With the Best of Intentions: A Large Sample Test of the Intention-Behaviour

Gap in Pro-environmental Consumer Behaviour

ABSTRACT

Many consumers intend to make pro-environmental purchases; however, this is not always what
occurs. A gap exists between consumer intentions to purchase environmentally-friendly products and
their actual purchase behaviour. The current study uses a large sample of Australian consumers
(N=772) to test Carrington, Neville and Whitwell’s (2010) conceptual model of the intention-
behaviour gap. Responses showed that implementation intentions mediated the relationship between
intention and pro-environmental consumer behaviour. Behavioural control and environmental
involvement were found to moderate the relationship between implementation intentions and
behaviour. Shopping context was found to moderate the relationship between intention and
implementation intentions. The findings have theoretical implications for furthering understanding of
pro-environmental consumer behaviour, and practical implications regarding how to generate socially
beneficial behaviours.

Keywords: Social marketing, Green policy, Consumer behaviour, Marketing research

This article has been accepted for publication and undergone full peer review but has not been
through the copyediting, typesetting, pagination and proofreading process which may lead to
differences between this version and the Version of Record. Please cite this article as an
‘Accepted Article’, doi: 10.1111/ijcs.12290

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

 International Journal of Consumer Studies Page 2 of 23

With the Best of Intentions: A Large Sample Test of the Intention-Behaviour

Gap in Pro-environmental Consumer Behaviour

In spite of its importance, there is a surprising dearth of consumer research on the

environmental impact of increasing consumption as a whole…consumers perceive
environmental problems only from a supply perspective… and show little knowledge of the
links between consumption patterns and environmental degradation (Heath & Chatzidakis, 2012,
p. 658).

Research suggests that some consumer segments intend to make pro-environmental purchase

decisions (Diamanftopoulos, Schlegelmilch, Sinkovics and Bohlen, 2003; Hartmann and Ibáñez, 2006).

However, consumers’ engagement in pro-environmental purchase behaviour is not always consistent

with their intentions: there is a low correlation between environmental concern and behaviour

(Cleveland, Kalamas and Laroche, 2005; Carrington, Neville and Whitwell, 2010; Devinney, Auger

and Eckhardt, 2010; Papaoikonomou, Ryan and Ginieis, 2011; Englis and Phillips, 2013). There

appear to be barriers preventing many otherwise environmentally-oriented consumers from engaging

in this market (Heath and Chatzidakis, 2012; Paço, Alves and Shiel, 2013; Zabkar and Hosta, 2013;

Fuentes, 2014; Polonsky, Vocino, Grimmer and Miles, 2014).

The differences between intentions and behaviour are often considered to be either situational

(Belk, 1975; Pickett-Baker and Ozaki, 2008), or explained using Ajzen and Fishbein's (1980) Theory

of Reasoned Action and its extension, the Theory of Planned Behaviour (Ajzen, 1991). These

cognitive models are based on a hierarchical progression such that:

(1) Beliefs determine attitudes, (2) attitudes lead to intentions and (3) intentions inform
behaviour. In addition, social norms and behavioural control moderate intentions and
behaviour (Carrington et al., 2010, p. 142; see also Zabkar and Hosta, 2013).

This progression reveals two potential gaps: (1) attitude-intentions, and (2) intentions-behaviour.

Most work on pro-environmental consumer behaviour examines the attitude-intention gap, assuming

that intentions will, effectively, determine behaviour (Glasman and Albarricin, 2006; Pickett-Baker

and Ozaki, 2008; Polonsky, Garma and Grau, 2011; Urien and Kilbourne, 2011; Grimmer and

Bingham, 2013; Grimmer and Woolley, 2014). This assumption has been criticised as an

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Page 3 of 23 International Journal of Consumer Studies

oversimplification of the complexities associated with translating intentions into behaviour (Davies,

Foxall and Pallister, 2002). To redress this problem, Carrington et al. (2010) developed a model which

focussed specifically on the intention-behaviour gap, using implementation intentions, actual

behavioural control and situational context as intervening variables. In an earlier study, we piloted an

initial test of this model using a small student sample (Willows and Grimmer, 2013). But as yet, this

conceptual model has not been fully examined using a large representative sample of consumers. The

present study uses such a sample to extend our initial work on explaining the gap between the best of

consumer intentions and their actual pro-environmental purchase behaviour.

THE CARRINGTON, NEVILLE AND WHITWELL (2010) MODEL

The Carrington et al. (2010) model is shown in Figure 1. The model posits that implementation

intentions (also referred to as ‘plans’) mediate the relationship between intention and behaviour, and

facilitate the translation of intention into actual behaviour. Frazier, Tix and Barron (2004, p. 116)

define a mediator as ‘a variable that explains the relationship between a predictor and an outcome’;

accordingly, implementation intentions are said to account for the relationship between the intention

and behaviour (Preacher and Hayes, 2004). The positive nature of this proposed relationship suggests

strong implementation intentions (such as a strong and complete plan to purchase an environmentally-

friendly product) will have a positive influence on actual behaviour.

