages will be reported.
If you wish to do so, you are able to contact Ms Annamaria Klas at
aklas@deakin.edu.au for a copy of the results. If you seek out this information, you will
receive a brief written summary once it is available.
APPENDICES 259
Provision of services to participants adversely affected by the research
At all stages of this study, the research will be monitored by Dr Lucy Zinkiewicz
and Dr Ben Richardson (principal investigators).
If you have any queries, complaints or concerns about the research project, you
can contact the principal investigators Dr Lucy Zinkiewicz (School of Psychology, Deakin
University) at lucy.zinkiewicz@deakin.edu.au or Dr Ben Richardson (School of
Psychology, Deakin University) at ben.richardson@deakin.edu.au
If you are experiencing a crisis, cannot contact a counsellor and need help
urgently, we recommend contacting a mental health professional for further guidance
(see http://www.mentalhealthamerica.net/find-affiliate).
Your Rights as a Research Participant
Participation in this anonymous survey is completely voluntary. You are in no
way obliged to participate.
You also have the right to withdraw at any time up to the completion of your
online questionnaire. However, due to our privacy protocols, removal of your
responses from the sample after this time is impossible.
Deciding not to participate or withdrawing your consent will not affect your
relationship to the researchers or Deakin University.
You also have the right to decline to answer any questions if you experience
any discomfort.
Complaints
If you have any complaints about any aspect of the project, the way it is being
conducted or any questions about your rights as a research participant, then you may
contact:
The Manager, Ethics and Biosafety, Deakin University, 221 Burwood Highway, Burwood
Victoria 3125, Telephone: +61 03 9251 7129, research-ethics@deakin.edu.au
Please quote project number [HEAG-H 128_2015].
By clicking the button below, you agree that you have read and understood the Plain
Language Statement and that you consent to participate in this research.
Thank you for your generosity in participating; it is sincerely appreciated.
APPENDICES 260
Appendix C
Study 1: Interview Materials
Interview Protocol Form
Date: ________
Time: ________
Location: ___________________
Consent Form Signed: Y/N
Notes to the interviewee:
Have you read through the Plain Language Statement? Any questions?
Just to clarify:
Purpose of research: We want to discover more about people’s perceptions
and/or experiences of ‘green consumerism’. Even though some research has examined
barriers to ‘green consumerism’, it’s unclear how various individuals perceive or
experience green consumerism.
You don’t need to be someone who engages in ‘green consumerism’ to partake
in this study. We’re interested in both overall perceptions and possible experiences.
Interview – will be 40-50 minutes long. I will be asking you 6-10 major
questions that may require me to clarify or probe you for more information. It will be
audio-recorded. Is that ok?
I want to ensure you that confidentiality of responses is guaranteed. The results
of the study will be published in a PhD thesis, and may be presented at a conference or
published in an academic journal. Even though we may publish your results, we will be
using pseudonyms. We will keep the data for a minimum of 6 years after which it will
be destroyed.
Methods for providing results: You can receive the results from this study from
the principal supervisor – Dr Janine McGuinness
Payment: You have the opportunity to win a $100 Coles-Myer gift card. You can
give me your contact details at the end of the study if you wish to partake.
APPENDICES 261
Interview Prompts
1. Tell me a bit about yourself
a. What is your age?
b. What is your occupation?
c. What is your level of education attained?
d. Are you a member of an environmental organisation/s?
2. Do you self-identify as an environmentalist?
a. If so, please describe what you perceive to be an environmentalist
3. Please describe what you perceive to be an environmentalist
4. Please describe what comes to mind when you hear the term ‘green consumerism’
5. What do you think is involved in ‘green consumerism’?
6. What do you think has a relationship or is similar to green consumerism?
a. How come these?
b. What other environmental behaviours may be similar or related to green
consumerism?
c. What other consumer behaviours may be similar or related to green
consumerism?
7. How may green consumerism be an effective strategy for tackling environmental
problems?
a. If yes, why? If not, why?
8. What people may engage in ‘green consumerism’?
a. What social groups have an impact on peoples ‘green consumerism’?
Why these ones?
9. Do you perceive yourself as engaging in ‘green consumerism’?
a. If so, how come? If not, how come?
10. Please describe what comes to mind when you gear the term ‘green product’
a. Can you please list any product that you perceive to be ‘green’?
11. Are there any assumptions made about green consumerism or green products or
the perceptions of those things that you wish to discuss?
12. Is there anything else that you want to note about these matters?
Final comments
1. Do you wish to be included in the raffle to win a $100 Coles-Myer gift card?
If so, please provide an active email address for the research team to contact
you if you win.
2. Do you wish to know the results of this study once completed? If so, here is
the email of the principal investigator of the project to contact.
APPENDICES 262
Appendix D
Study 2: Qualitative Survey Materials
Questionnaire
Full Project Title: BELIEFS ABOUT ENVIRONMENTALISTS AND THEIR
RELATIONSHIP TO IDENTITY, CONSUMERISM AND ACTIVISM
Principal Researcher/s: Dr Lucy Zinkiewicz, Dr Ben Richardson
Student Researcher: Ms Annamaria Klas
What do you think about environmentalists?
