Chapter X

Statistical analysis and findings

1- Introduction
2- Demographics profile for participants
3- Descriptive analysis
4- Significant differences according to consumers demographics
5- Hypotheses testing
 Chapter X

Statistical analysis and findings

1- Introduction

This chapter displayed statistical analysis and procedures conducted to gather results that can
help in identifying determinant factors for sustainable buying behavior in Jordan. Analysis made
use of valid 1015 responses, analysis gathered descriptive statistics to display demographics
profile for consumers and determine levels of consumers agreement on proposed factors,
moreover, ANOVA and T-Test for independent samples was used to identify significant
differences according to demographics, finally hypotheses went under testing using regression
models.

2- Demographics profile for participants

Demographics profile for participants was gathered using descriptive statistics, the sample was
seen free of gender bias, both genders were included in approximately close percentages, males
accounted n= 439 [43.3%], and females accounted n= 576 [56.7%]. The sample also comprised
participants from three age levels showing diversity, young participants who aged 18 – 30 years
accounted n= 390 [38.4%], participants who aged 31 – 45 years accounted n= 300 [29.6%] and
those old participants aging 46 years or more accounted n= 325 [32%].

Participants demonstrated that they have high levels of education, most reported education level
was diploma/ bachelor n= 685 [67.5%], postgraduate level was reported by quarter of the sample
n= 247 [24.3%], meanwhile those whose education high school or below accounted n= 83
[8.2%]. Finally, concerning income level, half of participants were from those who receive
below 700 JD n= 588 [57.9%], meanwhile those who receive 700 – 1500 JD accounted n= 316
[31.1%], respondents with high income level who receive more than 1500 JD accounted for n=
111 [10.9%].
 Table (-):
Demographics profile for participants (n= 1015)

Demographic Sub-group Count %

Male 439 43.3%
Gender Female 576 56.7%
Total 1015 100%
18 – 30 years 390 38.4%
31 – 45 years 300 29.6%
Age 46 years or more 325 32%
Total 1015 100%
High school or below 83 8.2%
Educational Diploma/ bachelor 685 67.5%
level Postgraduate degree 247 24.3%
Total 1015 100%
Below 700 JD 588 57.9%
Income level 700 – 1500 JD 316 31.1%
More than 1500 JD 111 10.9%
Total 1015 100%

3- Descriptive analysis

This section gathers descriptive analysis for proposed factors and sustainable buying behavior to
determine their levels based on respondents’ agreements, descriptive analysis was based on mean
and std. values:

3.1 Levels of proposed determinants:

Using mean and std. values, levels of consumers agreements on the proposed factors were
gathered and displayed in Table (-). Results reported that Consumer’s awareness of sustainable
products factor was the highest factor that consumers provided agreement on, overall mean value
was (M= 3.89), this factor was in order 1 as a determinant factor among Jordanian consumers.
Remaining factor was in moderate levels of agreement, mean values ranged between (M= 3.24)
to (M= 2.77). Factors were in the following descending order: Availability of green products
(M= 3.24), Consumers associations (M= 3.12), Sustainable marketing communications (M=
2.91), Sustainable pricing (M= 2.85), Sustainable marketing channels (M= 2.83), Awareness of
environmental problems (M= 2.79) and finally in least order Government regulations (M= 2.77).

Findings demonstrated many areas that are related to green products that were still in modest
levels among Jordanian consumers that require more effort by firms that target green products, in
fact all determinates that were in moderate levels of agreement should be subject of focus to
improve it and increase awareness toward it among Jordanian consumers. For specific,
Government regulations related to green products scored the least mean value showing that this
factor should be considered by decision makers to maintain regulations related to green products
in the country.

Std. values were below (1) for all factors except for Availability of green products, this entails
that all factors that have std. values below (1) have homogeneity in assessments provided by
consumers, meanwhile, concerning Availability of green products, non-homogeneity in
assessments were seen, entailing that consumers opinion toward availability of green product
varies, this requires the attention of firms that provide such products, to identify areas that still
not having green product to maintain distribution channels to all interested consumers in green
products. Next tables provided descriptive analysis for statements of each proposed factor.

Table (-):

Mean and std. values for consumers agreements on proposed determinants for sustainable
buying behavior (n= 1015)

No. Orde Factor Mean Std. Level

r
 1 1 Consumer’s awareness of sustainable products 3.89 0.67 High
2 4 Sustainable marketing communications 2.91 0.83 Moderate
3 7 Awareness of environmental problems 2.79 0.99 Moderate
4 6 Sustainable marketing channels 2.83 0.86 Moderate
5 5 Sustainable pricing 2.85 0.87 Moderate
6 8 Government regulations 2.77 0.99 Moderate
7 2 Availability of green products 3.24 1.01 Moderate
8 3 Consumers associations 3.12 0.88 Moderate

- Levels of Consumer’s awareness of sustainable products:

Table (-) gathers descriptive analysis for consumer’s awareness of sustainable products, overall
consumers agreement on this factor was high, mean value scored (M= 3.89). This factor has two
statements, the statement related to “I am aware of the importance of sustainable products” was
provided with high level of agreement (M= 4.49) along with std. value below (1) showing
agreement among consumers, and this finding provides a good indicator for current surveyed
consumers, meanwhile, the statement related to “Most consumers are aware of the importance of
green products” was provided with moderate level of agreement (M= 3.30) along with std. value
greater than (1) showing disagreement among respondents. This entails that surveyed consumers
believe that other consumers may not have enough awareness in relation toward green products.