Insert Figure 1 about here

The model includes two moderating variables – actual behavioural control and situational

context – for the relationship between implementation intentions and behaviour. Frazier et al. (2004, p.

116) define a moderator as ‘a variable that alters the direction or strength of the relationship between a

predictor and an outcome’. Carrington et al. (2010) argue that the presence of strong behavioural

control will strengthen the relationship between plans and behaviour. If an individual believes they

have high level of control over their own actions, they are more likely to engage in the target

behaviour. This contention is consistent with the Theory of Planned Behaviour, which suggests that

there is a difference between perceived and actual behavioural control such that while the former

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

 International Journal of Consumer Studies Page 4 of 23

moderates the attitude-intention gap, the latter moderates the intention-behaviour gap, as proposed in

the model (Fishbein and Ajzen, 2010). Similarly, the presence of a positive situational context will

facilitate the translation from planned behaviour to actual behaviour, while a negative situational

context will weaken this relationship. For example, if there is a high level of social support for pro-

environmental behaviour amongst a consumer’s friends or family, or extensive availability or

exposure to green products, then the consumer will be more likely to carry out their plans, and vice

versa if not.

THE CURRENT STUDY

The current study constitutes a large sample test of the Carrington et al. (2010) model

examining what factors impact the translation of intentions to purchase environmentally friendly

products into pro-environmental consumer behaviour. As the model indicates that intention leads to

implementation intentions, which then leads to behaviour, implementation intentions should act as a

mediator between intention and behaviour. Hence, the first hypothesis states that:

H1: Implementation intentions will positively mediate the relationship between intention
and pro-environmental consumer behaviour.

The model also indicates that the relationship between implementation intentions and PECB is

positively influenced by behavioural control. Therefore, the second hypothesis proposes:

H2: Actual behavioural control will positively moderate the relationship between
implementation intentions and pro-environmental consumer behaviour.

As the proposed model also shows, situational context will influence the relationship between

implementation intentions and behaviour, such that a favourable situational context will strengthen the

relationship between the two constructs. Thus, the third hypothesis suggests that:

H3: A favourable situational context will positively moderate the relationship between
implementation intentions and pro-environmental consumer behaviour.

Due to the ambiguity in the literature regarding the extent to which environmental concern

translates into behaviour (as discussed earlier) a measure of environmental involvement is also

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Page 5 of 23 International Journal of Consumer Studies

included in the study. If involvement has an effect, it will most logically be positive, so it is

anticipated that the presence of a high level of environmental involvement will facilitate the impact of

implementation intentions on behaviour (Grimmer and Woolley, 2014). Thus, the fourth hypothesis is:

H4: Environmental involvement will positively moderate the relationship between

implementation intentions and pro-environmental consumer behaviour.

The findings of this research have theoretical implications with regard to furthering

understanding of the intention-behaviour gap. Practically, the research will help marketers in

designing more effective promotional initiatives to generate socially beneficial behaviours, and assist

policy makers and regulators who deal with environmental issues.

METHOD

Sample Frame and Characteristics

A two-stage online survey through a commercial panel provider was undertaken of 1,019

Australian consumers. Participants were matched with the broader Australian population in terms of

age and gender and spread across the Australian states and territories. Stage 1 sampling continued until

our quota (i.e., an initial sample of approx. 1,000) was achieved. One week after Stage 1 of the survey

closed, participants were then invited to complete Stage 2. This invitation resulted in a final sample of

772, that is, a 75.76% response rate from Stage 1. Sample characteristics are shown in Table 1.

Insert Table 1 about here

Operationalization of Constructs and Survey Instrument

A quantitative online survey was employed for this research. The relevant constructs in the

Carrington et al. (2010) model were operationalised using measures from existing research, advocated

by Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee and Podsakoff (2003) as a procedural remedy for common method bias.

Intention (Independent Variable). Defined as the specification to achieve a desired outcome

(e.g., to buy a pro-environmental product) (Dholakia, Bagozzi and Gopinath, 2007). A single item

measure was employed, using an 11 point scale (‘no chance’ to ‘certain or practically certain (91-

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

 International Journal of Consumer Studies Page 6 of 23

100% chance)’), based on Bergkvist and Rossiter (2008). Bergkvist and Rossiter (2007) advocate the

use of a single item measure when the construct is concrete and singular.

Implementation Intention (Plans) (Mediating Variable). Defined as a tangible plan to bring an

intention into fruition (e.g., to buy environmentally-safe detergent when next going shopping)

(Gollwitzer, 1999). Plans are said to have both existence (i.e., whether or not they have been formed)

and strength (i.e., the degree of commitment). Questions were drawn from Dholakia et al. (2007) and

Gollwitzer (1999), with two questions to measure ‘plan existence’ (e.g., ‘when I next go shopping I

plan to buy environmentally friendly products’), and two to measure ‘plan strength’ (e.g., ‘my actual

intention to seek out and buy environmentally friendly products is strong’). The questions utilized a

seven-point Likert scale from ‘strongly disagree’ to ‘strongly agree’.