We are interested in your personal beliefs regarding environmentalists. To maintain
the anonymity of this research, please do not provide any identifying information when
answering these questions.
1. In one or two sentences, how would you define the term ‘environmentalist’?
2. What words, phrases or statements would you use to describe
environmentalists?
3. What is your overall view of environmentalists?
4. Could you please outline why you hold this view?
APPENDICES 263
Demographic Information
Please select the option that is most appropriate for you.
What is your gender?
Female
Male
Other – please specify
What is your age?
_ years
Country of residence?
_ (List of countries)
What is currently the highest level of education you have obtained? Lower secondary education (year 10/sophomore year or below)
Upper secondary education (high school completion)
Post-secondary non-tertiary education (TAFE, Certificate I to IV, Diploma)
First stage of tertiary education (Undergraduate degree, Bachelor Degree)
Second stage of tertiary education (Graduate degree, Masters, PhD, Doctorate)
Other – please specify
Are you currently a student? Yes
No
What is your annual income (before taxes)?
Less than $15,000
$15,000 to $24,999
$25,000 to $34,999
$35,000 to $49,999
$50,000 to $74,999
$75,000 and above.
Are you currently a member of an environmental organization/s?
Yes
No
Not Sure
Prefer Not to Say
APPENDICES 264
Appendix E
Study 3: Stimulus Materials and Measures
Questionnaire
Full Project Title: BELIEFS ABOUT ENVIRONMENTALISTS AND THEIR
RELATIONSHIP TO IDENTITY, CONSUMERISM AND ACTIVISM
Principal Researcher/s: Dr Lucy Zinkiewicz, Dr Ben Richardson
Student Researcher: Ms Annamaria Klas
Demographic Information
Please select the option that is most appropriate for you.
What is your gender?
Female
Male
Other – please specify
What is your age?
_ years
Country of residence?
_ (List of countries)
APPENDICES 265
What is currently the highest level of education you have obtained?
Lower secondary education (year 10/sophomore year or below)
Upper secondary education (high school completion)
Post-secondary non-tertiary education (TAFE, Certificate I to IV, Diploma)
First stage of tertiary education (Undergraduate degree, Bachelor Degree)
Second stage of tertiary education (Graduate degree, Masters, PhD, Doctorate)
Other – please specify
Are you currently a student?
Yes
No
What is your annual income (before taxes)?
Less than $15,000
$15,000 to $24,999
$25,000 to $34,999
$35,000 to $49,999
$50,000 to $74,999
$75,000 and above.
APPENDICES 266
Environmentalist Social Identity Vignette
People’s views on the environment vary widely.
For instance, some people do not think about the environment and are not worried about
the issues it may be facing. In comparison, others are worried about the environment.
These people often wish to do something to help the environment and may employ such
strategies as: buying environmentally friendly products and services; reducing their
energy use; reusing and repairing items; and recycling.
While your views might not fall exactly into one of these two categories, please indicate
which category best represents your own views on the environment:
1. I am not worried about the environment
2. I am worried about the environment
Now please respond to the next ten statements.
1.
Never 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.
7.
Always
1. I am a person who considers environmentalists important
2. I am a person who identifies with environmentalists
3. I am a person who feels strong ties with environmentalists
4. I am a person who is glad to belong with environmentalists
5. I am a person who sees myself as belonging with environmentalists
6. I am a person who makes excuses for belonging with environmentalists
7. I am a person who tries to hide belonging with environmentalists
8. I am a person who feels held back by environmentalists
9. I am a person who is annoyed to say I’m an environmentalist
10. I am a person who criticizes environmentalists
APPENDICES 267
Collective Action and Pro-Environmental Behaviour Measures
Political Consumerism Index
Sometimes people engage in boycotting or buy-cotting behaviour.
Boycotting is defined as an active refusal to spend money on a product or service as a
means to punish institutions or businesses for unfavourable behavior.
Buy-cotting is defined as an active effort of spending money on a product or service in
the hopes of rewarding businesses that exhibit desirable behaviour.
To clarify that you understand what is involved in boycotting, please indicate which
option is the most appropriate definition.
Boycotting is...
Spending money on products or services because you enjoy using them
Refusing to spend money on products or services to punish businesses for bad
behaviour
Refusing to spend money on things because you don’t like the quality of the
product
Spending money on products or services to reward businesses for good
behaviour
Please respond.
1. Never 2. 3. 4. Sometimes 5. 6. 7. Always
1. Do you participate in boycotting products?
2. How often do you boycott for political/ethical reasons?
APPENDICES 268
To clarify that you understand what is involved in buy-cotting, please indicate which
option is the most appropriate definition.
Buy-cotting is…
Refusing to spend money on things because you don’t like the quality of the
product
Spending money on products or services to reward businesses for good
behaviour
Spending money on products or services because you enjoy using them
Refusing to spend money on products or services to punish businesses for bad
behaviour
Please respond.
1. Never 2. 3. 4. Sometimes 5. 6. 7. Always
1. Do you participate in buying some products over others (buy-cott)?
2. How often do you “buy-cott” for political/ethical reasons?
3. Do you have ethical considerations when buying groceries?
4. Do you have ethical considerations when buying clothes?
Environmental Activism
Please respond to the following statements.
