INDEPENDENT UNIVERSITY, BANGLADESH
Different research shows that people are likely to be concerned about green product and they support to buy them.
. USA. However. But still these attempts are falling short for different social dilemma and reference group issues. Abington. But other research also shows that though people are concerned about green products they usually don’t pay more or even purchase those products. But various steps are now taken to avoid this disaster.
Purpose of the study:
The purpose of this research paper is to show how the above attitude-behavior dilemma in green buying. Fogelsville. and
Denise T. Pennsylvania. the personal importance of the environmental issue is likely to ensure unconditional participation. Pennsylvania. Ogden
The Pennsylvania State University – Lehigh Valley.
Statement of the Problem:
Environment is the most important factor that has become a global issue since last few years. This research argues that the attitude-behavior gap in environmental consumerism exists because it presents a social dilemma to the consumers. Global environment is now challenged by civilization. For a small subset of consumers who are “true believers” in environmental protection and conservation.To buy or not to buy? A social dilemma perspective on green buying
The Pennsylvania State University – Abington. most consumers. such as usage of green products.
1995.The three most prominent social value orientations are (Kramer and Goldman. 17). high-trusters are more likely to cooperate than low truster (Van Lange.. Cooperation which is the tendency to maximize both self and others’ outcomes. and 3. 1992): 1. 1968. 1999).preferences for particular distribution of outcomes to oneself and others” (Messick and McClintock. trusting others might risky.
Social value orientation Social value orientations are “. the costs of cooperation outweigh the uncertain utility obtained from it. Competition which stresses on relative gain for self over others.. attitude and perception. So. A person uses reference groups as a basis of comparison in forming affective and cognitive responses (Peter and Olson.. Individualism which focuses on self gain. Reference groups are important source of product
Trust There are a lot of differences among individuals in trust (which a social dilemma). 1992 p. Therefore.. van Lange et al. the decision to buy (collective social gain) or not buy (selfinterest) the green product despite positive attitude towards environmental conservation may be conceptualized as a social dilemma. This group and their activities can change other people behavior. 2. Individuals are different in their perception and willingness to believe that other people may be honest or dishonest. 1992)
Reference Group Influence It refers to the individual or a group of people those who influence another person to take decisions. van Lange et al.despite holding a positive attitude toward environmental conservation make purchase decisions to maximize self-interest because in their view. Differences in trust has a strong bearing on the decision to cooperate on defect in social dilemmas where.
National heroes such as sport-man. on TV celebrities. and Builds a sense of group identity among members.
Exception of others cooperation Exception of others cooperation refers to other’s cooperation towards a collective goal. In addition an individual may be influenced by value-expressive groups because he/she likes a particular group. Reference group influence can be informational utilitarian and value expressive (Park and Lesing: 1977). Informational influence provides information to consumers that enhance knowledge or help the individual cope with the environment. friends and family are the reference group. 1982). Provides the opportunity to persuade members who might originally be inclined to defect by stressing on moral values to enhance collective gain. contribute to the formation of values and attitudes and influence purchase decisions (Bearden and Etzel. Finally. 1983): Establishes group norms and induces conformity pressures. 1999). 1982. This is especially effective if the person believes his behavior will be public. from which other people get inspirations. The use of cultural heroes such as sports or television/film celebrities in endorsing products and services illustrate the belief that individuals who belong to a group to which other individuals aspire enact self-concept development. Utilitarian influence occurs when the reference group mediates rewards and punishments. Childers and Rao.)
In group Identity In group Identity refers to the group in which an individual belong to or would like to belong to. meaning the brand selection. Value-expressive reference groups are used to bolster one’s ego. All three types of influence can place pressure on a person to alter their behavior and strengthen or lesson the attitude – behavior inconsistency.. Other’s cooperation is very important to achieve any collective goal. Ogden. (Shruti Gupta and Denise T. Sheth et al.
.information. Within group communication fosters a greater likelihood of cooperation because of several factors (Messick and Brewer. (Bearden and Etzel. 1992. Enhances individual belief that others in the group are committed to cooperate. value-expressive influence related to an individuals’ selfconcept.
Here the consumers who are purchasing and using CFL bulbs to conserve energy are considered as Green Buyer..
Social value orientation
Reference Group Influence
In group Identity
Exception of others cooperation
.Perceived efficacy Perceived efficacy refers to “the extent to which one believes that his or her own contributions help to achieve the collective goals” (van Lange et al. 1992 p.