Actual Behavioural Control (ABC) (Moderating Variable). Defined as the extent to which the

performance of the intended behaviour is under the consumer’s (external) control and within their

(internal) abilities (Kidwell and Jewells, 2003). Ajzen (2002) conceptualised these constructs,

respectively, as controllability (similar to ‘locus of control’) and self-efficacy. Controllability was

measured using three items from the Environmental Locus of Control (ELOC) scale by Cleveland,

Kalamas and Laroche (2012), for example, ‘by buying environmentally friendly products, I can make

a difference in helping the environment’. Self-efficacy was measured using six items from Coleman,

Bahnan, Kelkar and Curry (2011), for example, ‘it is easy for me to buy environmentally-friendly

products’. Each item utilised a seven-point Likert scale from ‘strongly disagree’ to ‘strongly agree’.

Situational Context (Moderating Variable). The situational context construct is very broad. The

current research focussed on two aspects of this construct: (1) the social context, and (2) the physical

shopping context within which the consumer undertakes a purchase:

(1) Social Context (SocCon) includes the concepts of subjective norms and valence (Szmigin,

Carrigan and McEachern, 2009). Subjective norms refer to a desire to act as significant

others think one should act (Langerak, Peelen and van der Veen, 1998). Valence, on the

other hand, refers to the importance an individual places on these norms (Cialdini, 2003;

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Page 7 of 23 International Journal of Consumer Studies

Smith et al., 2008) and the likelihood of complying with subjective norms (Vecchio, Hearn

and Southey, 1992). Six norm items, two for each of family, friends and colleagues (e.g.,

‘my family/friends/colleagues think environmentally friendly consumerism is a good thing’),

and three corresponding valence items (e.g., ‘it is important to me what my

family/friends/colleagues think of me’), were taken from Coleman et al. (2011), each

utilizing a seven-point Likert scale from ‘strongly disagree’ to ‘strongly agree’.

(2) Shopping Context (ShopCon) refers to environment and general retail store milieu in which

the buying behaviour occurs (Carrington et al., 2010). Belk (1975) referred to a number of

factors that might be included here as contextual, including physical surroundings, social

surroundings, temporal issues, task definition and antecedent states. Five items to measure

ShopCon were based on Coleman et al. (2011), and Belk (1975), for example, ‘I tend to

shop when I have time to look at the environmental product information’. These items

utilized a six-point, unipolar scale from ‘never’ to ‘always’.

Environmental Involvement (EnvInv) (Moderating Variable). Defined as the extent to which a

consumer’s purchase behaviour is greatly influenced by environmental concerns (D’Souza and

Taghian, 2007; Grimmer and Bingham, 2013). Consumers with a high level of EnvInv are more likely

to notice or be aware of information relevant to a product’s environmental credentials. Seven items

measuring EnvInv were based on Cleveland et al. (2012) and Grimmer and Bingham (2013), for

example, ‘I support Greenpeace and/or other environmental groups.’ Each item utilised a seven-point

Likert scale from ‘strongly disagree’ to ‘strongly agree’.

Pro-environmental Consumer Behaviour (PECB) (Dependent Variable). Defined so as to

include the purchase of products that have a reduced impact on the environment; are certified as

environmentally safe or produced by environmentally responsible companies, or are made from or

packaged in recycled, biodegradable, reduced or reusable materials (Cleveland et al., 2012; Öberseder,

Schlegelmilch and Gruber, 2011). Five items to measure PEB were taken from Cleveland et al. (2012),

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

 International Journal of Consumer Studies Page 8 of 23

for example, ‘how often do you make a special effort to buy products that are certified as being

environmentally safe?’ These items utilized a six-point, unipolar scale from ‘never’ to ‘always’.

Procedure

The survey was completed over two administrations, separated by one week, to ensure that

predictor (i.e., Intention) and criterion (i.e., PECB) variables were not measured at the same time. This

procedure was aimed at minimizing artificial co-variation as a result of being presented within the

same measurement context (Podsakoff et al., 2003). In addition, four survey variations were used,

altering the order of presentation of the measures of each construct such that each measure followed

directly after another in one variation only. This procedure was used to minimize the impact of item-

context effects such as priming (Feldman and Lynch, 1988). Counterbalancing of items and separating

predictor and criterion measurement, along with anonymity, are also suggested by Podsakoff et al.

(2003) as procedural remedies to control for common method bias. The order of presentation of

constructs across the administrations and variations is in Table 2.

Insert Table 2 about here

The survey was based, and thus piloted, on our initial study of 272 undergraduate students. The

order of items within the Plans measure was rearranged to provide a more logical progression. Aside

from this refinement, the proposed measures were interpreted as intended, the layout was considered

straightforward and clear, and it was ascertained that the items in each administration of the survey

took between five and seven minutes to complete. At Stage 1 of the survey, an introductory statement

from the researchers explained the nature of the study and emphasized that all responses were

anonymous. Potential survey participants were initially screened by age, gender and state/territory of

residence, so as to meet sample frame requirements. At the end of this administration, participants

were informed that they would be invited to complete Stage 2 of the survey in one week’s time.