1. Never 2. 3. 4. Sometimes 5. 6. 7. Always
1. I participate in events organised by environmental groups
2. I give financial support to an environmental group
3. I circulate petitions demanding an improvement of government policies
regarding the environment
4. I participate in protests against current environmental conditions
5. I vote for a government proposing environmentally conscious policies
6. I write letters to firms that manufacture harmful products
APPENDICES 269
Environmental Citizenship Subscale
Please respond to the following statements.
1. Never 2. 3. 4. Sometimes 5. 6. 7. Always
1. Do you consider yourself a member of any group whose main aim is to preserve
or protect the environment?
2. In the last 12 months, have you read any newsletters, magazines or other
publications written by environmental groups?
3. Have you signed a petition in support of protecting the environment in the last 12
months?
4. Have you given money to an environmental group in the last 12 months?
5. Have you written a letter or called your government official to support strong
environmental protection in the last 12 months?
6. Have you boycotted or avoided buying the products of a company because you
felt that company was harming the environment in the last 12 months?
7. Have you voted for a candidate in a political election, at least in part, because he
or she was in favour of strong environmental protection?
Willingness to Sacrifice Subscale
Please respond to the following statements.
1. Never 2. 3. 4. Sometimes 5. 6. 7. Always
1. I would be willing to pay much higher taxes in order
2. I would be willing to accept cuts in my standard of living to protect the
environment
3. I would be willing to pay much higher prices in order to protect the environment.
APPENDICES 270
Green Consumerism Measure
Please respond to the following statements.
1. Never 2. 3. 4. Sometimes 5. 6. 7. Always
1. I normally make a conscious effort to limit my use of products that are made of
or use scarce resources.
2. I always try to use electric appliances (e.g. dishwasher, washer and dryer) before
10 a.m. and after 10 p.m.
3. I will not buy products which have excessive packaging.
4. When there is a choice, I always choose that product which contributes to the
least amount of pollution.
5. If I understand the potential damage to the environment that some products can
cause, I do not purchase these products.
6. I have switched products for ecological reasons.
7. I use a recycling centre or in some way recycle some of my household trash.
8. I make every effort to buy paper products made from recycled paper.
9. I use a low-phosphate detergent (or soap) for my laundry.
10. I have convinced members of my family or friends not to buy some products
which are harmful to the environment.
11. I have purchased products because they cause less pollution.
12. I do not buy products in aerosol containers.
13. Whenever possible, I buy products packaged in reusable containers.
14. When I purchase products, I always make a conscious effort to buy those
products that are low in pollutants.
15. When I have a choice between two equal products, I always purchase the one
which is less harmful to other people and the environment.
16. I buy toilet paper made from recycled paper.
17. I buy Kleenex (tissues) made from recycled paper.
18. I buy paper towels made from recycled paper.
19. I will not buy a product if the company that sells it is ecologically irresponsible.
20. I try only to buy products that can be recycled.
21. To reduce our reliance on foreign oil, I drive my car as little as possible.
22. I do not buy household products that harm the environment.
APPENDICES 271
Manipulation Checks
Please respond to the following statements.
During the survey, to what extent did you feel like a member of the environmentalist
group, as opposed to feeling like a distinct individual?
1. Very
much like
a group
member
2. 3. 4. 5. 6.
7. Very
much like
an
individual
To what extent do you see yourself as a member of the environmentalist social group?
1. Very
much like
a group
member
2. 3. 4. 5. 6.
7. Very
much like
an
individual
Are you currently a member of an environmental organization/s?
Yes
No
Not Sure
Prefer Not to Say
APPENDICES 272
Appendix F
Study 3: Data Screening and Assumption Testing
Data Preparation and Assumption Testing
Data screening and analyses were conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics 23.0
(2016) and IBM SPSS AMOS 23.0 (2016). Prior to analysis, all initially collected data
(N = 358) was screened for missing values using the SPSS Missing Values function.
The percentage of missing data was minimal (<2%), yet not missing completely at
random (Little’s MCAR test: χ²(1514) = 1766.73, p < .001). Nonetheless, given the
small percentage, all missing data were replaced using the expectation maximisation
function in SPSS (as recommended by Hair, Black, Babin, & Anderson, 2104; West,
Finch, & Curran, 1995).
Data were then screened for outliers. Using the z > 3.29 criterion and the
Mahalanobis Distance test (p < .001) (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007), 37 univariate outliers
and 38 multivariate outliers were found in the data. As the minimal number of univariate
outliers would have little impact on analysis, these were left as they were (Hair, Black,
Babin, & Anderson, 2014). However, given that the study was utilising path analyses,
which require no multivariate outliers, the 37 multivariate outliers were deleted, thereby
decreasing the sample size to 320. Scale items were then assessed for normality (i.e.,
skewness > 2 and kurtosis > 4, as outlined in West, Finch, & Curran, 1995), with no
violations found. Multicollinearity was also examined using the .90 rule (Field, 2013),
with no violations found.
