International Journal of Sustainable Development &

World Ecology

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tsdw20

Predicting sustainable consumption behavior:

knowledge-based, value-based, emotional and
rational influences on mobile phone, food and
fashion consumption

Shirin Betzler, Regina Kempen & Karsten Mueller

To cite this article: Shirin Betzler, Regina Kempen & Karsten Mueller (2021): Predicting
sustainable consumption behavior: knowledge-based, value-based, emotional and rational
influences on mobile phone, food and fashion consumption, International Journal of Sustainable
Development & World Ecology, DOI: 10.1080/13504509.2021.1930272

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2021.1930272

View supplementary material

Published online: 16 Jul 2021.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 26

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tsdw20
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT & WORLD ECOLOGY
https://doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2021.1930272

Predicting sustainable consumption behavior: knowledge-based, value-based,

emotional and rational influences on mobile phone, food and fashion
consumption
Shirin Betzler, Regina Kempen1 and Karsten Mueller
Department of Work and Organizational Psychology, Osnabrueck University, Osnabrueck, Germany

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Increasing sustainable consumption practices of individuals constitutes a crucial pillar of the Received 1 April 2021
global sustainable development strategy. Thus, the purpose of the present study was to Accepted 10 May 2021
examine psychological influences from different research streams and their incremental pre­ KEYWORDS
dictive value for sustainable consumption. In two studies, knowledge-based, value-based, Sustainable mobile phone
emotional and rational factors were considered to predict sustainable consumption behavior consumption; sustainable
of mobile phones, food and fashion. food consumption;
Survey data were obtained from an online panel (Study 1: N = 101, Study 2: N = 304). sustainable fashion
Multiple regression results showed that value-based, emotional and rational factors contrib­ consumption; theory of
uted significantly to the prediction of sustainable consumption in both studies and all product planned behavior; value-
groups. Problem awareness was a significant predictor only for food consumption. belief-norm theory; self-
To improve the explained variance and detect different patterns of prediction, influencing conscious emotions;
problem awareness
factors were included into the prediction in varying order. Hierarchical regression results
showed that a joint consideration of factors from different theoretical streams improved the
prediction and that product-specific patterns emerged.
The findings support the need to jointly consider different influencing factors for the
prediction of sustainable consumption. Understanding the drivers and obstacles of sustainable
consumption constitutes the basis for educational measures or marketing interventions. The
present study contributes to gaining product-specific knowledge which is pivotal for tailoring
such measures to different consumption areas.

Introduction Hamilton and Terblanche-Smit 2018; Iran et al. 2019).

However, research suggests that individuals are also
The world community has acknowledged the necessity
guided by many other influences such as value-based
of a sustainable turn by setting out the United Nations
norms, awareness constructs or emotions (for a meta-
Agenda for Sustainable Development. In order not to
analysis on psychosocial determinants of pro-environ­
endanger the needs of future generations, ‘substan­
mental behavior, see Bamberg and Moeser 2007).
tially reduc[ing] waste generation through prevention,
Consequently, to predict sustainable consumption
reduction, recycling and reuse’ (United Nations
behavior more comprehensively, the need to jointly
Department of Economic and Social Affairs [DESA]
and systematically consider factors from different the­
2021) proves to be inevitable. Consequently, scholars
oretical traditions (e.g., knowledge/problem aware­
and politicians alike do not discuss the if, but the how
ness, emotional and value-based in addition to
of change. To promote this change and to achieve
rational factors) arises. Despite this, an equal empirical
a sustainable turn, tackling individual consumption
consideration of these frameworks has been rarely
constitutes one essential facet (DESA 2021) of the glo­
undertaken. Thus, the present paper equally considers
bal sustainable development strategy. It is thus of
problem awareness, value-based, emotional and
particular importance to understand what promotes
rational factors for the prediction of sustainable
as well as hinders sustainable consumption2 on an
consumption.
individual level.
Traditionally, the human being has mainly been In terms of the examined services and products,
conceived as a rational consumer in economics much attention has been paid to mobility (e.g., Liu
(Thaler 1980) and politics (Pollex 2017), assuming et al. 2017; Frick et al. 2020) as well as food choices
rational factors as principal drivers of decisions. This is (e.g., Hoeksma et al. 2017; Hansmann et al. 2020). Also,
also reflected in much research predicting sustainable the examination of fashion consumption is on the rise
consumption that adopts a rational perspective (e.g., (e.g., Iran et al. 2019; Jalil and Shaharuddin 2019). In

CONTACT Shirin Betzler shirin.betzler@uni-osnabrueck.de Department of Work and Organizational Psychology, Osnabrueck University,
Osnabrueck, Germany
Supplemental data for this article can be accessed here.
© 2021 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 S. BETZLER ET AL.
contrast, the increasingly important consumption of
Information and Communication Technology (ICT) pro­
ducts is still rarely considered in current sustainability
research. While ICT bears great potential for sustain­
able development in many areas (Hilty et al. 2011), it
also poses serious challenges regarding the hardware’s
sustainability along the whole life cycle of products,
such as high energy consumption, or the extraction of
rare precious metals (Welfens et al. 2016). Due to their
comparably short life cycles, mobile phones are espe­
cially conflicting in this respect. However, a profound
debate about the need for sustainability in the mobile
phone sector is still lacking (Welfens et al. 2016).
Against this backdrop, this paper bridges substan­
tial research gaps in the area of sustainable consump­
tion in the following ways. First, as mentioned above,
the present study compares different theoretical fra­
meworks and examines in detail how four major theo­
retical approaches (knowledge-based/awareness
(Kollmuss and Agyeman 2002; Bamberg and Moeser
2007), value-based (Stern 2000), emotional (Mellers
and McGraw 2001; Vining and Ebreo 2002) and rational
(Ajzen 1991) factors) predict sustainable consumption.
In an additional research question, these approaches
are compared and tested for their incremental predic­
tive value over and above of each other, thus targeting
the joint consideration of different theoretical models.
Second, as very little is known about potential factors
driving sustainable consumption of ICT, this research
tests the different theoretical approaches for the con­
sumption of mobile phones, thus adding to the recent
emergence of research on sustainable consumption pat­
terns in the so far neglected, yet essential, domain of ICT.
Third, this research examines the aforementioned
influencing factors as a function of particular products
and consumer involvement in order to understand
specifics of sustainable consumption, giving rise to
target measures more adequately. Specifically, depart­
ing from the ICT domain by examining mobile phones,
study 2 investigates the predictive value of the theore­
tical approaches (knowledge-based, value-based, emo­
tional and rational factors) in two additional
established key industries crucial for sustainable
change, namely, in the food and fashion sectors.
Taken together, this paper offers a framework for the
consideration of different theoretically relevant influ­
encing factors for the sustainable consumption of
mobile phones, fashion and food.
Theoretical background
Knowledge-based influences on sustainable
consumption
As stated above, several theoretical approaches have
been used to identify relevant factors predicting sus­
tainable consumption. In the following, the four major
approaches considered in the present study will be
reviewed.
First, knowledge has a long-standing tradition in
being considered influential as a basis for consumption
behavior. Following the consumer behavior literature,
the Consumer Decision Process (CDP) model (Blackwell
et al. 2006) conceptualizes the search for information as
one crucial stage of the decision-making process. In
this process, existing or new knowledge influences the
evaluation of consumption alternatives along different
evaluative criteria, e.g., the sustainability of a product,
which in turn affects the final consumption decision.
In the sustainability context, Kollmuss and Agyeman
(2002) proposed a model of pro-environmental beha­
vior in which they conceptualize an awareness factor
including knowledge as a distal influence on sustain­
able behavior. Specifically, they define environmental
awareness as ‘knowing of the impact of human beha­
vior on the environment’ (Kollmuss and Agyeman
2002, p. 253).
Empirically, knowledge and awareness factors have
continuously proven to be a crucial basis for the facil­
itation of sustainable consumption (Uddin and Khan
2018; Heo and Muralidharan 2019). For example,
Buerke et al. (2017) found different types of consumer
awareness to be predictive for responsible consumer
behavior. In their meta-analysis, Bamberg and Moeser
(2007) found ‘the awareness of and knowledge about
environmental problems’ (p. 15) to be an important
indirect predictor for sustainable consumption.
Following this reasoning and in line with Bamberg
et al. (2007), it is thus assumed that a general problem
awareness (PA) of problematic sustainable states
serves as a knowledge basis for sustainable
consumption.
Consequently, it is predicted that
Hypothesis 1: Problem awareness (PA) is positively
related to sustainable mobile phone consumption.
Value-based influences on sustainable
consumption
Value-based theories such as the Value-Belief-Norm
Theory (VBN; Stern 2000) have addressed the indivi­
dual’s need to act according to their personal values.
The VBN assumes values as being the basis for making
decisions, determining an individual’s beliefs which in
turn lead to a personal norm, the only direct determi­
nant of a person’s behavior. Stern recognizes the
importance of being aware of which consequences
one’s actions have on others or the environment
(awareness of consequences, AC) and taking responsi­
bility for it (ascription of responsibility, AR) as the core
beliefs that lead to forming one’s personal norm (PN).
Various studies have successfully applied value-based
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT & WORLD ECOLOGY 3