Green buyer Green buyer refers to the consumers who use environment friendly products. 18).
1992). where. They feel that their actions are representative of the group which increases awareness of the impact of individual choice by enhancing the degree
. (Shruti Gupta and Denise T. 1981) suggests that salience of membership with a group fosters cooperation among its members. Likelihood to trust is a significant discriminating variable affecting green buyers. members do not have the opportunity to discuss their choices with each other. it is expected that Likelihood to trust is a significant discriminating variable between green and non-green buyers (Shruti Gupta and Denise T. honest and cooperative. It is suggested that such differences in trust has a strong bearing on the decision to cooperate or defect in social dilemmas. they are more likely to make decisions that are driven by collective rather than self interests (Kramer and Goldman. high-trusters are more likely to cooperate than lowtrusters (van Lange et al. co-operators are more likely to reduce personal consumption of the resource and therefore. Social value orientation is a significant discriminating variable affecting green buyers. Research in the area of social categorization (Tajfel.
To understand the choice in a social dilemma to cooperate or defect is also influenced by preexisting individual differences such as social value orientations.
H3. 1988). In-group identity is a significant discriminating variable affecting green buyers. Ogden)In the case of resource conservation dilemma. resist the temptation to defect than individualists or competitors (Shruti Gupta and Denise T.
Individuals have been found to differ in their willingness to believe that others are honest or dishonest and as a result trusting others is risky or not (Yamagishi.
H2. It has been suggested that when individuals strongly identify with a group. Ogden).
It has been indicated that the external validity of this finding in the case of real world dilemmas is somewhat limited since in a large collective society. 1995). Ogden).. Therefore. Individuals who identify with an in-group cooperate because they perceive other group members as trustworthy. Therefore. it is suggested that social value orientation is a significant discriminating variable between green and non-green buyers.The derived hypothesizes from the framework are: H1.
making group identity salient to the individual or increasing his awareness of his belongingness to the group has been shown to increase cooperation (Kollock. Therefore. Ellen et al.” Several explanations have been offered to explain the expectation-choice relationship (van Lange et al. 1974). 1991. 1983). and Post hoc justification to explain choice in terms of others’ expectations. Kinnear et al. In social dilemmas... Ogden). 1992)..of personal responsibility to maximize collective gain (Messick and Brewer. Their own intended choice being the cause. people are more likely to cooperate if they expect others to do the same and choose to not cooperate in order to protect themselves from being a “sucker. van Lange et al. Expectation of others’ cooperation is a significant discriminating variable affecting green buyers. individuals in a
. In addition. This construct has also received attention in the environmental behavior literature (Berger and Corbin. Both social dilemma theory and reference group theory suggest a strong interrelationship between people’s expectation of overall cooperation from the group members and their own decision to cooperate (Dawes. H4. The moderating influence of the effect of expectation of others’ cooperation on green purchase behavior will be greater when perceived efficacy is low than when it is high. 1992): Social norms play an instrumental role in social dilemma and individuals infer these norms when made aware of others’ expectations.. Research suggests that cooperation hinges on individuals’ perceived efficacy (Shruti Gupta and Denise T. 1992. Studies reveal that individuals are less likely to defect or free ride if they believe that their cooperative actions will “make a difference” for the betterment of the common good (Sen et al. H5b. The tendency to conform. 1998). Perceived efficacy is a significant discriminating variable affecting green buyers. 2001). Olson (1965) and Kerr (1989) show that perceived efficacy declines with group size and therefore. 1980.. the perception of group identity also leads to the feeling of “we-ness” which reinforces social control and self-restraint when faced with the temptation to defect in a resource dilemma situation (van Lange et al..
Questions and Hypothesis
This research was based on some hypothesizes. when consumers believe that an individual’s contribution will make an insignificant difference towards energy conservation (i. Those are. It is suggested that individuals’ perceived efficacy is likely to interact with their expectations of others’ cooperation in moderating the relationship between proenvironmental attitude and behavioral intent. I do not trust that others will buy CFLs 3. H3.. Specifically. H4.e. The moderating influence of the effect of expectation of others’ cooperation on green purchase behavior will be greater when perceived efficacy is low than when it is high. In-group identity is a significant discriminating variable affecting green buyers. H5a. low efficacy) their pro-environmental attitudes will predict purchase intent largely under the influence of their expectations of others’ cooperation.