APPENDICES 273
Appendix G
Study 3: Green Consumerism Exploratory Factor Analysis
As previous research has demonstrated varying factor structures for the green
consumerism scale employed in the current study (see Roberts, 1996; Straughan &
Roberts, 1999), an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was first conducted to explore the
number and content of factors that best represented the 22-item scale as suggested by
Worthington and Whittaker (2006). With the subsample of 275 participants, a maximum
likelihood factor analysis with an oblique rotation (direct oblimin) was employed (as it
was expected that any extracted factors would correlate). The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin
(KMO) (Kaiser, 1970) measure confirmed the sampling adequacy for the analysis, KMO
= .95 (‘marvellous’, according to Hutcheson & Sofroniou, 1999). All of the KMO values
for the individual scale items were also greater than .89, exceeding the acceptable limit
of .50 (Field, 2013) (see Table G1 for KMO values and item communalities for
individual scale items). Bartlett’s test of sphericity was also significant, χ²(231) =
4553.59, p < .001, indicating data were suitable for an EFA.
As the sample size exceeded 250, the number of factors were determined using
Kaiser’s rule (eigenvalue > 1) (Kaiser, 1960) and by inspecting the scree plot (Cattell,
1966), as recommended by Field (2013). Two factors were found, each with an
eigenvalue of > 1, that in combination accounted for 60.41% of the variance in the data
(see Table G2 for factor loadings, eigenvalues, percentage of variance explained and
Cronbach alphas). Yet the scree plot (see Figure G1) demonstrated a steep inflexion that
justified retaining only the first factor, whilst the inter-factor bivariate correlation
between the two extracted factors was also negative and moderate (r = -.59, p < .001).
APPENDICES 274
Furthermore, the three items that made up the second factor all asked participants
whether they bought products made from recycled paper, suggesting that this factor was
redundant. Given these considerations, the first factor was only retained for further
analyses; especially since it still explained a large proportion of variance (53.25%) and
that the average communality of items for this factor was .54.
Figure G1. Scree plot for 22-item green consumerism scale following exploratory factor
analysis.
APPENDICES 275
Table G1
KMO Values and Item Communalities for Individual Scale Items in the 22-item
Green Consumerism Scale
KMO Communalities
I normally make a conscious effort to limit my use of
products that are made of or use scarce resources.
.96 .61
I always try to use electric appliances (e.g. dishwasher,
washer and dryer) before 10 a.m. and after 10 p.m.
.94 .27
I will not buy products which have excessive
packaging.
.96 .47
When there is a choice, I always choose that product
which contributes to the least amount of pollution.
.96 .66
If I understand the potential damage to the environment
that some products can cause, I do not purchase these
products.
.97 .66
I have switched products for ecological reasons. .97 .68
I use a recycling centre or in some way recycle some of
my household trash.
.91 .26
I make every effort to buy paper products made from
recycled paper.
.96 .63
I use a low-phosphate detergent (or soap) for my
laundry.
.95 .40
I have convinced members of my family or friends not
to buy some products which are harmful to the
environment.
.96 .50
I have purchased products because they cause less
pollution.
.97 .83
I do not buy products in aerosol containers. .96 .29
Whenever possible, I buy products packaged in reusable
containers.
.95 .48
When I purchase products, I always make a conscious
effort to buy those products that are low in pollutants.
.97 .74
When I have a choice between two equal products, I
always purchase the one which is less harmful to other
people and the environment.
.96 .70
I buy toilet paper made from recycled paper. .90 .83
I buy Kleenex (tissues) made from recycled paper. .89 .83
I buy paper towels made from recycled paper. .94 .76
I will not buy a product if the company that sells it is
ecologically irresponsible.
.97 .53
I try only to buy products that can be recycled. .96 .66
To reduce our reliance on foreign oil, I drive my car as
little as possible.
.94 .29
I do not buy household products that harm the
environment.
.95 .57
Note. KMO = Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy.
APPENDICES 276
Table G2
Summary of Exploratory Factor Analysis Results for Green Consumerism Scale
Factor 1 Factor 2
I have purchased products because they cause less pollution .96 .09
When I have a choice between two equal products, I always purchase the one which is less
harmful to other people and the environment .86 .04
When I purchase products, I always make a conscious effort to buy those products that are low in
pollutants .85 -.02
If I understand the potential damage to the environment that some products can cause, I do not
purchase these products .84 .05
When there is a choice, I always choose the product which contributes to the least amount of
pollution .84 .04
I have switched products for ecological reasons .84 .02
I normally make a conscious effort to limit my use of products that are made of or use scarce
resources .79 .02
I will not buy products which have excessive packaging .76 -.14
I make every effort to buy paper products made from recycled paper .75 -.07
I do not buy household products that harm the environment .72 -.06
I try only to buy products that can be recycled .71 -.15
I will not buy a product if the company that sells it is ecologically irresponsible .70 -.05
Whenever possible, I buy products packaged in reusable containers .62 -.11
I have convinced members of my family or friends not to by some products which are harmful to
the environment .62 -.14
I use a low phosphate detergent (or soap) for my laundry .58 -.09
I use a recycling centre or in some way recycle some of my household trash .54 .06
I do not buy products in aerosol containers .54 -.01
To reduce our reliance on foreign oil, I drive my car as little as possible .53 -.02
I always try to use electric appliances (e.g. dishwasher, washer, dryer) before 10 a.m. and after
10 p.m. .42 -.14
I buy Kleenex (tissues) made from recycled paper -.01 -.92
I buy toilet paper made from recycled paper .02 -.90
I buy paper towels made from recycled paper .16 -.77
Eigenvalues 11.71 1.58
% of variance 53.25 7.16
α .95 .92 Note. Rotated factor loadings over .40 appear in bold. α = Cronbach’s alpha
APPENDICES 277
Appendix H
Study 3: Confirmatory Factor Analyses – Additional Information
Figure H1. Confirmatory measurement model for green consumerism. All regression
paths significant at p < .001.