Accordingly, the 1,019 initial respondents were then invited to complete Stage 2 of the survey. A

reminder to complete the second administration was sent one week later, and the survey was finally

closed within one week of the reminder being sent.

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Page 9 of 23 International Journal of Consumer Studies

RESULTS

Data Preparation and Preliminary Analyses

Table 3 shows descriptive and reliability statistics for each of the measures. Each measure

shows acceptable reliability, with Cronbach’s alphas above the convention of 0.70 advocated by

Nunnally (1978). Convergent validity was investigated further by examining the Average Variance

Extracted (AVE). This denotes the overall amount of variance in the items explained by the underlying

construct. Fornell and Larcker (1981) suggest that AVE values should be at least 0.50, that is, where

the amount of variance explained by the construct is greater than the amount of variance due to chance.

As can be seen in Table 3, all measures meet this requirement, with ABC being just at the margin.

Insert Table 3 about here

Discriminant validity amongst the measures was also assessed, which is indicated if the

reliability indices for the measures are higher than the correlations between them (see Table 3)

(Fornell and Larcker, 1981; Ngo and O’Cass, 2009). In particular, the square root of the AVEs is

greater than their respective correlations for each measure except ShopCon and EnvInv, which are

correlated at 0.78, but with square roots of the AVE at 0.73. Despite this one demurral, there is a

satisfactory level of discriminant validity amongst the measures.

Scores were subsequently developed for each measure. As Intention was a single item, no

further data processing was required. For the Plans, ShopCon, EnvInv and PECB measures, scores

were obtained by averaging responses to the relevant items. An ABC score was obtained by first

averaging each of the three controllability and seven self-efficacy items and then adding these together.

Finally, a score was developed for SocCon. Responses to the norms items for each of

family/friends/colleagues were added and then multiplied by the matching valence response; the three

sub-total scores were then averaged (following Coleman et al., 2011; Vecchio et al., 1992).

Levene’s test of homogeneity of variance showed that there was no difference between the four

administered variations of the survey in terms of any of the measures. Thus, their results could be

safely aggregated.

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

 International Journal of Consumer Studies Page 10 of 23

10

Hypothesis Testing

To investigate the three hypotheses, data were analysed in SPSS Version 21 using the

PROCESS macro developed by Hayes (2013) to test for moderation and mediation using linear

regression. The PROCESS macro provides a flexible SPSS-based platform for the testing of a range of

different mediation and moderation effects (Preacher & Hayes, 2008). Though not required for

hypothesis testing, the amount of variance in PECB accounted for by Intention was initially

determined. An R2 value of 0.35 was found (F(1,770)=408.82, p<0.001) indicating that Intention

explained 35 per cent of the variation in PECB. This produced a beta weight (β) of 0.59 (t=20.22,

p<0.001) showing a positive relationship.

The results of the analysis of the mediating effect of Plans on the impact of Intention on PECB

are shown in Table 4. The total effect of Intention on PECB was found to be β=0.22, and the direct

effect after controlling for the mediator was β=0.07. Thus, Plans mediated the effect of Intention on

behaviour in that a reduction can be seen in the β-weight (from 0.22 to 0.07) when Plans are controlled

for.1 To determine the significance of the mediation, the PROCESS macro constructs 95 per cent bias-

corrected bootstrap confidence intervals (CI) from 1,000 bootstrap samples (Hayes, 2013). Mediation

is found to be statistically significant when the CI does not include zero. In their study comparing 14

methods to test for the significance of a mediation effect, MacKinnon et al. (2002) found that the

‘distribution of the product’ (or bootstrapping) approach was the most satisfactory in terms of having

the highest power while maintaining sound control over Type I error across a range of conditions (e.g.,

effect size and sample size). To quote Preacher and Hayes (2008, p. 886):

Bootstrapping provides the most powerful and reasonable method of obtaining confidence limits
for specific indirect effects under most conditions, so our primary recommendation is to use
bootstrapping—in particular, BC bootstrapping—whenever possible.

Insert Table 4 about here

1
Following Rucker, Preacher, Tormala and Petty (2011) we do not use the term ‘partial’ mediation here, as is
the traditional practice when the direct effect is not reduced to zero in the presence of the mediator. These
authors argue that due to the sensitivity of mediation effects to sample and total effect size, the concepts of
‘partial’ and ‘full’ mediation are meaningless.

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Page 11 of 23 International Journal of Consumer Studies

11

Using this test, Plans were found to significantly mediate the impact of Intention on PECB. As

stated earlier, Plans are also said to have both existence (PlanEx) and strength (PlanStr). A multiple-

mediation analysis was undertaken to examine their separate effects. Table 4 shows that when

examined together, PlanEx, PlanStr and their interaction mediated the impact of Intention on PECB,

with PlanEx having a greater effect than PlanStr.