Table (-):

Mean and std. values for Consumer’s awareness of sustainable products factor (n= 1015)

No. Order Statement Mean Std. Level

1 1 I am aware of the importance of sustainable 4.49 0.65 High
products.
2 2 Most consumers are aware of the importance of 3.30 1.03 Moderate
green products.
Overall mean 3.89 High
 - Levels of Sustainable marketing communications:

Surveyed consumers reported moderate levels of agreement toward sustainable marketing

communications factor, overall mean value scored (M= 2.91). This finding demonstrates the
necessity for more efforts to be directed toward market communications related to green
products. All statements in this factor were provided with moderate levels of agreement, highest
mean value was for the statement related to “Sustainable products promotions are credible and
sincere” (M= 3.11), then the statement related to “Sustainable products are well promoted in the
market” (M= 2.95), meanwhile least mean value was for the statement suggesting “Sustainable
products are promoted sufficiently” (M= 2.67). Std. values were seen greater than (1) for two
statements showing that consumers opinions varied.

Table (-):

Mean and std. values for Sustainable marketing communications factor (n= 1015)

No. Order Statement Mean Std. Level

1 2 Sustainable products are well promoted in the 2.95 1.06 Moderate
market.
2 1 Sustainable products promotions are credible and 3.11 0.94 Moderate
sincere.
3 3 Sustainable products are promoted sufficiently. 2.67 1.02 Moderate
Overall mean 2.91 Moderat
e

- Levels of Awareness of environmental problems:

Surveyed consumers have moderate levels of awareness toward environmental problems, overall
mean value was (M= 2.79), further all statements in this factor were in moderate levels of
agreement with mean values between (M= 2.82) to (M= 2.77). Statements were in the following
descending order: “Consumers are aware of the negative ecological consequences of
 irresponsible consumption behavior”, then “Consumers are aware of environmental issues, such
as Ozone layer problems and global warming” and then “Consumers are aware of the need to
preserve scarce resources”. Non-homogeneity in assessments was also evident, all std, values
were greater than (1), such findings require the attention of many players in the society to
provides efforts that can help in improving consumers awareness toward environmental issues.

Table (-):

Mean and std. values for Awareness of environmental problems factor (n= 1015)

No. Order Statement Mean Std. Level

1 2 Consumers are aware of environmental issues, such 2.80 1.13 Moderate
as Ozone layer problems and global warming.
2 3 Consumers are aware of the need to preserve scarce 2.77 1.10 Moderate
resources.
3 1 Consumers are aware of the negative ecological 2.82 1.12 Moderate
consequences of irresponsible consumption behavior.
Overall mean 2.79 Moderat
e

- Levels of Sustainable marketing channels:

Gathered results in Table (-) showed that surveyed consumers agree to moderate levels about
proposed aspects of sustainable marketing channels, overall mean value (M= 2.83). All aspects
related to this factor was provided with moderate levels of agreement, highest mean value was
for the aspect concerning for “Sustainable buying behavior receives special attention in
marketing channels”, meanwhile least mean value was for the aspect concerning “Products are
distributed through green channels”. Moreover, disagreement was seen among respondents
concerning their views toward “Products are distributed through green channels”. Overall
results entail the necessity of directing more efforts by firms toward adopting sustainable
marketing channels
 Table (-):

Mean and std. values for Sustainable marketing channels factor (n= 1015)

No. Order Statement Mean Std. Level

1 3 Products are distributed through green channels. 2.78 1.02 Moderate
2 2 Green products receive special attention through 2.81 0.99 Moderate
marketing channels.
3 1 Sustainable buying behavior receives special 2.91 0.96 Moderate
attention in marketing channels.
Overall mean 2.83 Moderat
e
- Levels of Sustainable pricing:

Concerning sustainable price factor, overall mean value scored (M= 2.85) entailing that our
surveyed consumers believe that sustainable prices related to green product are still modest. This
finding require that firms reconsider their prices policies related to green products, both aspects
in this factor were provided with moderate levels of agreement, further, non-homogeneity in
assessments were also seen, both std. values were greater than (1).

Table (-):

Mean and std. values for Sustainable pricing factor (n= 1015)

No. Order Statement Mean Std. Level

1 2 Consumers accept high prices for sustainable 2.60 1.07 Moderate
products.
2 1 Green products prices are affordable. 3.11 1.02 Moderate
Overall mean 2.85 Moderat
e
 - Levels of Government regulations:

Based on gathered results in Table (-), this factor was the most trouble factor considering that
least agreement levels were provided for this factor, overall mean value scored (M= 2.77). In
fact, these findings require more attention by government for green products, for specific
government players who are responsible for green products should consider our findings
seriously as respondents agreed to moderate levels toward “The government takes action when
business behaviors deviate from sustainability standards” and “The government watches
business behaviors to ensure sustainable practices”, their opinions were also seen non-
homogenous.