frameworks in the environmental field, for example in Rational influences on sustainable consumption
predicting green energy consumption (Hartmann et al.
One of the most frequently applied theories from psy­
2018), sustainable behaviors in the tourism industry
chological decision research to model consumption
(Landon et al. 2018) or more recently for behaviors in
behavior is the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB;
the IT sector (Asadi et al. 2019).
Ajzen 1991). This theory conceptualizes human beha­
Consequently, it is predicted that
vior as being dependent on one principal direct influ­
ence: The individual’s intention (INT) to engage in a
Hypothesis 2: Value-based factors as conceptualized by
certain behavior. In turn, three main correlating influ­
the VBN (namely, awareness of consequences (AC),
ences are assumed to predict the intention. First, the
ascription of responsibility (AR), and personal norm
individual’s attitude (ATT) refers to a person’s evalua­
(PN)) are positively related to sustainable mobile
tion of a behavior. This describes whether the indivi­
phone consumption.
dual wants to act in a certain way. Second, the
subjective norm (SN) refers to the individual’s percep­
tion of the evaluation of his or her social environment
Emotional influences on sustainable consumption regarding the individual’s behavior. This determines
the individual’s perception of what he or she should
Emotions have been widely considered in classical
do. Finally, the third influence on the individual’s inten­
product marketing for decades (Holbrook and Batra
tion consists in the perceived behavioral control (PBC).
1987), for example, to promote product purchases.
This determines whether a person has the impression
Also, they have been employed in other contexts
that s/he is able to exercise a certain behavior. The TPB
such as encouraging pro-environmental donations
has been evaluated and shown to predict sustainable
(Bergquist et al. 2020). Interestingly, the consideration
consumption in various contexts, for example in the
of emotional influences to explain individual consump­
domains of mobility (Bamberg et al. 2007; Hamilton
tion decisions in addition to other influences such as
and Terblanche-Smit 2018), ecotourism (Han 2015), or
rational and value-based ones has been comparatively
organic food consumption (Soyez 2012). Less promi­
scarce. This is especially surprising given the fact that
nently, rational factors have been examined for the
emotions are highly influential in guiding human deci­
prediction of sustainable behaviors in the IT sector
sion behavior (Lerner et al. 2015).
(Mishra et al. 2014; Asadi et al. 2019).
In sustainability research, emotions, especially
Consequently, it is predicted that
self-conscious emotions3 such as pride or guilt,
hold a strong potential as predictors and mediator
Hypothesis 4: Rational factors as conceptualized by the
variables of sustainable behaviors (Vining and
TPB (namely, attitude (ATT), subjective norm (SN), per­
Ebreo 2002). In this context, Decision Affect Theory
ceived behavioral control (PBC) and intention (INT)) are
(Mellers and McGraw 2001) assumes that individuals
positively related to sustainable mobile phone
anticipate which emotional reactions will result from
consumption.
deciding for or against a behavioral option and, after
weighing different options, select the emotionally
All of the theoretical traditions reviewed above have
most advantageous one. This implies that individuals
partially contributed to the prediction and explanation
decide for sustainable options as they anticipate
of sustainable consumption. Nevertheless, jointly con­
feelings of pride when having done so or feelings
sidering different theoretical approaches constitutes
of guilt when they have not. In contrast, Steenhaut
an important step towards a more comprehensive
and Van Kenhove´s (2006) ethical decision-making
understanding of sustainable consumption behavior.
framework conceptualizes guilt as resulting from
For example, in his theory of green purchase behavior,
respective ethical beliefs, serving as partial mediator
Han (2020) integrated the TPB and the VBN framework
for intentions. In both theories, self-conscious emo­
for a better prediction. Likewise, Onwezen et al. (2013)
tions are seen as important facilitators of sustainable
obtained a good fit for a model including TPB, emo­
behavior. Building on this theoretical basis, feelings
tional and selected value-based constructs. Thus,
of guilt or pride have been found to be associated
a simultaneous consideration of factors seems appro­
with personal norms (Bamberg et al. 2007), per­
priate in order to improve the explained variance in
ceived consumer effectiveness (Antonetti and
sustainable consumption behavior.
Maklan 2014) and environmentally-related intentions
(Onwezen et al. 2014). Consequently, two additional research questions
Consequently, it is predicted that were formulated for the present study. First, it was
examined whether the theoretical streams accounted
Hypothesis 3: Emotional factors, namely guilt and pride, for variance over and above previously included fac­
are positively related to sustainable mobile phone tors in the order of the research hypotheses, meaning
consumption. all four theoretical streams were fully included. Second,
4 S. BETZLER ET AL.

it was tested whether the explained variance differed
by order of consideration of the different theoretical
streams. Due to theoretical considerations, PA was
held constant as the first predictor. The remaining
three streams were iterated, resulting in five addition­
ally examined models.
Study 1
Method
Procedure and sample
Participants were recruited via a German online panel
obtained from a high-quality panel provider. A web-
survey on mobile phone consumption was conducted
with N = 113 participants. At the beginning, to proceed
with the survey, participants received information
about the survey including the voluntariness of their
participation and gave their consent to participate.4
For data quality check, a control item measuring parti­
cipants’ attention was included in the survey items.
Also, straightliner response patterns were analyzed.
According to agreement with the panel provider,
n = 12 participants were excluded from further analysis
due to data quality concerns (n = 4 failed attention
scan, n = 1 questionable motivation due to responses
in open answer formats) or premature dropout (n = 7
incomplete data sets). The final sample consisted of
N = 101 participants (55 men, 46 women) of mostly
German origin. The average age was 37.36 years
(SD = 12.68, range = 18–65). The sample covered
a broad range of educational backgrounds and parti­
cipants’ monthly income. More information on the
sample can be found in table 7 of the supplemental
material. All participants stated that they possessed
a mobile phone.
Measures
Items were based on existing scales established and
extensively tested in the domain of sustainable beha­
vior such as travel mode choice (Bamberg and Schmidt
2003; Bamberg et al. 2007) and purchase behavior of
environmentally friendly products (Onwezen et al.
2014) and adapted to assess different aspects of the
sustainable consumption of mobile phones. The lan­
guage of item development was German. Items were
based on previous own work, where they were back-
translated.
In order to reflect the ecological and the social
dimension of sustainable consumption behavior, all
model constructs were measured by at least three
items covering fair working conditions, environmen­
tally friendly production conditions and overall consid­
eration of sustainability. If not otherwise indicated,
items were measured on a 5-point Likert scale of
agreement. At the beginning of the survey, partici­
pants were informed about the survey’s underlying
understanding of sustainability in a short text. The
full study questionnaire including the introductory
text can be found in the supplemental material. Table
1 shows descriptive statistics, internal consistencies
and sample items for all study variables.5 Further