The questions that were derived from the above hypothesize and used to collect data. I think that others trust me to buy CFLs
. are uncertain about the impact of their individual contribution and tend to be more inclined to others’ opinions to guide their own decision (van Lange et al. Likelihood to trust is a significant discriminating variable affecting green buyers.
Independent Variables Trust
1. I trust that others buy CFLs 2. This is because consumers. Expectation of others’ cooperation is a significant discriminating variable affecting green buyers. H2. H5b. Perceived efficacy is a significant discriminating variable affecting green buyers.large-scale social dilemma situation (i.e. energy conservation dilemmas) are more likely to defect than to cooperate. Social value orientation is a significant discriminating variable affecting green buyers. under low efficacy conditions.
How much would you say you like or dislike CFLs? 18. Most people are willing to make sacrifices to help conserve energy
7. When you buy light bulbs. CFLs and regular light bulbs are identical 11. I think that others do not trust me to buy CFLs
Expectation of others’ cooperation
5. CFLs and regular light bulbs are not different
17. CFLs and regular light bulbs are similar 13. CFLs and regular light bulbs have few features in common 14. CFLs and regular light bulbs have many features in common 15. to what extent do you buy CFLs? 19. The energy conservation efforts of one person are useless as long as other people refuse to conserve
9. There is not much that any one individual can do about energy conservation 8. to what extent are you “loyal” to CFLs?
Dependent variable Green Buyer
20. In time.4. CFLs and regular light bulbs are not similar at all 12. to what extent do you buy CFLs?
. most household consumers will purchase CFLs 6. CFLs and regular light bulbs are completely different 10. When you buy light bulbs. When you buy light bulbs. CFLs and regular light bulbs are very different 16.
When responding to a Likert questionnaire item.
. Convenience sampling (sometimes known as grab or opportunity sampling) is a type of non probability sampling which involves the sample being drawn from that part of the population which is close to hand.IUB students were selected as the sample population. because it was readily available and convenient.Research Design:
A self administered survey was conducted with 20 undergraduate business students who were debriefed regarding the questionnaire items and the objective of the study. The data were collected during the regular working day of the week.
The samples for this research were chosen by convenient non probability sampling procedure.
A self administered questionnaire survey was provided to the respondents. The survey was done on 20 IUB students who were available in the campus. respondents specify their level of agreement to a statement. A Likert scale is a psychometric scale commonly used in questionnaires. such that the term is often used interchangeably with rating scale. The respondents were made clear enough to understand the purpose of the research in order to answer the questions. and is the most widely used scale in survey research. The range of the Likert scale was 5 to judge the level of agreement of the respondents.
The instrument that was used to collect data was 5 point Likert scale.
In survey research much of the validity depends on a subject’s ability to accurately assess their level of agreement with questions. Future research should widen the base of participants by using other methods to investigate green buying behavior. Many of this article’s limitations are those found in survey research. Although analysis does not indicate that this is a problem. Expectation that others will conform was the most powerful differentiator of green and non-green buyers.Limitations:
This study has some limitations that present opportunities for future research. and Green buyers showed a higher rating for product preference than non-green buyers.
Based on this research. Perceived efficacy was also shown to exert moderate influence in discriminating between the respective segments. The external validity of this study could be increased by future research that seeks to replicate findings of this study by investigating the consumption of other green products. Green buyers typically rate higher in trust and expect others to participate in green purchase activities. marketers are urged to: Highlight differences rather than similarities between green and non-green products and emphasize benefits associated with purchasing the green product or service in question. Reinforce the role of trust in strengthening collective action. A third limitation of the study was the single product used to measure green buying. there may be some level of measurement error.
Significance of Study:
General findings from this study are that: Reference groups influence individual cooperation.
. Those who strongly identify with the group are likely to put collective interests before their own because of added pressure to conform to group norms.
To buy or not to buy? A social dilemma perspective on green buying. and Stress that individual action can and does lead to collective gain. Wikipedia
. Business Research Methods tenth edition 4. Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
1. Business Research Methods tenth edition 5. Schindler. Emerald Group Publishing Limited 3. Donald R. Pamela S. Communicate and reinforce the message that others are making green choices and include testimonials. Cooper. People who believe their behavior matters may act without waiting to consider the actions of others. Celebrity endorsement is encouraged although evidence suggests that typical green consumers are even more effective spokespeople. Ogden. Denise T. Use role models to increase reference group effect. 2. Shruti Gupta. To buy or not to buy? A social dilemma perspective on green buying.