Table (-):

Mean and std. values for Government regulations factor (n= 1015)

No. Order Statement Mean Std. Level

1 2 The government watches business behaviors to 2.74 1.05 Moderate
ensure sustainable practices.
2 1 The government takes action when business 2.81 1.07 Moderate
behaviors deviate from sustainability standards.
Overall mean 2.77 Moderat
e

- Levels of Availability of green products:

Following respondents’ assessments, green products are available in Jordan market to moderate
level, entailing that firms should supply markets with more green products. Overall mean value
scored (M= 3.24). Further, respondents agree to moderate level toward ease of access for green
products in the market, and they also agree to moderate level toward the availability of green
products at stores, however, disagreement in opinions were seen, both std. values were greater
than (1), entailing the necessity for further investigations.
 Table (-):

Mean and std. values for Availability of green products factor (n= 1015)

No. Order Statement Mean Std. Level

1 2 Green products are widely available in stores. 3.19 1.09 Moderate
2 1 Green products are easily accessible. 3.31 1.07 Moderate
Overall mean 3.24 Moderat
e

- Levels of Consumers associations:

Finally, based on respondents’ assessments, consumers association role in Jordan market is still
modest, overall mean value scored (M= 3.12). Same moderate levels of agreement were also
assigned to this factor aspects: “Consumers associations often encourage sustainable consumer
behavior” and “Consumers associations lobby policymakers for enhancing sustainable business
behavior” aspect. Also, disagreement was evident among respondents as both std. values were
greater than (1).

Table (-):

Mean and std. values for Consumers associations factor (n= 1015)

No. Order Statement Mean Std. Level

1 1 Consumers associations often encourage sustainable 3.32 1.01 Moderate
consumer behavior.
2 2 Consumers associations lobby policymakers for 2.92 1.00 Moderate
enhancing sustainable business behavior.
Overall mean 3.12 Moderat
e

3.2 Levels of sustainable buying behavior:

 Referring to Table (-), results reported that consumers provided moderate level of agreement
toward sustainable buying behavior (M= 3.56), entailing that sustainable buying behavior are
still not fully dominant among Jordanian consumers. Consumers provided high levels of
agreement toward two aspects of sustainable buying behavior: “Consumers have an interest in
sustainable consumption behavior” and “Sustainable buying behavior is the main concern in
consumer culture”, agreement was also seen as neither of std. values were greater than (1). On
the other hand, two aspects of sustainable buying behavior were provided with moderate levels
of agreement, these aspects are related to “I usually avoid buying from companies that show
disrespect for the environment” and “Consumers have a natural tendency to satisfy their needs
using green products”, further, std. values were greater than (1) entailing disagreement among
consumers.

Table (-):

Mean and std. values for sustainable buying behavior (n= 1015)

No. Order Statement Mean Std. Level

1 1 Consumers have an interest in sustainable 3.86 0.82 High
consumption behavior.
2 2 Sustainable buying behavior is the main concern in 3.70 0.92 High
consumer culture.
3 4 Consumers have a natural tendency to satisfy their 3.14 1.03 Moderate
needs using green products.
4 3 I usually avoid buying from companies that show 3.55 1.08 Moderate
disrespect for the environment.
Overall mean 3.56 Moderat
e

4- Significant differences according to consumers demographics

Results in descriptive analysis provided overall participants agreements on proposed factors, this
section tests for significant differences according to demographics of participants. Testing for
 significant differences was completed using the Independent Samples T-Test and One-Way
Analysis of Variance–ANOVA Test, whenever ANOVA test was significant, posttest Scheffe
was applied to conduct multiple comparisons.

- Differences according to gender:

Referring to Table (-), T-Test results reported non-significant differences according to gender in
the following factors: Consumer’s awareness of sustainable products [T= -0.332, P= 0.740],
Sustainable marketing communications [T= -0.337, P= 0.736], Sustainable buying behavior [T=
-0.592, P= 0.554], Sustainable marketing channels [T= -1.576, P= 0.115], Sustainable pricing
[T= -0.735, P= 0.462], Availability of green products [T= -1.587, P= 0.113], entailing that
consumers of both genders perceived stated factors to the same level.

On the other hand, the test reported significant differences according to gender in three factors:
Awareness of environmental problems [T= -2.416, P= 0.016], Government regulations [T= -
5.281, P= 0.000] and Consumers associations [T= -4.216, P= 0.000]. By comparing mean values,
it was found that female consumers provided higher levels of agreement toward Awareness of
environmental problems factor, Government regulations factor and Consumers associations
factor in compare to male consumers.

Table (-):

Independent Sample T-Test results for differences according to gender (n= 1015)

Male Female Sig.