APPENDICES 278
Table H1
Standardised Factor Loadings for the Environmentalist Social Identity Scale
Standardised
Factor loadings
Affirm group membership (α = .97)
I am a person who is glad to belong with environmentalists .96
I am a person who sees myself as belonging with
environmentalists
.95
I am a person who identifies with environmentalists .93
I am a person who feels strong ties with environmentalists .93
I am a person who considers environmentalists important .74 Note. α = Cronbach alpha. All factor loadings were significant at p < .001.
Table H2
Standardised Factor Loadings for the Political Consumerism and Environmental
Activism Scales
Standardised Factor
loadings
PC EA
Scale 1: Political consumerism (α = .89)
Do you have ethical or political considerations when buying
groceries?
.84
Do you have ethical or political considerations when buying clothes? .82
Do you participate in buying some products over others (buy-cott)? .76
How often do you boycott for political/ethical reasons? .73
How often do you “buy-cott” for political/ethical reasons? .73
Do you participate in boycotting products? .68
Scale 2: Environmental activism (α = .85)
I participate in protests against current environmental conditions .87
I circulate petitions demanding an improvement of government
policies regarding the environment
.84
I write letters to firms that manufacture harmful products .83
I participate in events organised by environmental groups .83
I give financial support to an environmental group .72
I vote for a government proposing environmentally conscious policies .41 Note. α = Cronbach alpha. PC = political consumerism; EA = environmental activism.
All factor loadings were significant at p < .00
APPENDICES 279
Table H3
Standardised Factor Loadings for Pro-environmental Behaviour Subscales
Standardised Factor
loadings
WS EC
Subscale 1: Willingness to sacrifice (α = .91)
I would be willing to pay much higher prices in order to protect the
environment
.93
I would be willing to pay much higher taxes in order to protect the
environment
.86
I would be willing to accept cuts in my standard of living to protect
the environment
.83
Subscale 2: Environmental citizenship (α = .85)
Have you signed a petition in support of protecting the environment in
the last 12 months?
.78
Have you given money to an environmental group in the last 12
months?
.69
Do you consider yourself a member of any group whose main aim is
to preserve or protect the environment?
.68
Have you boycotted or avoided buying the products of a company
because you felt that company was harming the environment in the last
12 months?
.68
In the last 12 months, have you read any newsletters, magazines or
other publications written by environmental groups?
.67
Have you voted for a candidate in a political election, at least in part,
because he or she was in favour of strong environmental protection?
.66
Have you written a letter or called your government official to support
strong environmental protection in the last 12 months?
.64
Note. α = Cronbach alpha.WS = willingness to sacrifice; EC = environmental citizenship.
All factor loadings were significant at p < .001
APPENDICES 280
Appendix I
Study 3: Re-specifications of Model 1 Predicting Green Consumerism
Given that the initial estimation of Model 1 demonstrated an extremely poor fit
to the data (see Figure 1 in Chapter 6 for the first model), modification indices (MI,
Lagrange Multiplier), expected parameter changes (EPC), and standardised residuals
were inspected in order to identify any sources of model misfit. Only those modification
indices that were above 10 were inspected as potential areas to re-specify the model
(Byrne, 2001).
Figure I1. First re-specification for Model 1 predicting green consumerism. * p < .05,
** p < .01, *** p < .001.
Following inspection of modification indices for Model 1, a covariance path was
added between the error terms for environmental citizenship and environmental activism
(MI = 136.55, EPC = .62). This re-specification produced a significant improvement in
fit as determined by nested chi-square difference testing (Kline, 2004) (χ² difference =
189.03, p < .05).
However, the model still demonstrated a poor fit to the data, χ²(5, N = 275) =
140.84, p < .001; CFI = .86, TLI = .59, SRMR = .12, RMSEA = .32 (90% CIs [.27, .36]).
APPENDICES 281
Figure I2. Second re-specification for Model 1 predicting green consumerism. * p < .05,
** p < .01, *** p < .001.
Following inspection of modification indices for the first re-specification for
Model 1 (see Figure I1) a second covariance path was added between the error terms for
political consumerism and environmental activism (MI = 36.79, EPC = .28). This re-
specification produced a significant improvement in fit as determined by nested chi-
square difference testing (Kline, 2004) (χ² difference = 46.25, p < .05).
Although the CFI was improved, the second re-specified model still
demonstrated a poor fit to the data, χ²(4, N = 275) = 94.59, p < .001; CFI = .91, TLI
= .65, SRMR = .09, RMSEA = .29 (90% CIs [.24, .34].