Table 1. Descriptive statistics, internal consistencies and sample items for all study variables of study 1.
Variables M SD Cronbach’s Sample item [number of items per scale] Source(s)
α
1. Problem 3.36 0.85 .79 In my eyes, the production of mobile phones takes place under Bamberg et al. (2007)
awareness particularly environmentally harmful conditions. [3]
2. Guilt 3.51 0.95 .92 If I bought a mobile phone which had been produced under Onwezen et al. (2014)
particularly unfair working conditions, I would have a bad
conscience. [3]
3. Pride 4.10 1.04 .97 If I bought a particularly sustainable mobile phone, I would have Onwezen et al. (2014)
a good conscience altogether. [3]
4. Attitude 3.44 1.07 .96 For me personally, buying a mobile phone which has been produced Bamberg et al. (2007)
under particularly environmentally friendly conditions would be . . .
(not important – extremely important) [3]
5. Subjective 2.58 1.13 .96 People who are important to me think that I should consider the fair Bamberg et al. (2007)
norm working conditions when buying a mobile phone. [3]
6. Perceived 2.73 1.00 .94 For me, buying a particularly sustainable mobile phone would be Bamberg et al. (2007)
behavioral altogether . . . (very difficult – very easy) [3]
control
7. Awareness of 2.85 1.03 .95 My buying behavior of mobile phones has major consequences on the Bamberg et al. (2007)
consequences fairness of working conditions. [3]
8. Ascription of 3.53 1.02 .94 It is not only the state and the industry, who are responsible for Bamberg and Schmidt (2003)
responsibility reducing the problems resulting from mobile phones, but me too.
[4]
9. Personal 3.22 0.97 .95 Because of my own values, when buying a mobile phone, I feel an Bamberg et al. (2007); Bamberg
norm obligation to pay attention to the fair working conditions during and Schmidt (2003)
production. [6]
10. Intention 3.39 1.09 .97 When buying your next mobile phone, how probable is it that you will Bamberg et al. (2007); self-
particularly consider that it has been produced under developed based on
environmentally friendly conditions? (very improbable – very Blackwell et al. (2006)
probable) [6]
11. Mobile 1.96 0.91 .98 Altogether, when buying my last mobile phone, I have particularly self-developed based on
phone considered aspects of sustainability. [9] Blackwell et al. (2006)
consumption
Note. N = 101.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT & WORLD ECOLOGY 5

information on the intercorrelations can be found in did not significantly contribute to the prediction of
table 8 of the supplemental material. sustainable mobile phone consumption (ΔR2 = .01,
p = .264 and ΔR2 = .00, p = .939, respectively). In
contrast, VBN factors in Step 2 (ΔR2 = .39, p < .001)
Results and TPB factors in Step 4 (ΔR2 = .09, p < .01) signifi­
cantly increased the prediction of sustainable mobile
Table 2 shows the results of the separate multiple
phone consumption.
regressions that were conducted to test Hypotheses
In the iterations of the blockwise inclusion of
1–4.6 As can be seen in the table, PA did not predict
predictors, PA did not significantly contribute to
sustainable consumption significantly, F(1, 99) = 1.26,
the prediction of sustainable mobile phone con­
p = .264, therefore not supporting Hypothesis 1. VBN
sumption (ΔR2 = .01, p = .264 for Step 1 of all
factors significantly predicted sustainable mobile
models). Emotional factors significantly increased
phone consumption, F(3, 97) = 21.43, p < .001,
the prediction of sustainable mobile phone con­
accounting for 38% of variance. These results support
sumption only when inserted as Step 2 (Models 3
Hypothesis 2. Emotional factors significantly predicted
and 4: ΔR2 = .22, p < .001). VBN and TPB factors
sustainable mobile phone consumption, F(2,
significantly contributed to the prediction in every
98) = 14.91, p < .001, with an adjusted R2 of .22, thus
model, regardless of the step of inclusion, with
confirming Hypothesis 3. Finally, TPB factors signifi­
a similar amount of explained variance. Of the
cantly predicted sustainable mobile phone consump­
final set of predictors included in Step 4, AC
tion (adjusted R2 = .38, F(4, 96) = 16.30, p < .001), thus
(β = .26, p = .019), PN (β = .41, p = .01) and SN
supporting Hypothesis 4.
(β = .29, p = .003) significantly contributed to the
In order to address the formulated research ques­
prediction. An extended table of hierarchical regres­
tions, blockwise hierarchical regressions were calcu­
sion results including standardized regression
lated. For Research question 1, the factors pertaining
weights for all steps of blockwise inclusion can be
to the four theoretical streams were included as four
found in table 9 of the supplemental material.
blocks in the same order as the hypotheses (cf. Model
To test for multicollinearity, the variance inflation
1, Table 3). For Research question 2, it was tested
factors (VIF) were inspected for all analyses. Following
whether the explained variance differed by order of
Micheal and Abiodun (2014), VIF values between 1 and
insertion of the blocks. The following three steps were
5.56 were acceptable, suggesting that multicollinearity
iterated, resulting in five additional models (cf. Models
was not an issue.
2–6, Table 3).
Table 3 shows the results of the hierarchical regres­
sion analyses that were conducted to test the Research
Discussion
questions 1 and 2. As can be seen in the table, the
overall adjusted R2 was .43 for all models. For the Results of Study 1 suggest that problem awareness is
theoretically derived order of insertion (Model 1), PA not essential in the context of sustainable mobile
in the first step and emotional factors in the third step phone consumption, rejecting Hypothesis 1. By

Table 2. Results of regression analyses of sustainable mobile phone consumption of all theoretical model streams (study 1).
Predictors ß T p
Model 1: Problem awareness
Problem awareness .11 1.12 .264
F(df) F(1, 99) = 1.26 .264
Adjusted R2 .00
Model 2: VBN factors
Awareness of consequences .31 2.91 .004
Ascription of responsibility − .24 − 2.26 .026
Personal norm .55 5.43 < .001
F(df) F(3, 97) = 21.43 < .001
Adjusted R2 .38
Model 3: Emotional factors
Guilt .37 3.51 .001
Pride .16 1.55 .125
F(df) F(2, 98) = 14.91 < .001
Adjusted R2 .22
Model 4: TPB factors
Attitude .21 1.6 .114
Subjective norm .37 3.91 < .001
Perceived behavioral control − .01 − 0.08 .938
Intention .17 1.37 .17
F(df) F(4, 96) = 16.30 < .001
Adjusted R2 .38
Note. VBN = Value-Belief-Norm Theory, TPB = Theory of Planned Behavior. N = 101.
6 S. BETZLER ET AL.

Table 3. Results of hierarchical regression analyses of sustainable mobile phone consumption with iterations of value-based,
emotional and rational factors (study 1).
Predictors Adjusted R2 ∆R2 Predictors β Adjusted R2 ∆R2
Model 1: Problem awareness, VBN factors, emotional factors, TPB factors Model 5: Problem awareness, TPB factors, VBN factors, emotional factors
Step 1 .00 .01 Step 1 .00 .01
Step 2 .37** .39** Step 2 .38** .40**
Step 3 .36** .00 Step 3 .43** .07*
Step 4 .43** .09** Step 4 .43** .01
Model 2: Problem awareness, VBN factors, TPB factors, emotional factors Model 6: Problem awareness, TPB factors, emotional factors, VBN factors
Step 1 .00 .01 Step 1 .00 .01
Step 2 .37** .39** Step 2 .38** .40**
Step 3 .43** .08* Step 3 .37** .00
Step 4 .43** .01 Step 4 .43** .08**
Model 3: Problem awareness, emotional factors, VBN factors, TPB factors Problem awareness − .05
Awareness of consequences .26*
Step 1 .00 .01 Ascription of responsibility − .17
Step 2 .21** .22** Personal norm .41*
Step 3 .36** .17** Guilt − .16
Step 4 .43** .09** Pride − .05
Model 4: Problem awareness, emotional factors, TPB factors, VBN factors Attitude .18
Subjective norm .29**
Step 1 .00 .01 Perceived behavioral control − .01
Step 2 .21** .22** Intention .02
Step 3 .37** .18**
Step 4 .43** .08**
Note. Parameter estimates are for final step, not entry. VBN = Value-Belief-Norm Theory, TPB = Theory of Planned Behavior. N = 101, *p < .05, **p < .01.