Factor Mean Std. Mean Std. T value Sig. Group
Sustainable buying behavior 3.54 0.72 3.57 0.70 -0.592 0.554 --
Consumer’s awareness of sustainable products 3.88 0.68 3.90 0.66 -0.332 0.740 --
Sustainable marketing communications 2.90 0.85 2.91 0.82 -0.337 0.736 --
Awareness of environmental problems 2.70 1.00 2.86 0.97 -2.416 0.016* Female
Sustainable marketing channels 2.78 0.85 2.86 0.86 -1.576 0.115 --
Sustainable pricing 2.82 0.87 2.86 0.88 -0.735 0.462 --
 Government regulations 2.58 1.01 2.91 0.95 -5.281 0.000* Female
Availability of green products 3.19 1.02 3.29 1.00 -1.587 0.113 --
Consumers associations 2.98 0.93 3.22 0.82 -4.216 0.000* Female
* Differences are significant at level (α ≤ 0.05)

- Differences according to age:

ANOVA results displayed in Table (-) gathered differences according to age, it was found that
most of factors have non-significant differences according to age, these factors are: Consumer’s
awareness of sustainable products [F=0.991, P= 0.372], Sustainable marketing communications
[F= 0.341, P= 0.711], Sustainable buying behavior [F= 1.180, P= 0.308], Awareness of
environmental problems [F= 1.353, P= 0.259], Sustainable marketing channels [F= 2.356, P=
0.095], Sustainable pricing [F= 0.537, P= 0.564], Availability of green products [F= 0.951, P=
0.387], accordingly, one can conclude that surveyed consumers regardless their age provided
same levels of agreements on proposed factors.

Concerning differences in Government regulations factor and Consumers associations factor,

ANOVA tests achieved significance, test values scored [F= 8.394, P= 0.000] and [F= 9.492, P=
0.000] respectively. Posttest Scheffe established multiple comparisons and reported that
participants who aged 18 – 30 years provided higher levels of agreement in compare to other
participants.

Table (-):

ANOVA Test results for differences according to age (n= 1015)

Factor Age N Mean Std. F Sig. Sig. group

18 – 30 years 390 3.53 0.71
Sustainable 31 – 45 years 300 3.54 0.71 1.180 0.308 --
buying behavior 46 years or more 325 3.61 0.69
Total 1015 3.56 0.71
Consumer’s 18 – 30 years 390 3.87 0.68
 awareness of 0.991 0.372 --
sustainable 31 – 45 years 300 3.88 0.67
products 46 years or more 325 3.94 0.64
Total 1015 3.89 0.67
Sustainable 18 – 30 years 390 2.90 0.84
marketing 31 – 45 years 300 2.88 0.80 0.341 0.711 --
communications 46 years or more 325 2.94 0.85
Total 1015 2.91 0.83
Awareness of 18 – 30 years 390 2.84 0.99
environmental 31 – 45 years 300 2.80 1.03 1.353 0.259 --
problems 46 years or more 325 2.72 0.93
Total 1015 2.79 0.99
18 – 30 years 390 2.90 0.90
Sustainable 31 – 45 years 300 2.79 0.87 2.356 0.095 --
marketing 46 years or more 325 2.78 0.80
channels Total 1015 2.83 0.86
18 – 30 years 390 2.88 0.91
Sustainable pricing 31 – 45 years 300 2.81 0.91 0.537 0.564 --
46 years or more 325 2.84 0.80
Total 1015 2.85 0.87
18 – 30 years 390 2.91 1.02
Government 31 – 45 years 300 2.75 0.97 8.394 0.000 18 – 30 years
regulations 46 years or more 325 2.61 0.95 *
Total 1015 2.77 0.99
18 – 30 years 390 3.27 1.02
Availability of 31 – 45 years 300 3.18 1.05 0.951 0.387 --
green products 46 years or more 325 3.28 0.97
Total 1015 3.24 1.01
18 – 30 years 390 3.26 0.87
Consumers 31 – 45 years 300 3.08 0.85 0.000
associations 9.492 * 18 – 30 years
46 years or more 325 2.98 0.89
Total 1015 3.12 0.88
* Differences are significant at level (α ≤ 0.05)

- Differences according to educational level:

Concerning differences according to educational level, ANOVA reported significant differences

in all factors except for Awareness of environmental problems factor, ANOVA scored [F= 1.636,
P= 0.195] entailing that those participants regardless their educational level perceived this factor
to the same extent. Meanwhile, ANOVA tests scored for remaining factors as follows:
Consumer’s awareness of sustainable products [F= 6.943, P= 0.001], Sustainable marketing
communications [F= 14.647, P= 0.000], Sustainable buying behavior [F= 3.505, P= 0.030],
Sustainable marketing channels [F= 12.479, P= 0.000], Sustainable pricing [F= 5.189, P= 0.006],
Government regulations [F= 3.783, P= 0.023], Availability of green products [F= 12.875, P=
0.000] and Consumers associations [F= 9.951, P= 0.000].

Scheffe made multiple comparisons and reported educational levels that were source of
differences: participants whose educational level is high school or below reported higher levels
of agreement for the following factors: Consumer’s awareness of sustainable products
Sustainable buying behavior and Sustainable pricing factors. Further, participants whose
educational level are high school or below or diploma/ bachelor reported higher levels of
agreement for the following factors: Sustainable marketing communications, Sustainable
marketing channels, Availability of green products and Consumers associations factors, finally
participants whose educational level is diploma/ bachelor reported higher levels of agreement for
Government regulations factor.