APPENDICES 282
Figure I3. Third re-specification for Model 1 predicting green consumerism. * p < .05,
** p < .01, *** p < .001.
Following inspection of modification indices for the second re-specification for
Model 1 (see Figure I2) a third covariance path was added between the error terms for
willingness to sacrifice and environmental citizenship (MI = 33.87, EPC = .25). This re-
specification produced a significant improvement in fit as determined by nested chi-
square difference testing (Kline, 2004) (χ² difference = 38.52, p < .05).
Although both the CFI and SRMR demonstrated improvement, the third re-
specified model still demonstrated a poor fit to the data, χ²(3, N = 275) = 56.07, p < .001;
CFI = .95, TLI = .73, SRMR = .08, RMSEA = .25 (90% CIs [20, .31]).
APPENDICES 283
Figure I4. Fourth re-specification for Model 1 predicting green consumerism. * p < .05,
** p < .01, *** p < .001.
Following inspection of modification indices for the third re-specification for
Model 1 (see Figure I3), a fourth and final covariance path was added between the error
terms for willingness to sacrifice and environmental citizenship (MI = 15.64, EPC = .16).
This re-specification produced a significant improvement in fit as determined by nested
chi-square difference testing (Kline, 2004) (χ² difference = 39.83, p < .05).
Both the CFI and SRMR demonstrated a vast improvement, with the fourth re-
specified model demonstrating an acceptable fit to the data, χ²(2, N = 275) =16.240, p
< .001; CFI = .97, TLI = .89, SRMR = .05, RMSEA = .16 (90% CIs [.09, .24]).
Nonetheless given that almost all of the possible paths between error terms had been
specified in this model, the final re-specification model was deemed to be meaningless.
APPENDICES 284
Appendix J
Study 3: Initial Path Model for Model 2 Predicting Green Consumerism
Following inspection of the re-specifications for Model 1 (see Appendix I), the
environmental citizenship construct was removed from the path model thereby creating
Model 2 predicting green consumerism.
Figure J1. Model 2 predicting green consumerism. p < .01, *** p < .001.
Although the fit indices did demonstrate a poor fitting model, this second model
was still a better fit to the data than was Model 1 (see Figure 1, Chapter 6), χ²(3, N =
275) = 56.07, p < .001; CFI = .91, TLI = .69, SRMR = .09, RMSEA = .25 (90% CIs
[.20, .31]).
APPENDICES 285
Appendix K
Study 4: Stimulus Materials and Measures
Questionnaire
Full Project Title: BELIEFS ABOUT ENVIRONMENTALISTS AND THEIR
RELATIONSHIP TO IDENTITY, CONSUMERISM AND ACTIVISM
Principal Researcher/s: Dr Lucy Zinkiewicz, Dr Ben Richardson
Student Researcher: Ms Annamaria Klas
Environmentalist Stereotypes Vignette
Different social groups can be distinguished by their values, attitudes and
personal characteristics.
For example, environmentalists are often seen as intelligent, whilst miners are
typically viewed as hard-working. These two groups may also differ in opinion
regarding environmental issues, with environmentalists typically believing climate
change is happening. In comparison many miners are sceptical of climate change.
APPENDICES 286
Environmentalist Stereotypes Prototype Measure
Even though environmentalists will not be identical, some characteristics will be
common in most, if not all, environmentalists.
In the following task, we are interested to know what characteristics you perceive as
the most representative or common of environmentalists. Note that the most
representative position doesn’t have to be the most popular, or average, position.
Using the example of students, if you feel ‘rarely’ friendly best represents students as
a whole, then you would choose that option.
Students are... Friendly
Not at all Rarely Sometimes Frequently All the time
Below is a list of personal characteristics that are commonly used to describe
environmentalists. Your task is chose only one level on the scale below that you
perceive best represents the environmentalist group as a whole.
Please choose the option that is most representative or common, and be sure to only
choose one option for each scale.
Environmentalists are...
Caring
Informed
Dedicated
Pushy
Stubborn
1.
Not at all
2.
Rarely
3.
Sometimes
4.
Frequently
5.
All the time
APPENDICES 287
Demographic Information
Please select the option that is most appropriate for you.
What is your gender?
Female
Male
Other – please specify
What is your age?
_ years
Country of residence?
_ (List of countries)
What is currently the highest level of education you have obtained? Lower secondary education (year 10/sophomore year or below)
Upper secondary education (high school completion)
Post-secondary non-tertiary education (TAFE, Certificate I to IV, Diploma)
First stage of tertiary education (Undergraduate degree, Bachelor Degree)
Second stage of tertiary education (Graduate degree, Masters, PhD, Doctorate)
Other – please specify
Are you currently a student? Yes
No
What is your annual income (before taxes)?
Less than $15,000
$15,000 to $24,999
$25,000 to $34,999
$35,000 to $49,999
$50,000 to $74,999
$75,000 and above.
APPENDICES 288
Environmentalist Social Identity Vignette
People’s views on the environment vary widely.
