Rev Manag Sci

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-018-0286-z

ORIGINAL PAPER

Linking hedonic and utilitarian shopping values

to consumer skepticism and green consumption:
the roles of environmental involvement and locus
of control

Zhao‑Hong Cheng1 · Chun‑Tuan Chang2   · Yu‑Kang Lee3

Received: 3 March 2017 / Accepted: 25 April 2018

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Abstract  Drawing on the value-belief-norm theory, we propose that hedonic and

utilitarian shopping values are linked with consumer skepticism toward green adver-
tising and eco-friendly consumption behavior (i.e., green consumption) through
environmental involvement, and that these links are contingent on locus of control.
In support of our theory, results from a survey of 491 consumers reveal that hedonic
and utilitarian shopping values influence environmental involvement positively and
negatively, respectively. There is a negative relationship between environmental
involvement and consumer skepticism toward green advertising. Such skepticism
is also negatively related to green consumption. Environmental involvement trans-
lated hedonic and utilitarian shopping values into consumer skepticism toward green
advertising. The relationships among the researched variables are stronger for indi-
viduals with an internal locus of control than for those with an external locus of
control.

* Chun‑Tuan Chang
ctchang@faculty.nsysu.edu.tw
* Yu‑Kang Lee
yklee@mail.nsysu.edu.tw; yklee@faculty.nsysu.edu.tw
Zhao‑Hong Cheng
zhcheng@nkust.edu.tw
1
Department of International Business, National Kaohsiung University of Science
and Technology, No. 58, Shenzhong Rd., Yanchao Dist., Kaohsiung City 824, Taiwan
2
Department of Business Management, National Sun Yat-sen University, No.70, Lianhai Rd.,
Gushan District, Kaohsiung City 804, Taiwan
3
Department of Political Economy, National Sun Yat-sen University, No.70, Lianhai Rd., Gushan
District, Kaohsiung City 804, Taiwan

13
 Z.-H. Cheng et al.

Keywords  Green consumption · Consumer skepticism toward green advertising ·

Hedonic and utilitarian shopping values · Environmental involvement · Locus of
control

Mathematics Subject Classification 62P12

1 Introduction

Consumers are greatly concerned about sustainability and environmental issues

(e.g., Goh and Balaji 2016; Sheehan and Atkinson 2012), and this affects the way
consumers behave (Buerke et al. 2017). It has also led to a greater focus on green
consumerism. Green products are rapidly diffusing from small niche markets to
mass markets. Consumers claim that they are not only willing to purchase green
products and services but also willing to pay more for such products (Roper 2011).
This creates a serious dilemma for marketers who desire to target green consumers,
who are often confused by—and even distrustful of—green advertising (Iyer and
Banerjee 1993; Shrum et al. 1995; Zinkhan and Carlson 1995).
Anecdotal evidence suggests that consumers are confused by and skeptical of
advertisements for green products and services. Major reasons for such confusion
include vague claims as well as unclear definitions for terms such as “biodegrad-
able,” “environmentally friendly,” and “ozone friendly” (Carlson et al. 1993; Davis
1991; do Paço and Reis 2012). Of all the “green” products that have been launched,
few have been successful (Crane 2000; Haytko and Matulich 2008; Reitman 1992).
For instance, Whirlpool corporation won a $30 million Golden Carrot Prize for pro-
ducing refrigerators that were free of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), but consumers
were still skeptical and would not pay the premium for this sort of green product
(Ottman 2008). Researchers agree that skepticism reduces the persuasive power of
the advertising and leads to unfavorable attitudes toward firms that promote green
products (Nyilasy et al. 2014; Sheehan and Atkinson 2012; Webb and Mohr 1998).
This research adopts the value-belief-norm theory (Schwartz and Bilsky 1987;
Stern et  al. 1999), which is based on the social psychology of environmentalism,
to develop a model to explain consumer skepticism toward green advertising and
green consumption. Stern et  al. (1999) suggested that, for consumers, the belief
that one’s actions make a difference is a key mediator of value. Researchers have
highlighted the importance of conceptualizing and analyzing personal values and
beliefs in regard to their potential effects on green consumption (Buerke et al. 2017;
van Dam and Fischer 2015). Previous green studies have used value orientations
to explain beliefs related to pro-environmental behaviors, considering such psycho-
logical antecedents as altruistic values, egoistic values, traditional values, and open-
ness to change (de Groot and Steg 2008; Rogers et  al. 2012; Schultz et  al. 2004;
Stern et  al. 1999). Understanding the specific psychological mechanisms underly-
ing responsible consumption is important to the promotion of sustainable behavior
(Buerke et  al. 2017). This study explores hedonic and utilitarian shopping values,
since these shopping orientations are closely related to consumption choices (Babin