Table (-):

ANOVA Test results for differences according to educational level (n= 1015)
 Factor Educational level N Mean Std. F Sig. Sig. group
High school or below 83 3.73 0.76
Sustainable Diploma/ bachelor 685 3.56 0.69 3.505 0.030 High school or
buying behavior Postgraduate degree 247 3.50 0.72 * below
Total 1015 3.56 0.71
Consumer’s High school or below 83 4.12 0.61
awareness of Diploma/ bachelor 685 3.90 0.68 6.943 0.001 High school or
sustainable Postgraduate degree 247 3.81 0.63 * below
products Total 1015 3.89 0.67
Sustainable High school or below 83 3.31 0.94 High school or
marketing Diploma/ bachelor 685 2.92 0.82 14.647 0.000 below
communications Postgraduate degree 247 2.74 0.77 * --
Total 1015 2.91 0.83 Diploma/ bachelor

Awareness of High school or below 83 2.96 0.99

environmental Diploma/ bachelor 685 2.79 0.99 1.636 0.195 --
problems Postgraduate degree 247 2.74 0.97
Total 1015 2.79 0.99
High school or below 83 3.20 0.93 High school or
Sustainable Diploma/ bachelor 685 2.84 0.86 12.479 0.000 below
marketing Postgraduate degree 247 2.67 0.80 * --
channels Total 1015 2.83 0.86 Diploma/ bachelor

High school or below 83 3.12 1.03

Sustainable pricing Diploma/ bachelor 685 2.85 0.87 5.189 0.006 High school or
Postgraduate degree 247 2.76 0.81 * below
Total 1015 2.85 0.87
High school or below 83 2.84 1.10
Government Diploma/ bachelor 685 2.81 0.99 3.783 0.023 Diploma/ bachelor
regulations Postgraduate degree 247 2.62 0.93 *
Total 1015 2.77 0.99
High school or below 83 3.62 0.99 High school or
Availability of Diploma/ bachelor 685 3.28 1.01 12.875 0.000 below
green products Postgraduate degree 247 3.01 0.97 * --
Total 1015 3.24 1.01 Diploma/ bachelor
High school or below 83 3.34 0.93 High school or
Consumers Diploma/ bachelor 685 3.16 0.88 9.951 0.000 below
associations Postgraduate degree 247 2.92 0.83 * --
Total 1015 3.12 0.88 Diploma/ bachelor
* Differences are significant at level (α ≤ 0.05)

- Differences according to income level:

Finally, concerning difference according to income levels, ANOVA tests reported significant
differences, tests values were as follows: Consumer’s awareness of sustainable products [F=
5.589, P= 0.004], Sustainable marketing communications [F= 5.227, P= 0.006], Sustainable
buying behavior [F= 5.866, P= 0.003], Awareness of environmental problems [F= 3.333, P=
0.036], Sustainable marketing channels [F= 14.171, P= 0.000], Sustainable pricing [F= 3.030, P=
0.049], Government regulations [F= 6.895, P= 0.001], Availability of green products [F= 12.951,
P= 0.000] and Consumers associations [F= 11.195, P= 0.000].

Post test Scheffe reported that consumers with low income below 700 JD provided higher levels
of agreement on the following factors: Consumer’s awareness of sustainable products,
Sustainable marketing communications, Sustainable buying behavior, Awareness of
environmental problems, Sustainable marketing channels, Sustainable pricing, Government
regulations Consumers associations, meanwhile consumers who have income Below 700 JD or
700 – 1500 JD reported higher levels of agreement on Availability of green products factor.

Table (-):

ANOVA Test results for differences according to income level (n= 1015)

Factor Income level N Mean Std. F Sig. Sig. group

 Below 700 JD 588 3.62 0.70
Sustainable 700 – 1500 JD 316 3.50 0.67 5.866 0.003 Below 700 JD
buying behavior More than 1500 JD 111 3.39 0.80 *
Total 1015 3.56 0.71
Consumer’s Below 700 JD 588 3.95 0.67
awareness of 700 – 1500 JD 316 3.79 0.65 5.589 0.004 Below 700 JD
sustainable More than 1500 JD 111 3.87 0.64 *
products Total 1015 3.89 0.67
Sustainable Below 700 JD 588 2.98 0.87
marketing 700 – 1500 JD 316 2.80 0.75 5.227 0.006 Below 700 JD
communications More than 1500 JD 111 2.84 0.83 *
Total 1015 2.91 0.83
Awareness of Below 700 JD 588 2.86 1.00
environmental 700 – 1500 JD 316 2.70 0.96 3.333 0.036 Below 700 JD
problems More than 1500 JD 111 2.69 0.93 *
Total 1015 2.79 0.99
Below 700 JD 588 2.95 0.90
Sustainable 700 – 1500 JD 316 2.68 0.78 14.171 0.000 Below 700 JD
marketing More than 1500 JD 111 2.61 0.77 *
channels Total 1015 2.83 0.86
Below 700 JD 588 2.88 0.92
Sustainable 700 – 1500 JD 316 2.84 0.77 3.030 0.049 Below 700 JD
pricing More than 1500 JD 111 2.66 0.87 *
Total 1015 2.85 0.87
Below 700 JD 588 2.86 1.02
Government 700 – 1500 JD 316 2.68 0.90 6.895 0.001 Below 700 JD
regulations More than 1500 JD 111 2.53 0.99 *
Total 1015 2.77 0.99
Below 700 JD 588 3.35 0.99 Below 700 JD
Availability of 700 – 1500 JD 316 3.19 1.00 12.951 0.000 --
green products More than 1500 JD 111 2.84 1.04 * 700 – 1500 JD
Total 1015 3.24 1.01
Below 700 JD 588 3.22 0.88
Consumers 700 – 1500 JD 316 2.99 0.85 11.195 0.000 Below 700 JD
associations More than 1500 JD 111 2.90 0.90 *
Total 1015 3.12 0.88
* Differences are significant at level (α ≤ 0.05)