For instance, some people do not think about the environment and are not worried
about the issues it may be facing. In comparison, others are worried about the
environment. These people often wish to do something to help the environment and
may employ such strategies as: buying environmentally friendly products and
services; reducing their energy use; reusing and repairing items; and recycling.
While your views might not fall exactly into one of these two categories, please
indicate which category best represents your own views on the environment:
I am not worried about the environment
I am worried about the environment
Now please respond to the next ten statements.
1.
Never 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.
7.
Always
1. I am a person who considers environmentalists important
2. I am a person who identifies with environmentalists
3. I am a person who feels strong ties with environmentalists
4. I am a person who is glad to belong with environmentalists
5. I am a person who sees myself as belonging with environmentalists
6. I am a person who makes excuses for belonging with environmentalists
7. I am a person who tries to hide belonging with environmentalists
8. I am a person who feels held back by environmentalists
9. I am a person who is annoyed to say I’m an environmentalist
10. I am a person who criticizes environmentalists
APPENDICES 289
Green Consumerism Measure
Please respond to the following statements.
1.
Never 2. 3.
4.
Sometimes 5. 6.
7.
Always
1. I normally make a conscious effort to limit my use of products that are made
of or use scarce resources.
2. I always try to use electric appliances (e.g. dishwasher, washer and dryer)
before 10 a.m. and after 10 p.m.
3. I will not buy products which have excessive packaging.
4. When there is a choice, I always choose that product which contributes to the
least amount of pollution.
5. If I understand the potential damage to the environment that some products
can cause, I do not purchase these products.
6. I have switched products for ecological reasons.
7. I use a recycling centre or in some way recycle some of my household trash.
8. I make every effort to buy paper products made from recycled paper.
9. I use a low-phosphate detergent (or soap) for my laundry.
10. I have convinced members of my family or friends not to buy some products
which are harmful to the environment.
11. I have purchased products because they cause less pollution.
12. I do not buy products in aerosol containers.
13. Whenever possible, I buy products packaged in reusable containers.
14. When I purchase products, I always make a conscious effort to buy those
products that are low in pollutants.
15. When I have a choice between two equal products, I always purchase the one
which is less harmful to other people and the environment.
16. I buy toilet paper made from recycled paper.
17. I buy Kleenex (tissues) made from recycled paper.
18. I buy paper towels made from recycled paper.
19. I will not buy a product if the company that sells it is ecologically
irresponsible.
20. I try only to buy products that can be recycled.
21. To reduce our reliance on foreign oil, I drive my car as little as possible.
22. I do not buy household products that harm the environment.
APPENDICES 290
New Ecological Paradigm Scale
Listed below are statements about the relationship between humans and the
environment.
Do you agree or disagree that:
1.
Strongly
disagree
2. 3. 4.
Unsure 5. 6.
7.
Strongly
agree
1. We are approaching the limit of the number of people the earth can support
2. Humans have the right to modify the natural environmental to suit their needs
3. When humans interfere with nature it often produces disastrous consequences
4. Human ingenuity will ensure that we do NOT make the earth unliveable
5. Humans are severely abusing the environment
6. The earth has plenty of natural resources if we just learn how to develop them
7. Plants and animals have as much right as humans to exist
8. The balance of nature is strong enough to cope with the impacts of modern
industrial nations
9. Despite our abilities, humans are still subject to the laws of nature
10. The so-called “ecological crisis” facing humankind has been greatly
exaggerated
11. The earth is like a spaceship with very limited room and resources
12. Humans were meant to rule over the rest of nature
13. The balance of nature is very delicate and easily upset
14. Humans will eventually learn enough about how nature works to be able
control it
15. If things continue on their present course, we will soon experience a major
ecological catastrophe
APPENDICES 291
Manipulation Checks
Please respond to the final three questions.
During the survey, to what extent did you feel like a member of the environmentalist
group, as opposed to feeling like a distinct individual?
1. Very
much like
a group
member
2. 3. 4.
5. 6.
7. Very
much like
an
individual
To what extent do you see yourself as a member of the environmentalist social
group?
1. Very
much like
a group
member
2. 3. 4.
5. 6.
7. Very
much like
an
individual
Are you currently a member of an environmental organization/s?
Yes
No
Not Sure
APPENDICES 292
Appendix L
Study 4: Piloting of Prototypical Traits
Before the contribution environmentalist outgroup stereotypes and
environmentalist social identity had upon green consumerism could be investigated a
pilot study was conducted to confirm the content of environmentalist outgroup
stereotypes and to investigate whether participants understood the meaning of the
various trait terms used for the environmentalist stereotype measure.
Method
Participants. Thirty participants took part in the pilot study, including 12
women (40%) and 18 men (60%). Participant age ranged from 21 to 59 years (M =
34.50; SD = 10.61), with the majority of participants (27, 90%) indicating they were
not students. All participants resided in the United States.
Measures. Eight trait terms (e.g. caring, informed, dedicated, pushy, smug,
dogmatic, arrogant, and stubborn) were measured. Participants familiarity and
perceptions of negativity for these trait terms were measured using a single-item (e.g.
‘how familiar are you with this word?’ and ‘how negative is this word?’) along a
seven-point likert scale (e.g. 1not at all familiar, 7 very familiar;1 not at all negative,
7 very negative). This was followed by a short-answer question in which participants
were asked to briefly define each of the trait words.