13
Linking hedonic and utilitarian shopping values to consumer…

et al. 1994; Helm et al. 2013; Scarpi 2012; Szmigin et al. 2007). These two types of
shopping values have been identified as fundamental motivational orientations that
drive consumption behaviors (Scarpi 2012). We examine these two types of shop-
ping values as psychological antecedents in order to better understand why people’s
levels of environmental involvement may differ, and how people behave differently
in a green consumption context.
Furthermore, we explore the mechanism by which these two shopping values
influence consumer skepticism and green consumption. We propose that the impacts
of these two values are transmitted via environmental involvement. Without a proper
understanding of these linkages, marketing managers cannot design appropriate
strategies for increasing green consumption. Heretofore, the critical questions of
whether and how environmental involvement is transmitted via these two values into
consumer skepticism and green consumption have remained unexplored.
Third, we propose that locus of control will moderate the above influences. Locus
of control (LOC) is defined as the extent to which individuals believe they have the
ability to change outcomes through their own behaviors (Hines et al. 1987; Rotter
1966). Accordingly, people can be classified as either “internals” or “externals,”
depending on whether their belief in this ability is high or low, respectively. LOC
can help explain a person’s tendency toward green behavior (e.g., Allen and Fer-
rand 1999; Cleveland et  al. 2005, 2012; Kalamas et  al. 2014; Lee 2013; McCarty
and Shrum 2001). When individuals feel that their personal behavior directly influ-
ences the wellbeing of the environment, they are more likely to actively care for the
environment. We expect hedonic and utilitarian shopping values to have a stronger
impact on individuals who have an internal LOC.
In the next section, we introduce the conceptual background and develop our
hypotheses. Then we describe the empirical data and present our findings. Finally,
we discuss the implications, and outline opportunities for future research.

2 Conceptual background and hypotheses

In the following section, we first discuss how hedonic and utilitarian shopping val-
ues influence a person’s environmental involvement. We then examine the relation-
ship between environmental involvement and consumer skepticism toward green
advertising, which subsequently impacts green consumption. The moderating role of
LOC is also explored.

2.1 Hedonic versus utilitarian shopping value

The classification of hedonic and utilitarian shopping value is based on the gen-
eral predisposition of consumers toward the act of shopping (Babin et  al. 1994;
Hirschman and Holbrook 1982; Scarpi 2012). The hedonic shopping value stimu-
lates an individual to seek festive, ludic, or epicurean experiences derived from
the potential entertainment and emotional benefits provided by shopping activ-
ities (Bellenger et  al. 1976; Sherry 1990). In contrast, the utilitarian shopping