5- Hypotheses testing

This section gathers results for hypotheses testing, multiple regression model and hierarchal
multiple regression model were used to test proposed hypotheses:

To test H1 – H8 multiple regression model was used, results are gathered in Table (-):

H1: There is a significant impact of consumer awareness toward sustainable products and
Sustainable Buying Behavior (SBB).
H2: There is a significant impact of sustainable marketing communication and Sustainable
Buying Behavior (SBB).
H3: There is a significant impact of environmental problems' awareness and Sustainable Buying
Behavior (SBB).
H4: There is a significant impact of sustainable marketing channels and Sustainable Buying
Behavior (SBB).
H5: There is a significant impact of sustainable pricing and Sustainable Buying Behavior (SBB).
H6: There is a significant impact of between government regulations and Sustainable Buying
Behavior (SBB).
H7: There is a significant impact of between green products' availability and Sustainable Buying
Behavior (SBB).
 H8: There is a significant impact of consumer associations' procedures and Sustainable Buying
Behavior (SBB).

Referring to results in Table (-), the model was significant as F calculate scored (F= 59.869, P=
0.000), correlation coefficient scored (R= 0.568) entailing a positive moderate correlation
between proposed factors and sustainable buying behavior, showing that whenever proposed
factors increase, sustainable buying behavior increases. Further, proposed factors explained a
moderate level of variance in sustainable buying behavior (R 2= 31.7%). Concerning the
influence of each factor:

- H1: Consumer’s awareness of sustainable products was the strongest determinant for
sustainable buying behavior scoring a significant positive influence, beta coefficient
scored [B= 0.221, Sig. (T)= 0.000], entailing that for each 1% increase in awareness of
sustainable products, sustainable product behavior increases by 22.1%, results provide
support for H1.

- H2: Sustainable marketing communications scored a significant positive influence as beta

coefficient scored [B= 0.150, Sig. (T)= 0.000], entailing that for each 1% increase in
Sustainable marketing communications, sustainable product behavior increases by 15%,
results provide support for H2.

- H3: Awareness of environmental problems scored a significant positive influence as beta

coefficient scored [B= 0.127, Sig. (T)= 0.000], entailing that for each 1% increase in
Awareness of environmental problems, sustainable product behavior increases by 12.7%,
results provide support for H3.

- H4: Sustainable marketing channels scored a significant positive influence as beta

coefficient scored [B= 0.151, Sig. (T)= 0.000], entailing that for each 1% increase in
Sustainable marketing channels, sustainable product behavior increases by 15.1%, results
provide support for H4.
- H5: Sustainable pricing scored a non-significant influence as beta coefficient scored [B=
0.043, Sig. (T)= 0.167], results render no support for H5.

- H6: Government regulations scored a non-significant influence as beta coefficient scored

[B= -0.042, Sig. (T)= 0.222], results render no support for H6. In fact, its vital to consider
that the influence was negative, therefore, critical consideration for government
regulations should be considered.

- H7: Availability of green products scored a non-significant influence as beta coefficient

scored [B= 0.054, Sig. (T)= 0.085], results render no support for H7.

- H8: Consumers associations scored a significant positive influence as beta coefficient

scored [B= 0.076, Sig. (T)= 0.024], entailing that for each 1% increase in Consumers
associations, sustainable product behavior increases by 2.4%, results provide support for
H8.
 Table (-):
Results of multiple linear regression for the impact of proposed determinants on Sustainable buying behavior (n= 1051)
(R) (R2) H Factor Beta Value (T) Sig. (T) F Calculate Sig.F
H1 Consumer’s awareness of sustainable products 0.221 7.472 0.000*
H2 Sustainable marketing communications 0.150 4.090 0.000*
H3 Awareness of environmental problems 0.127 3.747 0.000*
0.568 0.317 59.869 0.000*
H4 Sustainable marketing channels 0.151 3.924 0.000*
H5 Sustainable pricing 0.043 1.383 0.167
H6 Government regulations -0.042 -1.223 0.222
H7 Availability of green products 0.054 1.725 0.085
H8 Consumers associations 0.076 2.266 0.024*
- Dependent variable: Sustainable Buying Behavior
*Significant at the level (α ≤ 0.05)
Finally, H(9) concerns with moderation role taken by demographics on the associations between
independent factors and sustainable buying behavior, Hierarchal multiple linear regression
models were established, three blocks in every model were entered, the first block introduce the
independent factors, then the demographic variable is entered in block 2 and block 3 enter the
interaction term between the independent factors and the demographic variable, whenever a
moderation influence exist, Two-way interaction plot was used to visualize moderation
influence. In all models, Sustainable pricing, Government regulations and Availability of green
products factors were excluded from moderation testing as they were non-significant factors in
earlier model.