contrast, emotional, value-based and rational factors
all significantly predicted sustainable mobile phone
consumption, thus supporting Hypotheses 2–4. With
38% of explained variance each, value-based and
rational factors both seem to be the relevant predictors
of sustainable consumption.
As the results of the hierarchical regression analyses
show, jointly considering the theoretical streams
improved the explained variance (43%). In all tested
models, VBN and TPB factors were overlapping, but
also explained additional variance over and above of
each other, suggesting that the factors also cover dis­
tinct psychological aspects of sustainable consump­
tion. Emotional factors explained a substantial
amount of variance only when added in Step 2. This
suggests that VBN and TPB factors contain an emo­
tional component. When included after the VBN or TPB
factors, emotional factors might be superimposed by
these and no longer incrementally add to the predic­
tion of sustainable consumption. To further examine
the relevance of different theoretical streams in con­
trast to other consumption contexts such as food or
fashion, a second study was conducted.
widespread (McDonald et al. 2009), options in the
fashion industry are on the rise, but still fairly limited
(Yang et al. 2017), and only minor sustainable tenden­
cies can be registered in the mobile phone sector
(Welfens et al. 2016).
In terms of product involvement as a general mea­
sure of the self-relevance of purchasing activities to the
individual (Slama and Tashchian 1985), one central
aspect constitutes the perceived risk of a purchase
(Laurent and Kapferer 1985). Given the differences in
the duration of use of mobile phones, food and fashion
items, as well as the average price of the three product
groups as one essential attribute of product involve­
ment (Martin 1998), the selection of the three indus­
tries can be seen as an approximation of a high (mobile
phone), medium (fashion item) and low (food item)
involvement product.
Accordingly, extending the findings from study 1,
the principal research question of how knowledge-
based, value-based, emotional and rational influences
predict sustainable consumption in the areas of mobile
phones, food and fashion is examined.
Consequently, it is predicted that

Hypothesis 1: Problem awareness (PA) is positively

Study 2
Based on the insights from Study 1, data was collected
for three different product groups. The selection of
food and fashion consumption as comparative cases
to mobile phone consumption allows for model test­
ing for three product groups differing in their availabil­
ity of sustainable consumption options as well as the
expected product involvement.
In terms of availability, while sustainable consump­
tion alternatives in the food sector are already
related to a) sustainable mobile phone consumption,
b) sustainable food consumption and c) sustainable
fashion consumption.
Hypothesis 2: Value-based factors as conceptualized by
the VBN (namely, awareness of consequences (AC),
ascription of responsibility (AR), and personal norm
(PN)) are positively related to a) sustainable mobile
phone consumption, b) sustainable food consumption
and c) sustainable fashion consumption.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT & WORLD ECOLOGY 7

Hypothesis 3: Emotional factors, namely guilt and pride, Measures

are positively related to a) sustainable mobile phone
consumption, b) sustainable food consumption and c)
sustainable fashion consumption.
Hypothesis 4: Rational factors as conceptualized by the
TPB (namely, attitude (ATT), subjective norm (SN), per­
ceived behavioral control (PBC) and intention (INT)) are
positively related to a) sustainable mobile phone con­
sumption, b) sustainable food consumption and c)
sustainable fashion consumption.
Based on Study 1, items were rephrased to measure
the consumption of food and fashion, respectively.7 All
measures showed good internal consistencies
(Cronbach’s α > .80) for all three product groups,
except for problem awareness (Cronbach’s α: Mobile
phones: .58, Food: .74, Fashion: .76). Table 4 shows
descriptive results and internal consistencies of all
study variables for the three product groups of Study
2. Further information on the intercorrelations can be
found in tables 10–12 of the supplemental material.

In additional research questions, the approaches

tested in the hypotheses are examined for their incre­
mental shares when considered jointly in differing
order. As for the comparison of the different product
groups, it is of great interest to detect common or
unique patterns. Thus, in a third additional research
question, it is examined which similarities and differ­
ences exist between the product groups.
Method
Procedure and sample
In Study 2, a web-survey was conducted with N = 361
participants. Analogous to the analyses in Study 1,
according to agreement with the panel provider,
n = 57 participants were excluded from further ana­
lysis due to data quality concerns (n = 26 failed atten­
tion scan) or premature dropout (n = 31 incomplete
data sets). The final sample consisted of N = 304 par­
ticipants (151 men, 153 women) of mostly German
origin. The average age was 38.82 years (SD = 13.81,
range = 18–81). Participants varied in their educa­
tional background as well as their monthly income.
More information about the sample can be found in
the supplemental material (Table 7). Participants were
randomly assigned to one of three product sub­
groups: n = 103 (mobile phones); n = 101 (food);
n = 100 (fashion). No significant age or gender differ­
ences were found between the subgroups.
Results
Table 5 shows the results of the multiple regressions
that were conducted to test Hypotheses 1–4 for the
three product groups mobile phones, food and
fashion.
For sustainable mobile phone consumption, PA did
not explain sustainable consumption significantly, F(1,
101) = 0.86, p = .356, therefore not supporting
Hypothesis 1a. VBN, emotional and TPB factors signifi­
cantly predicted sustainable mobile phone consump­
tion, F(3, 99) = 15.58, p < .001; F(2, 100) = 5.05, p = .008;
and F(4, 98) = 15.39, p < .001, respectively, explaining
30%, 7% and 36% of variance. Thus, Hypotheses 2a, 3a
and 4a are supported.
For sustainable food consumption, PA predicted
consumption significantly, F(1, 99) = 13.42, p < .001,
explaining 11% of variance. VBN factors, F(3,
97) = 41.77, p < .001, as well as emotional factors, F(2,
98) = 23.91, p < .001, significantly predicted sustainable
food consumption, explaining 55% and 31% of var­
iance, respectively. Finally, TPB factors also significantly
predicted sustainable food consumption, F(4,
96) = 41.89, p < .001, explaining 62% of variance.
Thus, Hypotheses 1b, 2b, 3b and 4b are supported.
For sustainable fashion consumption, PA did not
explain sustainable consumption significantly, F(1,
98) = 1.73, p = .192, therefore not supporting
Hypothesis 1c. VBN, emotional and TPB factors

Table 4. Descriptive statistics and internal consistencies of all study variables for mobile phone, food and fashion consumption in
study 2.
Mobile phones Food Fashion
Variables M SD Cronbach’s α M SD Cronbach’s α M SD Cronbach’s α
1. Problem awareness 3.24 0.61 .58 3.32 0.75 .74 3.69 0.74 .76
2. Guilt 3.60 0.98 .92 3.65 0.95 .91 3.45 0.96 .91
3. Pride 3.96 1.12 .95 4.01 1.11 .96 3.94 0.98 .95
4. Attitude 3.67 0.90 .91 3.81 0.93 .89 3.59 0.98 .94
5. Subjective norm 2.55 1.14 .96 2.81 1.08 .94 2.61 1.10 .96
6. Perceived behavioral control 2.58 0.94 .93 3.00 1.01 .92 2.77 0.99 .94
7. Awareness of consequences 2.80 1.00 .92 3.21 0.96 .90 2.98 0.99 .92
8. Ascription of responsibility 3.55 1.07 .95 3.65 0.93 .93 3.69 0.94 .92
9. Personal norm 3.23 0.87 .94 3.28 0.96 .94 3.06 1.01 .96
10. Intention 3.50 1.02 .96 3.29 0.95 .95 3.08 1.10 .97
11a. Mobile phone consumption 1.85 0.84 .98
11b. Food consumption 2.62 0.97 .97
11c. Fashion consumption 2.22 1.01 .99
Note. Mobile phones: n = 103; Food: n = 101; Fashion: n = 100.
8 S. BETZLER ET AL.