Procedure. Once ethics approval was obtained from Deakin University’s
Human Research Ethics Committee, participants were recruited online via Amazon’s
Mechanical Turk. Demographic items were asked first, followed by the familiarity,
negativity and definition task (in that order) per each trait term. However trait terms
were randomized across participants. Participants were also only asked to fill out the
negativity item and complete the definition task if they scored two or above on the
APPENDICES 293
familiarity item. Participants were paid 50 cents for their participation. Submission of
the questionnaire signified participant consent.
Results
Table L1
Mean and Standard Deviations for Positive Trait Terms of the Environmentalist
Category
Caring Informed Dedicated
Familiarity
M 6.70 6.67 6.57
SD .84 .84 .90
Total 30 30 30
Negativity
M 1.52 1.80 1.90
SD 1.23 1.57 1.72
Total 25 29 30 Note. Caring, informed and dedicated are generally considered to be positive trait terms. Therefore
low scores on this item indicate that participants perceived these terms as positive.
Table L2
Mean and Standard Deviations for Negative Trait Terms of the Environmentalist
Category
Pushy Smug Dogmatic Arrogant Stubborn
Familiarity
M 6.57 5.53 4.13 6.63 6.40
SD .68 1.91 2.24 0.76 1.19
Total 30 30 30 30 30
Negativity
M 5.17 5.24 4.00 5.66 4.73
SD 1.47 1.27 1.45 1.47 1.22
Total 29 25 21 29 26 .
Discussion
Mean and standard deviation analyses were run to determine participant’s
familiarity and negative perceptions of eight trait terms (see table sbove). The traits
of caring, informed, dedicated, pushy, arrogant and stubborn received high means for
APPENDICES 294
familiarity, thereby indicating these traits were well-known to participants. However
smug and dogmatic only demonstrated moderate levels of familiarity.
Mean scores for perceptions of negativity also indicated that caring, informed
and dedicated were perceived as positive trait terms by participants (that is, they
received low mean scores on the negativity single-item measure). There was no trait
term that was seen as extremely negative, with pushy, smug, stubborn and arrogant
receiving moderate means. Furthermore dogmatic was also perceived as somewhat
negative. It is possible that due to participant’s lack of familiarity with the trait term
of dogmatic, they were less likely to see it as negative. Given these findings, future
measurements of environmentalist stereotypes should not employ the trait terms of
smug and dogmatic due to the low level of familiarity with these words.
APPENDICES 295
Appendix M
Study 4: Data Screening and Assumption Testing for Study 4
Data Preparation and Assumption Testing
Data screening and analyses were conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics 23.0
(2016) and the PROCESS Macro (v2.16) for SPSS developed by Andrew Hayes
(Hayes, 2013). Prior to analysis, all data that was initially collected (N = 312) was
screened in SPSS for missing values using the Missing Values function. The
percentage of missing data across scale items was minimal (<1.5%), however a
Little’s MCAR test did indicate that this data was not missing completely at random
(Little’s MCAR test: χ²(1072) = 1227.94, p = .001). Nonetheless missing data was
still replaced using the expectation maximisation function in SPSS given the small
percentage of missing data (Hair, Black, Babin, & Anderson, 2104; West, Finch, &
Curran, 1995).
Data was then screened for outliers. Using the z > 3.29 criterion, 17
univariate outliers were found. A Mahalanobis Distance test (p < .001) also revealed
30 multivariate outliers (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). Univariate outliers were left as
is as it was reasoned the small number would have little impact on analysis (Hair,
Black, Babin, & Anderson, 2014). However, given that the study was interested in
conducting regression and mediation analyses which can be unduly influenced by
multivariate outliers (Aiken & West, 1991; Cohen, Cohen, Aiken, & West, 2008;
Hayes, 2013), participants who demonstrated multivariate outliers were deleted from
the sample – thereby decreasing the sample size to 282. Scale items were then
assessed for normality (e.g., skewness > 2 and kurtosis > 4); with no violations found
(West, Finch, & Curran, 1995). Multicollinearity was also examined using the .90
rule (Field, 2013) with no violations evident across items.
APPENDICES 296
Appendix N
Study 4: Additional Descriptive Information
Table N1
Bivariate Correlations, Means, Standard Deviations, and Range Scores for
Stereotypical Traits
1 2 3 4 5 6
1. Caring prototype –
2. Informed
prototype
.59** –
3. Dedicated
prototype
.27** .39** –
4. Pushy prototype -.30** -.29** .09 –
5. Stubborn
prototype
-.36** -.34** .04 .62** –
6. Arrogant
prototype
-.47** -.42** -.19** .63** .58** –
M 3.71 3.60 3.83 3.22 3.25 2.88
SD .78 .80 .67 .82 .85 .95
Range 1 - 5 1 - 5 2 - 5 1 - 5 1 - 5 1 - 5
Note. M = mean; SD = standard deviation; Range = observed range of data scores; ᵃ = measured on a 7-
point likert scale; ᵇ = measured on a 5-point likert scale.
** p < .01 (two-tailed).