H9: Demographic variables play a mediator role between the dependent variable (Sustainable
Buying Behavior) and the independent variables.

1. Moderation role for gender:

Table (-) gathers results of hierarchal multiple linear regression to examine the moderation role
by gender. Block 1 introduced the influence of proposed determinants, the model was significant
[F= 94.159, Sig.F= 0.000], correlation coefficient was [R= 0.564], meanwhile coefficient of
determination was [R2= 31.5%], all determinants were significant in line with results gathered in
earlier multiple regression model. Block 2 and block 3 were not seen adding any improvements
to correlation coefficient or coefficient of determination, in block 2 gender was found to have a
non-significant influence [B= -0.013], further, block 3 introduced the interaction terms, however
no any of beta coefficients were found significant, showing that gender is not a moderator for the
associations between proposed determinates and sustainable buying behavior, hence H9 cannot
be supported for gender.

Table (-):
Results of hierarchal multiple linear regression for the moderation role by gender (n=
1051)

n= 1051 B coefficient
Variable Block Block Block
 1 2 3
Consumer’s awareness of sustainable products 0.230* 0.230* 0.228*
Sustainable marketing communications 0.163* 0.162* 0.163*
Independen Awareness of environmental problems 0.119* 0.120* 0.119*
t factors Sustainable marketing channels 0.163* 0.162* 0.166*
Consumers associations 0.080* 0.082* 0.079*
Moderator Gender -0.013 -0.013
Consumer’s awareness of sustainable products × gender -0.034
Sustainable marketing communications × gender -0.016
Interaction Awareness of environmental problems × gender 0.021
Sustainable marketing channels × gender -0.018
Consumers associations × gender -0.001
R 0.564 0.564 0.565
R2 0.318 0.318 0.320
Model Adjusted R2 0.315 0.314 0.313
summary F (Sig.F) 94.159 78.451 47.187
(0.000 (0.000) (0.000)
)
ΔR2 0.318 0.000 0.001
- Dependent variable: Sustainable Buying Behavior
*Significant at the level (α ≤ 0.05)

2. Moderation role for age:

Referring to results in Table (-), block 1 introduced the influence of proposed determinants, the
model was significant [F= 94.159, Sig.F= 0.000], correlation coefficient was [R= 0.564],
meanwhile coefficient of determination was [R2= 31.5%], all determinants were significant in
line with results gathered in earlier multiple regression model. Block 2 introduced the influence
of age, the model was significant [F= 79.666, Sig.F= 0.000], correlation coefficient was
marginally improved [R= 0.567], and coefficient of determination also marginally improved
[R2= 31.8%], age was found scoring a significant positive influence (B= 0.060). Moving to
Block 3, interaction terms were entered to the model, the model was significant [F= 49.203,
 Sig.F= 0.000], correlation coefficient and coefficient of determination were found improved
scoring [R= 0.573] [R2= 32.2%] respectively, all interaction terms scored non-significant
influences, only one interaction term was significant: Sustainable marketing channels × age
scoring a beta value (-0.116), entailing that age was dampening the positive influence of
sustainable marketing channels on sustainable buying behavior. See Figure (-) for two-way
interaction plot for moderation role by age on the influence of sustainable marketing channels on
sustainable buying behavior. Following gathered results H9 can be supported for Sustainable
marketing channels factor only.

Table (-):
Results of hierarchal multiple linear regression for the moderation role by age (n= 1051)

n= 1051 B coefficient
Variable Block 1 Block 2 Block 3
Consumer’s awareness of sustainable products 0.230* 0.226* 0.225*
Sustainable marketing communications 0.163* 0.157* 0.160*
Independen Awareness of environmental problems 0.119* 0.121* 0.131*
t factors Sustainable marketing channels 0.163* 0.166* 0.146*
Consumers associations 0.080* 0.090* 0.093*
Moderator Age 0.060* 0.061*
Consumer’s awareness of sustainable products × age 0.072
Sustainable marketing communications × age 0.059
Interaction Awareness of environmental problems × age 0.059
Sustainable marketing channels × age -0.116*
Consumers associations × age -0.002
R 0.564 0.567 0.573
R2 0.318 0.322 0.329
Model Adjusted R2 0.315 0.318 0.322
summary F (Sig.F) 94.159 79.666 49.203
(0.000*) (0.000* (0.000*)
 )
ΔR2 0.318 0.004 0.007
- Dependent variable: Sustainable Buying Behavior
*Significant at the level (α ≤ 0.05)