Table 5. Results of regression analyses of sustainable consumption of mobile phones, food and fashion of all theoretical model
streams (study 2).
Mobile phones Food Fashion
Predictors β T p β T p β T p
Model 1: Problem awareness
Problem awareness − .09 − 0.93 .356 .35 3.66 < .001 .13 1.31 .192
F(df) F(1, 101) = 0.86 .356 F(1, 99) = 13.42 < .001 F(1, 98) = 1.73 .192
Adjusted R2 .00 .11 .01
Model 2: VBN factors
Awareness of consequences .20 − 1.95 .054 .04 0.48 .63 .03 0.37 .71
Ascription of responsibility − .22 − 2.25 .027 .02 0.29 .769 − .05 − 0.62 .534
Personal norm .51 5.03 < .001 .72 8.44 < .001 .70 8.36 < .001
F(df) F(3, 99) = 15.58 < .001 F(3, 97) = 41.77 < .001 F(3, 96) = 30.71< .001
Adjusted R2 .30 .55 .47
Model 3: Emotional factors
Guilt .29 2.62 .01 .56 5.92 < .001 .56 6.31 < .001
Pride .04 0.32 .749 .03 0.34 .733 − .10 − 1.18 .242
F(df) F(2, 100) = 5.05 .008 F(2, 98) = 23.91 < .001 F(2, 97) = 20.02< .001
Adjusted R2 .07 .31 .28
Model 4: TPB factors
Attitude − .17 − 1.40 .163 .17 1.93 .056 .05 0.49 .629
Subjective norm .36 3.56 .001 .16 2.01 .048 .20 2.37 .02
Perceived behavioral control .21 2.6 .011 − .06 − 0.82 .417 .11 1.54 .127
Intention .38 3.12 .002 .58 6.28 < .001 .56 5.12 < .001
F(df) F(4, 98) = 15.39 < .001 F(4, 96) = 41.89 < .001 F(4, 95) = 35.72< .001
Adjusted R2 .36 .62 .58
Note. Mobile phones: n = 103; Food: n = 101; Fashion: n = 100. VBN = Value-Belief-Norm Theory, TPB = Theory of Planned Behavior.

significantly predicted sustainable fashion consump­
tion, F(3, 96) = 30.71, p < .001; F(2, 97) = 20.02,
p < .001; and F(4, 95) = 35.72, p < .001, respectively,
explaining 47%, 28% and 58% of variance. Thus,
Hypotheses 2c, 3c and 4c are supported.
Across all product groups, PN was the strongest
predictor for sustainable consumption within the VBN
framework (mobile phones: β = .51, p < .001; food:
β = .72, p < .001; fashion: β = .70, p < .001). In terms
of emotional factors, guilt was the only significant
predictor relevant across all product groups (mobile
phones: β = .29, p = .01; food: β = .56, p < .001; fashion:
β = .56, p < .001). For the TPB factors, INT was the
strongest predictor (mobile phones: β = .38, p = .002;
food: β = .58, p < .001; fashion: β = .56, p < .001),
followed by SN (mobile phones: β = .36, p < .001;
food: β = .16, p = .048; fashion: β = .20, p = .02).
Table 6 shows the results of the hierarchical regres­
sion analyses that were conducted to test the addi­
tional Research questions 1–3. As can be seen in the
table, 41% of variance was explained in sustainable
mobile phone consumption, 67% in food consumption
and 59% in fashion consumption.
PA did neither significantly contribute to the pre­
diction of sustainable mobile phone nor fashion con­
sumption (ΔR2 = .01, p = .356; and ΔR2 = .02, p = .192,
respectively for Step 1 of all models). In contrast, for
sustainable food consumption, PA significantly con­
tributed to the prediction (ΔR2 = .12, p < .001), explain­
ing 11% of variance. Emotional factors significantly
increased the prediction of sustainable consumption
only when inserted as Step 2 in all product groups
(Models 3 and 4: Mobile phones: ΔR2 = .10, p = .005;
food: ΔR2 = .24, p < .001; fashion: ΔR2 = .28, p < .001).
TPB factors significantly contributed to the prediction
in all models, regardless of the step of inclusion. When
included in the second step, only the TPB factors pre­
dicted sustainable fashion consumption significantly
(Models 5 and 6: ΔR2 = .58, p < .001). VBN factors
significantly contributed to the prediction of sustain­
able mobile phone and food consumption in all mod­
els. For fashion consumption, they contributed
significantly if included before the TPB factors.
An extended table of hierarchical regression results
including standardized regression weights for all steps
of blockwise inclusion can be found in table 13 of the
supplemental material. VIF values ranged between 1
and 4.95, suggesting that multicollinearity was not an
issue (Micheal and Abiodun 2014).
Discussion
Results of Study 2 suggest that problem awareness
plays a role only for the prediction of sustainable
food consumption, supporting Hypothesis 1b in the
food sample, but rejecting it for mobile phone and
fashion consumption (Hypotheses 1a and 1c).
Similarly to Study 1, emotional, value-based and
rational influences predicted sustainable consumption
for all product groups, thus confirming Hypotheses
2–4. For all product groups, the TPB factors constituted
the strongest predictors, with 36% (mobile phones),
62% (food) and 58% (fashion) explained variance.
They were closely followed by the VBN factors as pre­
dictors, explaining 30% (mobile phones), 55% (food)
and 47% (fashion) of variance.
As the results of the hierarchical regression analyses
show, jointly considering the theoretical streams
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT & WORLD ECOLOGY 9

Table 6. Results of hierarchical regression analyses of sustainable consumption of mobile phones, food and fashion with iterations
of value-based, emotional and rational factors (study 2).
Mobile phones Food Fashion
Predictors β Adjusted R2 ΔR2 β Adjusted R2 ΔR2 β Adjusted R2 ΔR2
Model 1: Problem awareness, VBN factors, emotional factors, TPB factors
Step 1 .00 .01 .11** .12** .01 .02
Step 2 .32** .34** .58** .47** .47** .47**
Step 3 .31** .01 .57** .00 .48** .02
Step 4 .41** .12** .67** .11** .59** .12**
Model 2: Problem awareness, VBN factors, TPB factors, emotional factors
Step 1 .00 .01 .11** .12** .01 .02
Step 2 .32** .34** .58** .47** .47** .47**
Step 3 .42** .12** .66** .09** .57** .12**
Step 4 .41** .00 .67** .01 .59** .02
Model 3: Problem awareness, emotional factors, VBN factors, TPB factors
Step 1 .00 .01 .11** .12** .01 .02
Step 2 .08** .10** .34** .24** .27** .28**
Step 3 .31** .24** .57** .23** .48** .22**
Step 4 .41** .12 ** .67** .11** .59** .12**
Model 4: Problem awareness, emotional factors, TPB factors, VBN factors
Step 1 .00 .01 .11** .12** .01 .02
Step 2 .08** .10** .34** .24** .27** .28**
Step 3 .37** .30** .64** .31** .59** .33**
Step 4 .41** .06* .67** .03* .59** .01
Model 5: Problem awareness, TPB factors, VBN factors, emotional factors
Step 1 .00 .01 .11** .12** .01 .02
Step 2 .38** .40** .64** .53** .58** .58**
Step 3 .42** .06* .66** .03* .57** .01
Step 4 .41** .00 .67** .01 .59** .02
Model 6: Problem awareness, TPB factors, emotional factors, VBN factors
Step 1 .00 .01 .11** .12** .01 .02
Step 2 .38** .40** .64** .53** .58** .58**
Step 3 .37** .00 .64** .02 .59** .02
Step 4 .41** .06* .67** .03* .59** .01
Problem awareness − .14 .18** .02
Awareness of consequences .19 .06 − .00
Ascription of responsibility − .17 − .10 − .01
Personal norm .26 .28* .19
Guilt − .08 − .05 − .08
Pride .00 − .13 − .15*
Attitude − .20 .19 .09
Subjective norm .30** .14 .15
Perceived behavioral control .11 − .04 .10
Intention .34* .40** .50**
Note. Parameter estimates are for final step, not entry. VBN = Value-Belief-Norm Theory, TPB = Theory of Planned Behavior. Mobile phones: n = 103; Food:
n = 101; Fashion: n = 100, *p < .05; **p < .01.