The moderating effects of ABC, SocCon, ShopCon and EnvInv on the relationship between

Plans and PECB were examined next. It was found that ABC had a significant moderating influence

on the effect of Plans on PECB (R2-change =0.01; F(1,768)=5.41, p<0.03). Plans had a stronger effect on

PECB when ABC was high than when it was low. Similarly, EnvInv had a significant moderating

effect on the impact of Plans on PECB (R2-change =0.01; F(1,768)=4.23, p<0.04). Plans had a stronger

effect on PECB when EnvInv was high than when it was low. Neither SocCon nor ShopCon were

found to moderate the effect of Plans on PECB (respectively: F(1,768)=1.84, p>0.05; F(1,768)=0.07,

p>0.05). Further analysis was conducted to determine if any of these variables moderated the impact

of Intention on Plans. Of the four potential moderators, only the effect for ShopCon was found to be

significant (R2-change =0.01; F(1,768)=8.43, p<0.004). In this case, Intention had a bigger impact on the

formation of Plans when there was a less favourable ShopCon, but this impact was smaller when there

was a more favourable ShopCon. In other words, Intention is more important for the formation of

Plans when there is a less favourable ShopCon. All significant moderations are shown in Figure 2.

Insert Figure 2 about here

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

The purpose of the research was to provide the first large sample empirical test of the

Carrington et al. (2010) model which was developed to explain the gap between the intention to

purchase pro-environmental products and actual behaviour. The research sought to investigate the

mediating effect of implementation intentions (Plans) on the relationship between intention to

purchase pro-environmental products and pro-environmental consumer behaviour (PECB), and the

moderating effect of actual behavioural control (ABC), situational context – operationalised as social

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

 International Journal of Consumer Studies Page 12 of 23

12

context (SocCon) and shopping context (ShopCon) – and environmental involvement (EnvInv) on the

relationship between Plans and PECB.

The first hypothesis, that Plans would positively mediate the relationship between intention and

PECB, was supported; forming an implementation intention facilitates the translation of intention to

purchase pro-environmental products into actual behaviour. This result supports Dholakia et al. (2007),

who found that when an individual has formed a plan they will be more committed to the intended

course of action, and Gollwitzer and Sheeran (2006) who found that the existence of a plan increases

the likelihood of goal attainment. Carrington et al. (2010) argue that plans are important in realising

intentions as they help individuals to ‘get started’ and assist in the maintenance of the drive to see

intentions fulfilled. In addition, both the existence and strength of a consumer’s Plans contributed

significantly to the mediation effect, with existence being found to be the more important of the two.

In other words, the formation of a plan to buy an environmentally-friendly product itself creates most

of the impetus to carry out the behaviour.

The second hypotheses that ABC would positively moderate the relationship between Plans and

PECB was supported: higher ABC strengthened the relationship between Plans and PECB. Those

consumers with a higher level of control over their behaviour were more likely to translate

implementation intentions into actual purchase behaviour, supporting Kidwell and Jewell (2003), who

found behavioural control to be an antecedent of behaviour. Indeed, as Carrington et al. (2010) state, it

is easier for those in control of their behaviour to execute their intentions. However, it must be

recognised that the actual size of this moderation effect was small, and so the impact of behavioural

control on the translation of Plans to PECB should not be overstated.

Hypothesis three, that situational context would positively moderate the relationship between

Plans and PECB, was not supported. Neither social nor shopping context appeared to influence the

effect of plans. In the context of this research, the presence, or absence, of social support did not affect

the extent to which implementation intentions were realised as behaviour; neither did the presence, or

absence, of a favourable shopping context. However, it was found that ShopCon positively moderated

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Page 13 of 23 International Journal of Consumer Studies

13

the relationship between Intention and Plans. Intention was more important for the formation of plans

to buy environmentally-friendly products when the situation context was less favourable. Thus, a

strong intention to purchase meant that the ameliorating effect of a less favourable shopping context

was reduced. This finding supports the work of Belk (1975) who argued that negative situational

factors have the potential to ‘derail’ intentions to purchase products that are not strong or well-formed.

But again, the size of this moderation effect was small so this limits the practical implications of the

finding.

Finally, hypothesis four, that EnvInv will positively moderate the relationship between Plans

and PECB, was supported. Similar to ABC, a higher level of EnvInv strengthened the relationship

between Plans and PECB. Those with a high level of involvement in the environment were more

likely to translate implementation intentions into actual purchase behaviour. Despite some uncertainty

in the literature about the impact of environmental concern in the literature (Englis and Phillips, 2013;

Grimmer and Bingham, 2013; Grimmer and Woolley, 2014), this finding suggests that environmental

involvement is important as a facilitator of plans to buy environmentally friendly products, within the

limits of a small moderation effect size.