Figure (-):
Two-way interaction plot for moderation role by age on the influence of sustainable
marketing channels on sustainable buying behavior

3. Moderation role for educational level:

Following results in Table (-), block 1 introduced the influence of proposed determinants, the
model was significant [F= 94.159, Sig.F= 0.000], correlation coefficient was [R= 0.564],
meanwhile coefficient of determination was [R2= 31.5%], all determinants were significant in
line with results gathered in earlier multiple regression model. Block 2 introduced the influence
of education, the model was significant [F= 78.483, Sig.F= 0.000], correlation coefficient
remained same [R= 0.564], and coefficient of determination marginally reduced [R 2= 31.4%],
 educational level was found scoring a non-significant influence. Block 3, introduced interaction
terms and the model was significant [F= 44.109, Sig.F= 0.000], correlation coefficient and
coefficient of determination were found marginally improved scoring [R= 0.571] [R2= 31.9%]
respectively, all interaction terms scored non-significant influences, only two interaction term
were significant:

1. Sustainable marketing channels × Educational level: beta value (0.075), entailing that
educational level was strengthening the positive influence of sustainable marketing
channels on sustainable buying behavior. See Figure (-) for two-way interaction plot for
moderation role by educational level on the influence of sustainable marketing channels
on sustainable buying behavior.

2. Consumers associations × Educational level: beta value (-0.088), entailing that

educational level was dampening the positive influence of Consumers associations on
sustainable buying behavior. See Figure (-) for two-way interaction plot for moderation
role by educational level on the influence of Consumers associations on sustainable
buying behavior.

Following gathered results H9 can be supported for Sustainable marketing channels and
Consumers associations factors only.

Table (-):
Results of hierarchal multiple linear regression for the moderation role by educational level
(n= 1051)

n= 1051 B coefficient
Variable Block 1 Block 2 Block 3
Consumer’s awareness of sustainable products 0.230* 0.231* 0.235*
Sustainable marketing communications 0.163* 0.165* 0.165*
Independent Awareness of environmental problems 0.119* 0.117* 0.110*
factors Sustainable marketing channels 0.163* 0.164* 0.161*
Consumers associations 0.080* 0.082* 0.088*
Moderator Educational level 0.017 0.010
Consumer’s awareness of sustainable products × Educational level 0.018
Sustainable marketing communications × Educational level -0.014
Interaction Awareness of environmental problems × Educational level 0.027
Sustainable marketing channels × Educational level 0.075*
Consumers associations × Educational level -0.088*
R 0.564 0.564 0.571
R2 0.318 0.318 0.326
Model Adjusted R2 0.315 0.314 0.319
summary F (Sig.F) 94.159 78.483 44.109
(0.000*) (0.000*) (0.000*)
ΔR2 0.318 0.000 0.008
- Dependent variable: Sustainable Buying Behavior
*Significant at the level (α ≤ 0.05)

Figure (-):
Two-way interaction plot for moderation role by educational level on the influence of
sustainable marketing channels on sustainable buying behavior
 Figure (-):
Two-way interaction plot for moderation role by educational level on the influence of
Consumers associations on sustainable buying behavior
 4. Moderation role for income level:

Finally, Table (-) displays results of hierarchal multiple linear regression to examine the
moderation role by income level. Block 1 introduced the influence of proposed determinants, the
model was significant [F= 94.159, Sig.F= 0.000], correlation coefficient was [R= 0.564],
meanwhile coefficient of determination was [R2= 31.5%], all determinants were significant in
line with results gathered in earlier multiple regression model. Block 2 and block 3 were not seen
adding any major improvements to correlation coefficient or coefficient of determination, in
block 2 income level was found to have a non-significant influence [B= -0.013], further, block 3
introduced the interaction terms, however no any of beta coefficients were found significant,
showing that income is not a moderator for the associations between proposed determinates and
sustainable buying behavior, hence H9 cannot be supported for income level.

Table (-):
 Results of hierarchal multiple linear regression for the moderation role by income level (n=
1051)

n= 1051 B coefficient
Variable Block 1 Block 2 Block 3
Consumer’s awareness of sustainable products 0.230* 0.228* 0.228*
Sustainable marketing communications 0.163* 0.165* 0.166*
Independen Awareness of environmental problems 0.119* 0.120* 0.121*
t factors Sustainable marketing channels 0.163* 0.158* 0.163*
Consumers associations 0.080* 0.077* 0.075*
Moderator Income level -0.031 -0.028
Consumer’s awareness of sustainable products × Income level 0.025
Sustainable marketing communications × Income level 0.006
Interaction Awareness of environmental problems × Income level 0.041
Sustainable marketing channels × Income level -0.008
Consumers associations × Income level 0.013
R 0.564 0.565 0.568
R2 0.318 0.319 0.323
Model Adjusted R2 0.315 0.315 0.315
summary F (Sig.F) 94.159 78.723 43.466
(0.000*) (0.000*) (0.000*)
ΔR2 0.318 0.001 0.004
- Dependent variable: Sustainable Buying Behavior
*Significant at the level (α ≤ 0.05)