improved the explained variance in all product groups. General discussion

Explained variance varied across product groups (41%
in mobile phone consumption, 67% in food consump­
tion and 59% in fashion consumption). Emotional fac­
tors explained a substantial amount of variance in all
product groups when added in Step 2. TPB factors
proved to be the strongest predictors, contributing to
the prediction of sustainable consumption in all pro­
duct groups regardless of the step of inclusion. Except
for sustainable fashion consumption, where VBN fac­
tors did not explain additional variance over the TPB
factors, they contributed additionally in all remaining
models. These results suggest that VBN and TPB factors
generally share a substantial part of variance, but also
have distinctive parts. Moreover, it seems like VBN and
TPB factors comprise an emotional component, which
leads to emotional factors, when included in Steps 3 or
4, being superimposed by these facets.
In the present study, influencing factors of different
theoretical streams were considered for the prediction
of sustainable consumption of mobile phones and other
product groups, namely, food and fashion. It was
hypothesized that knowledge-based (Hypothesis 1),
value-based (Hypothesis 2), emotional (Hypothesis 3)
and rational (Hypothesis 4) factors each predict sustain­
able consumption behavior. Furthermore, in additional
research questions, the theoretical streams were jointly
considered for the prediction of sustainable consump­
tion in varying order. This is important because knowl­
edge about the specific influences of sustainable
consumption helps tailoring interventions for the pro­
motion of sustainable practices and thus contributes to
a sustainable turn.
First, in both studies, the strongest predictors for
sustainable consumption were stemming from the
10 S. BETZLER ET AL.
VBN and the TPB theory. In study 2, in line with the
theoretical predictions of the TPB, intention was
the strongest predictor of the rational constructs
for all products. Empirically, similar findings stres­
sing the central position of intention have been
shown (e.g., Onwezen et al. 2013; Iran et al.
2019). Hierarchical regression results indicate that
the factors of both theories are overlapping, but
also have distinctive parts. This suggests that,
besides a rational calculation to favor a behavioral
option as the most sensible one, acting according
to one’s principles and values is important. This is
in line with previous findings (e.g., Han and Hyun
2017; Rezvani et al. 2017) that personal norm plays
a central role in behaving sustainably. In both stu­
dies and for all product groups, a (value-based)
personal norm as well as the subjective norm con­
stitute relevant predictors, suggesting that perso­
nal and social normative influences should go hand
in hand to promote sustainable consumption. Also,
in Study 1, awareness of consequences held
a significant influence. This circumstance should
be addressed in educational measures, that is by
fostering awareness and the individual’s conviction
to act according to their principles just as much as
encouraging to be a pioneer in one’s social group.
Second, the results show that emotions predict sus­
tainable consumption, explaining a substantial
amount of variance for all product groups. Looking at
the regression weights, this effect was accounted for
by the negative emotion guilt. In contrast, pride did
not prove to be a significant predictor. Building on
existing research, these findings further stress the
importance of guilt as key emotion in the promotion
of sustainable consumption (Bamberg and Moeser
2007; Lindenmeier et al. 2017), but contradict other
findings, for example, from Onwezen et al. (2013), on
the importance of pride. Following the Decision Affect
Theory (Mellers and McGraw 2001), this suggests that
the anticipation of guilt as a negative emotional reac­
tion is potentially more aversive than the expected
gain in light of experiencing pride, making guilt more
effective in the decision process. Interestingly, in the
hierarchical regression analysis, guilt was only
a significant predictor when included before the VBN
or the TPB factors, suggesting that an emotional com­
ponent is contained in an ascription of responsibility or
a personal norm (VBN) or an attitudinal belief (TPB).
This makes the predictive power of guilt obsolete at
a later point of inclusion.
Third, problem awareness did not prove to be
a significant predictor in most of the cases.
Specifically, results show that problem awareness was
a significant predictor for sustainable consumption
only in the food sample (explained variance of 11%).
These results match earlier findings and confirm the
importance of problem awareness unfolding as an
indirect predictor for sustainable consumption
(Bamberg and Moeser 2007), not necessarily translat­
ing into actual consumption behavior. Only for food
consumption, a direct effect emerged. Thus, the effect
of variance in problem awareness seems to be depen­
dent on the product group. While a varying degree of
problem awareness seems to be an important basis for
sustainable consumption behavior in the food sector,
sustainable practices in other sectors are less depen­
dent on this variance of knowledge. Building on the
theoretical insights of the CDP model (Blackwell et al.
2006), this might be due to differences in the search for
information as well as the resulting evaluative process
of the consumption decision. For a low involvement
product like food items, due to high purchase fre­
quency and the habitual character of many food pur­
chases, consumers may have a lot of internal
information available. In contrast, for medium or high
involvement products like fashion or mobile phones,
an external search is necessary. If consumers cannot or
do not want to engage in it, other factors like value-
based or emotional ones could be more influential for
the consumption decision. Alternatively, it is also con­
ceivable that individuals do not dispose of too little,
but rather contradictory knowledge for fashion or
mobile phone consumption. This may impede the
decision-making process for sustainable behaviors,
creating ‘dilemmas, tensions and paralysis’ (Longo
et al. 2019, p. 759), thus not translating into behavior.
Marketing or educational measures for the promotion
of sustainable consumption in the food sector should
address this circumstance, paying particular attention
to including sufficient and trustworthy information. At
the same time, the amount of information should be
adjusted to the target group at hand, accounting for
interindividual differences.
Concerning the overall prediction of sustainable
consumption behavior by all theoretical streams,
results show that the joint consideration improves
the explained variance compared to a single predic­
tion. Differences emerged depending on the product
group, ranging from 41% explained variance in mobile
phone consumption over 59% in fashion consumption
to 67% in food consumption. Presumably, depending
on the product group, other supposedly non-psycho­
logical factors such as price, brand or technical features
of the product gain more importance (Petruzzellis
2010). Also, the purchase process of durable goods
like technological products seems to be complex
(e.g., considering different time dimensions; Sriram
et al. 2010), suggesting differences in product involve­
ment. Finally, as descriptive results show, both per­
ceived behavioral control and sustainable
consumption behavior were highest for food and low­
est for mobile phones, with fashion ranging in
between. This supports the initial assumption of the
availability of sustainable consumption options of the
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT & WORLD ECOLOGY
products as a discriminating factor between the
groups.
Two major conclusions can be drawn from these
results. First, jointly considering factors from differ­
ent theoretical backgrounds seems generally desir­
able to heighten the prediction of sustainable
consumption for different product groups. These
results confirm previous findings that the simulta­
neous acknowledgement of factors originating from
different theoretical families is essential to under­
stand individual consumption behavior (e.g., Han
2015). Also, they support recent claims to acknowl­
edge consumption as the complex process that it is
for consumers (Buerke 2016). Second, both common
and unique patterns in the importance of influen­
cing factors emerge across product groups. Personal
norm, guilt and intention are central predictors of
the respective theoretical streams in all three pro­
duct groups. In contrast, problem awareness only
exerts an influence on food consumption. Also, sub­
jective norm proves to be especially relevant for
mobile phone consumption. Thus, designing effec­