In terms of the Carrington et al. (2010) model, the current research has found that the factors

which impact the translation of intentions to purchase environmentally-friendly products into pro-

environmental consumer behaviour are: Plans, which facilitate the translation of Intention into PECB;

ABC and EnvInv, which moderate the impact of Plans on PECB, and ShopCon, which moderates the

impact of Intention on the formation of Plans. The model was, therefore, partially supported. By

operationalizing and empirically testing this conceptual model, with a large sample, the research has

made a contribution to the body of knowledge regarding pro-environmental purchase intentions and

the constructs that affect the translation of intentions into actual behaviour. In this regard, light has

been shed on some aspects of the attitude-behaviour gap in that it has been shown that, while intention

to purchase products does predict behaviour, it is mediated by the presence of actual plans. The links

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

 International Journal of Consumer Studies Page 14 of 23

14

to behaviour are further limited by a negative shopping context, but facilitated by a higher level of

control over one’s behaviour and by a favourable attitude to the environment.

To maximize the practical value of the finding that plans mediate intentions to buy pro-

environmental products, consumers could be encouraged to form plans. This could be done through

the use of communications that aid in providing individuals with green knowledge, encourage them to

critically consider their future planned behaviour, and make plans to enact that behaviour. In-store

promotions could be employed to highlight to shoppers items that will fulfil plans to buy green.

Mobile marketing communications that leverage a shopper’s smart phone to provide product specific

environmental information could make the purchase of pro-environmental products easy, achievable

and convenient (Atkinson, 2013; Polonsky et al., 2014; Whitson, Ozkaya and Roxas, 2014).

The current research used a self-report survey, which imposes limitations on the extent to which

behaviour, in particular, is accurately described. There is solace in the work of Milfont (2009) who has

found that socially-desirable responding has only a low or non-existent effect on environmental

attitudes. It must also be acknowledged that the moderation effects (for ABC, ShopCon and EnvInv)

were small, and so while some hints have been provided in this research as to the value of the

Carrington et al. (2010) model, further work needs to be undertaken. An opportunity for future

research lies in the use of a mixed methods approach, to conduct a more extensive test of the model.

This may include alternative operationalisations of the constructs, particularly the multi-faceted

situational context. This will enable greater understanding of what prevents consumers engaging in

PECB. However, the current research has provided a first test of the model, and has added to

understanding of how the intention-behaviour gap in pro-environmental consumer behaviour can be

bridged.

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Page 15 of 23 International Journal of Consumer Studies

15

REFERENCES

Ajzen, I. (1991) The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decisions
Processes, 50, 179-211.
Ajzen, I. (2002) Perceived behavioral control, self-efficacy, locus of control and the theory of planned
behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32, 665-683.
Ajzen, I. & Fishbein, M. (1980) Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior. Prentice-
Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Atkinson, L. (2013) Smart shoppers? Using QR codes and ‘green’smartphone apps to mobilize
sustainable consumption in the retail environment. International Journal of Consumer
Studies, 37, 387-393.
Belk, R.W. (1975) Situational variables and consumer behaviour. Journal of Consumer Research, 2,
157-164.
Bergkvist, L. & Rossiter, J.R. (2007) The predictive validity of multiple-item versus single-item
measures of the same constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 44, 175-184.
Bergkvist, L. & Rossiter, J.R. (2008) The role of ad likability in predicting an ad’s campaign
performance. Journal of Advertising, 37, 85-97.
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.
Cialdini, R.B. (2003) Crafting normative messages to protect the environment. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 12, 105-109.
Cleveland, M., Kalamas, M. & Laroche, M. (2005) Shades of green: linking environmental locus of
control and pro-environmental behaviors. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 22, 198-212.
Cleveland, M., Kalamas, M. & Laroche, M. (2012) It’s not easy being green: exploring green creeds,
green deeds and internal environmental locus of control. Psychology and Marketing, 29, 293-
305.
Coleman, L.J., Bahnan, N., Kelkar, M. & Curry, N. (2011) Walking the walk: how the theory of
reasoned action explains adult and student intentions to go green. Journal of Applied Business
Research, 27, 107-116.
Davies, J., Foxall, G.R. & Pallister, J. (2002) Beyond the intention-behaviour mythology: an
integrated model of recycling. Marketing Theory, 2, 29-113.
Devinney, T.M., Auger, P. & Eckhardt, G.M. (2010) The Myth of the Ethical Consumer. Cambridge
University Press, New York, NY.
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, 465–480.
Dholakia, U.M., Bagozzi, R.P. & Gopinath, M. (2007) How formulating implementation plans and
remembering past actions facilitate the enactment of effortful decisions. Journal of Behavioural
Decision Making, 20, 343-364.
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 and Analysis for Marketing, 15, 69-78.
Englis, B. G. & Phillips, D. M. (2013) Does innovativeness drive environmentally conscious
consumer behavior? Psychology & Marketing, 30, 160-172.