tive measures for behavior change requires a closer
look and adequate adjustment to the consumption
context at hand.
Limitations and further research
Some limitations to the present research must be
noted. On a methodological level, a higher internal
consistency of the scale measuring problem awareness
would be desirable. The measuring instrument was
developed based on existing validated instruments
from related areas, but the transmission to the area
of mobile phones might have caused some irregulari­
ties. Measuring awareness about a problematic state
might mean different things in the different product
groups, causing the scale’s internal consistency to
range between α = .58 and .79 depending on the
product category. However, the remaining scales dis­
pose of good reliabilities of α > .80, thus providing
a sound questionnaire instrument.
Additionally, the present study uses self-report data.
While this has a long-standing tradition in psychologi­
cal research, aiming at the introspection of the indivi­
dual’s behavior, it has to be noted that self-report data
is susceptible to distortions such as social desirability
bias (Podsakoff and Organ 1986). Future research
should address this short-coming, for example, by
using objective behavior measures such as the pur­
chase value of products.
Finally, the present study constitutes a cross-sec­
tional design. Further research using longitudinal
data would be desirable to consider the development
of sustainable consumption decisions over time and to
derive causal conclusions.
11
Practical implications
The present study yields relevant practical implica­
tions. First, emotional factors seem to be particularly
important. On the one hand, this is valuable infor­
mation regarding the development of educational
measures. Specifically, education about problems
and consequences associated with (non-) sustain­
able behavior should not only be focused on infor­
mation, but emotion-driven. Also, educational
measures should address the particular importance
of personal and social norms by strengthening
them accordingly. On the other hand, marketing
campaigns on promoting sustainable practices
should include emotional claims. In particular,
appealing to one’s feelings of guilt seems to be
effective. For example, campaigns could focus on
the individual’s contribution to problematic condi­
tions in production countries.
Second, to tackle sustainable consumption in the
food sector, fostering awareness about unsustainable
consumption patterns seems to be an important basis
for promoting behavior change. Here, environmental
education can make a change in targeting the lack of
knowledge as well as the development of values in this
area. This circumstance should be tackled in educa­
tional measures, such as training formats.
Finally, the great influence of value-based norms
in addition to rational influences once more proves
the conception of the human being as homo oeco­
nomicus to be outdated. However, the majority of
policy measures still focuses on a rational individual
(Pollex 2017), neglecting the impact of factors like
values or emotions. It is thus necessary to promote
a paradigm shift in policy making regarding sustain­
able consumption and rigorously incorporate the
existing knowledge about psychological determi­
nants on sustainable consumption in order to pro­
mote change on a bigger scale.
Conclusion
Sustainable development is one of our time’s most
pressing issues, and sustainable consumption con­
stitutes one important way to achieve it. Hence,
there is an obvious need for the identification of
factors that can promote corresponding behavior
change in individual consumption. Our study pro­
vides evidence that jointly considering knowledge-
based, value-based, emotional and rational factors
heightens the overall prediction of sustainable con­
sumption behavior of mobile phones, food and
fashion. The findings suggest that common patterns
exist across products, stressing the importance of
a rational intention, a value-based personal norm or
feelings of guilt. At the same time, the importance
of certain factors seems to be product-specific, such
12 S. BETZLER ET AL.
as problem awareness for food consumption. Thus,
a joint consideration of factors is desirable for
a comprehensive prediction, all the while paying
close attention to the specifics of the product. In
order to achieve the greatest possible impact, this
has to be taken into consideration in marketing or
educational measures. In this regard, this work
offers an integration of perspectives on sustainable
consumption which is of utmost importance for
researchers, practitioners – and the planet.
Notes
1. Department of Business Psychology, Aalen University
of Applied Sciences
2. Sustainable consumption is conceptualized as a way
to consume which ensures comparable or better living
conditions for current and future generations. This
entails carefully handling and protecting natural,
social and economic resources.
3. Self-conscious emotions require a representation of
the self and result from evaluating one’s actions
against a set of (internal or external) standards
(Vining and Ebreo 2002; Tracy and Robins 2004).
4. Since this survey constitutes a non-interventional
study, ethical approval as foreseen by the Declaration
of Helsinki was not required.
5. Originally, additional data was collected for a set of 4
value orientations and post materialism. For reasons of
model complexity, these were not considered in
further analysis. The full dataset can be obtained
from a data repository.
6. Data analysis was originally conducted with structural
equation modelling (SEM), integrating the four
hypotheses. No sufficient fit to the data was obtained.
Following MacCallum and Austin (2000), this might be
due to the high complexity of the model, making it
necessary to estimate a large number of parameters, in
combination with a rather small sample size.
7. In study 2, attitude was measured with three addi­
tional items. For reasons of comparability between
studies, only the overlapping three items were ana­
lyzed. Also, additional data was collected for a set of 4
value orientations and post materialism. For reasons of
model complexity, these were not considered in
further analysis. The full dataset can be obtained
from a data repository.
Disclosure Statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Funding
This work is part of the project ‘Sustainable Consumption of
Information and Communication Technology in the Digital
Society - Dialogue and Transformation through Open
Innovation’ and was supported by the Ministry for Science
and Culture of Lower Saxony and the Volkswagen
Foundation (VolkswagenStiftung) through the
‘Niedersaechsisches Vorab’ grant program (grant number
VWZN3037).
Data Availability Statement
The data that support the findings of this study are openly
available in the Open Science Framework under the DOI
10.17605/OSF.IO/HVJ9T at http://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/
HVJ9T.
References
Ajzen I. 1991. The theory of planned behavior. Organ Behav
Hum Decis Process. 50(2):179–211. doi:10.1016/0749-
5978(91)90020-T.
Antonetti P, Maklan S. 2014. Feelings that make a difference:
how guilt and pride convince consumers of the effective­
ness of sustainable consumption choices. J Bus Ethics. 124
(1):117–134. doi:10.1007/s10551-013-1841-9.
Asadi S, Nilashi M, Safaei M, Abdullah R, Saeed F,
Yadegaridehkordi E, Samad S. 2019. Investigating factors
influencing decision-makers’ intention to adopt Green IT
in Malaysian manufacturing industry. Resour Conserv
Recycl. 148:36–54. doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.04.028.
Bamberg S, Hunecke M, Bloebaum A. 2007. Social context,
personal norms and the use of public transportation: two
field studies. J Environ Psychol. 27(3):190–203.
doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2007.04.001.
Bamberg S, Moeser G. 2007. Twenty years after Hines,
Hungerford, and Tomera: a new meta-analysis of
psycho-social determinants of pro-environmental
behaviour. J Environ Psychol. 27(1):14–25. doi:10.1016/j.
jenvp.2006.12.002.
Bamberg S, Schmidt P. 2003. Incentives, morality, or habit?
Predicting students’ car use for university routes with the
models of Ajzen, Schwartz, and Triandis. Environ Behav. 35
(2):264–285. doi:10.1177/0013916502250134.
Bergquist M, Nystroem L, Nilsson A. 2020. Feeling or follow­
ing? A field experiment comparing social norms based and
emotions based motives encouraging pro environmental
donations. J Consum Behav. 19(4):1–8. doi:10.1002/
cb.1813.
Blackwell RD, Miniard PW, Engel JF. 2006. Consumer
Behavior. Mason (OH): Thomson South-Western.
Buerke A. 2016. Nachhaltigkeit und consumer confusion am
point of sale: eine Untersuchung zum Kauf nachhaltiger
Produkte im Lebensmitteleinzelhandel. [Sustainability and
consumer confusion at the point of sale: an investigation