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

 International Journal of Consumer Studies Page 16 of 23

16

Feldman, J.M. and Lynch, J.G.Jr. (1988) Self-generated validity and other effects of measurement on
belief, attitude, intention, and behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 421-435.
Fornell, C. & Larcker, D.F. (1981) Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables
and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39-50.
Frazier, P.A., Tix, A.P. & Barron, K.A. (2004) Testing moderator and mediator effects in counseling
psychology research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 51, 115-134.
Fuentes, C. (2014) Managing green complexities: consumers’ strategies and techniques for greener
shopping. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 38, 485-492.
Glasman, L.R. & Albarracin, D. (2006) Forming attitudes that predict future behavior: a meta-analysis
of the attitude-behavior relationship. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 778-822.
Gollwitzer, P.M. (1999) Implementation intentions: strong effects of simple plans. American
Psychologist, 54, 493-503.
Gollwitzer, P.M. & Sheeran, P. (2006) Implementation intentions and goal achievement: a meta-
analysis of effects and processes. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 69-119.
Grimmer, M. & Bingham, T. (2013) Company environmental performance and consumer purchase
intentions. Journal of Business Research, 66, 1945-1953.
Grimmer, M. & Woolley, M. (2014) Green marketing messages and consumers' purchase intentions:
Promoting personal versus environmental benefits. Journal of Marketing Communications, 20,
231-250.
Hartmann, P. & Ibáñez, V.A. (2006) Green value added. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 24, 673–
680.
Hayes, A.F. (2013) Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A
Regression-based Approach. Guilford Press, New York.
Heath, M. T. & Chatzidakis, A. (2012) ‘Blame it on marketing’: consumers' views on unsustainable
consumption. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 36, 656-667.
Kidwell, B. & Jewell, R.D. (2003) An examination of perceived behavioral control: internal and
external influences on intention. Psychology and Marketing, 20, 625-642.
Langerak, F., Peelen, E. & van der Veen, M. (1998) Exploratory results on the antecedents and
consequences of green marketing. International Journal of Market Research, 10, 323-335.
MacKinnon, D.P., Lockwood, C.M., Hoffman, J.M., West, S.G. & Sheets, V. (2002) A comparison of
methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects. Psychological Methods, 7, 83-
104.
Milfont, T.L. (2009) The effects of social desirability on self-reported environmental attitudes and
ecological behaviour. Environmentalism, 29, 263-269.
Ngo, L. & O’Cass, A. (2009) Creating value offering via operant resource-based capabilities.
Industrial Marketing Management, 38, 45-59.
Nunnally, J.C. (1978) Psychometric Theory, 2nd edn. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Öberseder, M., Schlegelmilch, B.B. & Gruber, V. (2011) Why don’t consumers care about CSR?: a
qualitative study exploring the role of CSR in consumption decisions. Journal of Business
Ethics, 140, 449-460.
Paço, A., Alves, H. & Shiel, C. (2013) Development of a green consumer behaviour
model. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 37, 414-421.
Papaoikonomou, E., Ryan, G. & Ginieis, M. (2011) Towards a holistic approach of the attitude
behaviour gap in ethical consumer behaviours: empirical evidence from Spain. International
Advances in Economic Research, 17, 77-88.
Pickett-Baker, J. & Ozaki, R. (2008) Pro-environmental products: marketing influence on consumer
purchase decision. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 25, 281-293.

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Page 17 of 23 International Journal of Consumer Studies

17

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y. & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003) Common method biases in
behavioural research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 88, 879-903.
Polonsky, M.J., Garma, R. & Grau, S.L. (2011) Western consumers’ understanding of carbon offsets
and its relationship to behaviour. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 23, 583-603.
Polonsky, M.J., Vocino, A., Grimmer, M. & Miles, M.P. (2014) The interrelationship between
temporal and environmental orientation and pro-environmental consumer behaviour.
International Journal of Consumer Studies, 38, 612-619.
Preacher, K.J. & Hayes, A.F. (2004) SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in
simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 717-731.
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, 879-
891.
Rucker, D.D., Preacher, K.J., Tormala, Z.L. & Petty, R.E. (2011) Mediation analysis in social
psychology: current practices and new recommendations. Social and Personality Psychology
Compass, 5, 359-371.
Smith, J.R., Terry, D.J., Manstead, A.S.R., Louis, W.R., Wolfs, D.K.J. & Kolterman, D. (2008) The
attitude-behavior relationship in consumer conduct: the role of norms, past behavior and self-
identity. Journal of Social Psychology, 148, 311-333.
Szmigin, I., Carrigan, M. & McEachern, M.G. (2009) The conscious consumer: taking a flexible
approach to ethical behaviour. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 33, 224-231.
Urien, B. & Kilbourne, W. (2011) Generativity and self-enhancement values in eco-friendly
behavioral intentions and environmentally responsible consumption behaviour. Psychology &
Marketing, 28, 69-90.
Vecchio, R.P., Hearn, G. & Southey, G. (1992) Organisational Behaviour: Life at Work in Australia.
Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Marrickville, NSW.
Whitson, D., Ozkaya, H. E. & Roxas, J. (2014) Changes in consumer segments and preferences to
green labelling. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 38, 458-466.
Willows, A. & Grimmer, M. (2013) Exploring the intention-behaviour gap in pro-environmental
consumer behaviour. Proceedings of the 27th Australian and New Zealand Academy of
Management (ANZAM) Conference, 4-6 December 2013, University of Tasmania, Hobart.
Zabkar, V. & Hosta, M. (2013) Willingness to act and environmentally conscious consumer behaviour:
can prosocial status perceptions help overcome the gap? International Journal of Consumer
Studies, 37, 257-264.