on buying sustainable products in food retailing].
Wiesbaden: Springer Gabler Fachmedien.
Buerke A, Straatmann T, Lin-Hi N, Mueller K. 2017. Consumer
awareness and sustainability-focused value orientation as
motivating factors of responsible consumer behavior. Rev
Manag Sci. 11(4):959–991. doi:10.1007/s11846-016-0211-
2.
Frick V, Matthies E, Thøgersen J, Santarius T. 2020. Do online
environments promote sufficiency or overconsumption?
Online advertisement and social media effects on cloth­
ing, digital devices, and air travel consumption. J Consum
Behav. [accessed 2021 Feb 19], 21. doi:10.1002/cb.1855.
Hamilton B, Terblanche-Smit M. 2018. Consumer intention to
purchase green vehicles in the South African market:
a theory of planned behaviour perspective. South African
J Bus Manag. 49(1):1–7. doi:10.4102/sajbm.v49i1.190.
Han H. 2015. Travelers’ pro-environmental behavior in
a green lodging context: converging value-belief-norm
theory and the theory of planned behavior. Tour Manag.
47:164–177. doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2014.09.014.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT & WORLD ECOLOGY
Han H. 2020. Theory of green purchase behavior (TGPB): a new
theory for sustainable consumption of green hotel and green
restaurant products. Bus Strategy Environ. 29(6):2815–2828.
doi:10.1002/bse.2545.
Han H, Hyun SS. 2017. Drivers of customer decision to visit an
environmentally responsible museum: merging the theory of
planned behavior and norm activation theory. J Travel Tour
Mark. 34(9):1155–1168. doi:10.1080/10548408.2017.1304317.
Hansmann R, Baur I, Binder CR. 2020. Increasing organic food
consumption: an integrating model of drivers and barriers.
J Clean Prod. 275:123058. doi:10.1016/j.
jclepro.2020.123058.
Hartmann P, Apaolaza V, D’Souza C. 2018. The role of psy­
chological empowerment in climate-protective consumer
behaviour: an extension of the value-belief-norm
framework. Eur J Mark. 52(1/2):392–415. doi:10.1108/EJM-
01-2017-0080.
Heo J, Muralidharan S. 2019. What triggers young Millennials
to purchase eco-friendly products?: the interrelationships
among knowledge, perceived consumer effectiveness,
and environmental concern. J Mark Commun. 25
(4):421–437. doi:10.1080/13527266.2017.1303623.
Hilty L, Lohmann W, Huang EM. 2011. Sustainability and
ICT-an overview of the field. Not Polit. 27(104):13–28.
Hoeksma DL, Gerritzen MA, Lokhorst AM, Poortvliet PM.
2017. An extended theory of planned behavior to predict
consumers’ willingness to buy mobile slaughter unit meat.
Meat Sci. 128:15–23. doi:10.1016/j.meatsci.2017.01.011.
Holbrook MB, Batra R. 1987. Assessing the role of emotions as
mediators of consumer responses to advertising. J Cons
Res. 14(3):404–420. doi:10.1086/209123.
Iran S, Geiger SM, Schrader U. 2019. Collaborative fashion
consumption–A cross-cultural study between Tehran and
Berlin. J Clean Prod. 212:313–323. doi:10.1016/j.
jclepro.2018.11.163.
Jalil MH, Shaharuddin SS. 2019. Consumer purchase behavior
of eco-fashion clothes as a trend to reduce clothing waste.
Int J Innov Technol Expl Eng. 8(12):4224–4233.
Kollmuss A, Agyeman J. 2002. Mind the gap: why do people
act environmentally and what are the barriers to
pro-environmental behavior? Environ Educ Res. 8
(3):239–260. doi:10.1080/13504620220145401.
Landon AC, Woosnam KM, Boley BB. 2018. Modeling the
psychological antecedents to tourists’ pro-sustainable
behaviors: an application of the value-belief-norm model.
J Sustain Tour. 26(6):957–972. doi:10.1080/
09669582.2017.1423320.
Laurent G, Kapferer JN. 1985. Measuring consumer involve­
ment profiles. J Mark Res. 22(1):41–53. doi:10.1177/
002224378502200104.
Lerner JS, Li Y, Valdesolo P, Kassam KS. 2015. Emotion and
decision making. Annu Rev Psychol. 66(1):799–823.
doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115043.
Lindenmeier J, Lwin M, Andersch H, Phau I, Seemann AK.
2017. Anticipated consumer guilt: an investigation into
its antecedents and consequences for fair-trade
consumption. J Macromarketing. 37(4):444–459.
doi:10.1177/0276146717723964.
Liu Y, Sheng H, Mundorf N, Redding C, Ye Y. 2017. Integrating
norm activation model and theory of planned behavior to
understand sustainable transport behavior: evidence from
China. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 14(12):1593.
doi:10.3390/ijerph14121593.
Longo C, Shankar A, Nuttall P. 2019. It’s not easy living
a sustainable lifestyle”: how greater knowledge leads to dilem­
mas, tensions and paralysis. J Bus Ethics. 154(3):759–779.
doi:10.1007/s10551-016-3422-1.
13
MacCallum RC, Austin JT. 2000. Applications of structural equa­
tion modeling in psychological research. Annu Rev Psychol. 51
(1):201–226. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.51.1.201.
Martin CL. 1998. Relationship marketing: a high-involvement
product attribute approach. J Prod Brand Man. 7(1):6–26.
doi:10.1108/10610429810209700.
McDonald S, Oates C, Thyne M, Alevizou P, McMorland LA.
2009. Comparing sustainable consumption patterns
across product sectors. Int J Consum Stud. 33(2):137–145.
doi:10.1111/j.1470-6431.2009.00755.x.
Mellers BA, McGraw AP. 2001. Anticipated emotions as
guides to choice. Curr Dir Psychol. 10(6):210–214.
doi:10.1111/1467-8721.00151.
Micheal VA, Abiodun AA. 2014. Estimation of regression
coefficients in the presence of multicollinearity. Soc Basic
Sci Res Rev. 2(10):404–415.
Mishra D, Akman I, Mishra A. 2014. Theory of reasoned action
application for green information technology acceptance.
Comput Hum Behav. 36:29–40. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.03.030.
Onwezen MC, Antonides G, Bartels J. 2013. The norm
activation model: an exploration of the functions of
anticipated pride and guilt in pro-environmental
behaviour. J Econ Psychol. 39:141–153. doi:10.1016/j.
joep.2013.07.005.
Onwezen MC, Bartels J, Antonides G. 2014. Environmentally
friendly consumer choices: cultural differences in the
self-regulatory function of anticipated pride and guilt.
J Environ Psychol. 40:239–248. doi:10.1016/j.
jenvp.2014.07.003.
Petruzzellis L. 2010. Mobile phone choice: technology versus
marketing. The brand effect in the Italian market. Eur
J Mark. 44(5):610–634. doi:10.1108/03090561011032298.
Podsakoff PM, Organ DW. 1986. Self-reports in organizational
research: problems and prospects. J Manag. 12
(4):531–544.
Pollex J. 2017. Regulating consumption for sustainability?
Why the European Union chooses information instru­
ments to foster sustainable consumption. Eur Policy
Anal. 3(1):185–204.
Rezvani Z, Jansson J, Bengtsson M. 2017. Cause I’ll feel good!
An investigation into the effects of anticipated emotions
and personal moral norms on consumer pro-environmen­
tal behavior. J Promot Manag. 23(1):163–183. doi:10.1080/
10496491.2016.1267681.
Slama ME, Tashchian A. 1985. Selected socioeconomic and
demographic characteristics associated with purchasing
involvement. J Mark. 49(1):72–82. doi:10.1177/
002224298504900107.
Soyez K. 2012. How national cultural values affect
pro-environmental consumer behavior. Int Mark Rev. 29
(6):623–646. doi:10.1108/02651331211277973.
Sriram S, Chintagunta PK, Agarwal MK. 2010. Investigating
consumer purchase behavior in related technology pro­
duct categories. Mark Sci. 29(2):291–314. doi:10.1287/
mksc.1090.0506.
Steenhaut S, Van Kenhove P. 2006. The mediating role of antici­
pated guilt in consumers’ ethical decision-making. J Bus
Ethics. 69(3):269–288. doi:10.1007/s10551-006-9090-9.
Stern PC. 2000. Toward a coherent theory of environmentally
significant behavior. J Soc Issues. 56(3):407–424.
doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00175.
Thaler R. 1980. Toward a positive theory of consumer choice.
J Econ Behav Organ. 1(1):39–60. doi:10.1016/0167-2681(80)
90051-7.
Tracy JL, Robins RW. 2004. Putting the self into
self-conscious emotions: a theoretical model. Psych
Inq. 15(2):103–125. doi:10.1207/s15327965pli1502_01.
14 S. BETZLER ET AL.

Uddin SF, Khan MN. 2018. Young consumer’s green
purchasing behavior: opportunities for green
marketing. J Glob Mark. 31(4):270–281. doi:10.1080/
08911762.2017.1407982.
United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs
[DESA]. 2021. Sustainable development goals - goal 12.
[accessed 2021 Jul 8]. https://sdgs.un.org/goals/goal12
Vining J, Ebreo A. 2002. Emerging theoretical and methodolo­
gical perspectives on conservation behaviour. In: Bechtel RB,
Churchman, A, editors. New Handbook of Environmental
Psychology. New York (NY): Wiley; p. 541–558.
Welfens MJ, Nordmann J, Seibt A. 2016. Drivers and barriers
to return and recycling of mobile phones. Case studies of
communication and collection campaigns. J Clean Prod.
132:108–121. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.11.082.
Yang S, Song Y, Tong S. 2017. Sustainable retailing in the
fashion industry: a systematic literature review.
Sustainability. 9(7):1266. doi:10.3390/su9071266.