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

 International Journal of Consumer Studies Page 18 of 23

18

Figure 1. Adapted from Carrington, Neville and Whitwell (2010)

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Page 19 of 23 International Journal of Consumer Studies

19

Table 1. Sample Characteristics (n=772)

Age: mean = 48.37 (SD = 15.40) Gender:

18-24 years 7.90% Male 46.20%
25-34 years 16.60% Female 53.80%
34-44 years 21.40% State/Territory:
45-54 years 23.20% ACT 1.80%
55-64 18.50% New South Wales 34.60%
65 plus years 12.40% Northern Territory 0.90%
Education: Queensland 17.10%
No High School to Year 10 3.20% South Australia 8.30%
High School to Year 10 13.50% Tasmania 2.60%
High School to Year 12 17.40% Victoria 24.20%
Trade Qual. or Apprent. or
33.00% Western Australia 10.50%
TAFE Cert/Dip
Bachelor Degree (incl. honors) 20.70%
Postgrad. Coursework
8.80% Marital Status:
Cert/Dip/Degree
Research Masters or PhD 3.40% Single, never married 23.10%
Household (pre-tax) Annual
Married 50.30%
Income:
$24,999 and under 13.30% De-facto 12.80%
$25,000-$49,999 19.90% Separated, not divorc. 2.70%
$50,000-$74,999 17.90% Divorced 7.60%
$75,000-$99,999 11.80% Widowed 3.50%
$100,000-$124,999 9.70% Children living at home?
$125,000-$149,999 5.70% Yes 37.80%
$150,000 and over 5.70% No 62.20%
Do not wish to disclose 15.90%

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

 International Journal of Consumer Studies Page 20 of 23

20

Table 2. Item Order across Administrations and Survey Variations

Administration (Stage) 1 Administration (Stage) 2

Survey Variation 1 INT – SC – PLANS ABC – PECB

Survey Variation 2 PECB – SC PLANS – ABC – INT

Survey Variation 3 INT – ABC PLANS – SC – PECB

Survey Variation 4 PECB – ABC – PLANS SC – INT

Note: INT=Intention; SC=Situational Context Variables (Social, Shopping, Environmental Involvement);

PLANS=Implementation Intention; ABC=Actual Behavioural Control; PECB=Pro-environmental Consumer
Behaviour.

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Page 21 of 23 International Journal of Consumer Studies

21

Table 3. Descriptive, Convergent and Discriminant Validity Statistics

Mean SD AVE α 01 02 03 04 05 06 07

01 Intention 6.53 2.71 - - -

02 Plans 4.28 1.29 0.90 0.96 0.66** 0.95

03 ABC 4.84 0.78 0.50 0.82 0.59** 0.62** 0.71

04 ShopCon 3.00 0.92 0.52 0.76 0.42** 0.59** 0.44** 0.73

05 EnvInv 3.06 0.93 0.53 0.80 0.59** 0.73** 0.52** 0.78** 0.73

06 SocCon 50.28 18.11 0.74 0.91 0.41** 0.52** 0.52** 0.51** 0.50** 0.86

07 PECB 3.13 1.00 0.82 0.95 0.59** 0.72** 0.58** 0.61** 0.70** 0.46** 0.91

**p<0.01
Note: SD=Standard Deviation; AVE=Average Variance Extracted; α=Cronbach’s Alpha. Square roots of AVEs
are reported in bold in the diagonal. N=772.

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

 International Journal of Consumer Studies Page 22 of 23

22

Table 4. Mediation and Multiple-Mediation Analyses

Indirect CIs 95% Direct t-value Total t-value Sig.

Intent→PECB 0.22 20.22 <.0001

Intent→Plans→PECB 0.14 0.12/0.16 0.07 6.21 <.0001

Intent→PECB 0.22 20.22 <.0001

Intent→PlanEx→PECB 0.06 0.04/0.09 0.07 6.12 <.0001

Intent→PlanStr→PECB 0.02 0.01/0.04

Intent→Ex x Str→PECB 0.06 0.03/0.08

Note: Intent=Intention; Plans=Implementation Intentions; PECB=Pro-environmental Consumer Behaviour;

PlanEx= Existence of Implementation Intentions; PlanStr=Strength of Implementation Intentions; CI=95%
Confidence Intervals. Direct, Indirect and Total effects are all β-weights. N=772.

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Page 23 of 23 International Journal of Consumer Studies

23

Figure 2. Significant Moderation Effects

Moderation Effect of Actual Behavioural Control (ABC) on the Impact of Plans on PECB

Moderation Effect of Environmental Involvement (EnvInv) on the Impact of Plans on PECB

Moderation Effect of Shopping Context (ShopCon) on the Impact of Intention on Plans

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.