13
 Z.-H. Cheng et al.

value induces individuals to perceive shopping as a task that must be completed,

preferably as efficiently as possible. Babin et  al. (1994) suggested that hedonic
and utilitarian shopping values are not mutually exclusive. In other words, a con-
sumer may hold both shopping values simultaneously. In the following, we dis-
cuss the respective impacts of each shopping value.
We propose that hedonic shopping value enhances consumers’ environmen-
tal involvement. Environmental involvement is defined as the degree of personal
relevance and importance associated with protecting the environment (Lee 2011;
Schuhwerk and Lefkoff-Hagius 1995). Consumers have some level of self-inter-
est, and their consumption is driven by an assessment of the benefits and costs.
Nevertheless, unlike the benefits of most consumer behaviors, benefits accrued
from green behaviors are long term and may never actually be seen by the con-
sumer (McCarty and Shrum 2001). Many green behaviors (e.g., limiting car use,
conserving energy, and purchasing organic food) require individuals to restrain
self-centered tendencies in order to benefit the environment (Samuelson 1990).
For example, from an individual’s point of view, acting in one’s own interest by
driving a car or purchasing cheap (nonorganic) food is attractive because of the
many short term advantages for that individual. Consumers often face situations
with a tradeoff between immediate self-benefits and long-term future environ-
mental benefits (e.g., a cleaner environment); thus, “going green” is a benevolent
behavior because consumers must sacrifice self-benefits (Griskevicius et al. 2012;
Stern et  al. 1993). However, benevolent activities can also provide a hedonic
reward through self-gratification (Babin et al. 1994). Lindenberg and Steg (2007)
argued that pro-environmental attitudes and behaviors may be promoted by
hedonic goal frames. People are likely to adopt green behavior when they obtain
pleasure and satisfaction from pro-environmental actions (Pelletier et  al. 1998).
People perceive green behaviors as worthy endeavors “because of the personal
internal contentment that engaging in these behaviors provides” (De Young 2000,
p. 515). Compared with those whose level of hedonic shopping value is lower,
consumers with a higher level of hedonic shopping value are more responsive to
green issues/products, and, thus, increase their environmental involvement.

H1  A higher level of hedonic shopping value leads to increased environmental

involvement.

In contrast, the utilitarian shopping value is expected to reduce environmental

involvement. People with a higher level of utilitarian shopping value are likely
to base their green behavior on cost savings (To et al. 2007), which could result
in a decrease in green behavior. Individuals whose shopping value is utilitarian
are less likely to be concerned about the environment because they care more
about the economic benefits from the environment than the benefits to the envi-
ronment. One major difficulty in promoting green behavior is the non-immediacy
of many ecological problems (Kollmuss and Agyeman 2002). The public has dif-
ficulty perceiving the ozone hole, nuclear radiation, or the accumulation of green-
house gases in the atmosphere. Consumers who are utilitarian value-oriented

13
Linking hedonic and utilitarian shopping values to consumer…

have been found to have a short time horizon because the criterion for goal reali-
zation is fiscal (Scarpi 2006). Construal level theory (CLT) (Trope et  al. 2007;
Trope and Liberman 2010) can be used to explain why people with high levels
of utilitarian shopping value will have a shorter time horizon. According to CLT,
people use concrete, low-level construals to represent near events while they use
abstract, high-level construals to represent distant events. Consumers who have
a utilitarian shopping value tend to elaborate on the potential rational and con-
crete benefits associated with products. Tangari et  al. (2015) actually suggested
that consumers’ elaboration influences distance perceptions in regard to sustain-
able choices. Consumers associate sustainable products/choices to more distant/
abstract goals (i.e., a “high-level construal”) (e.g., van Dam and Fischer 2015;
van Dam 2016). Such perceived behavior-value incongruence will not activate
sustainable motivation (Stern 2000). Consumers with a high level of utilitarian
shopping value may be less open toward such long-term/abstract goals as envi-
ronmental protection. Thus, environmental involvement is less likely to occur. We
propose the following hypothesis.

H2  A higher level of utilitarian shopping value leads to decreased environmental

involvement.

2.2 Environmental involvement, consumer skepticism toward green

advertising, and green consumption

While environmental involvement and environmental concern are conceptually rel-

evant and closely linked (Matthes et al. 2014), environmental involvement refers to
“degree of commitment to the environment” (p. 45), and focuses on individual dif-
ferences in information processing with green products (i.e., “Consumers who are
highly involved with the environment (the high-involvement group) are intrinsically
motivated to attend to the environmental attributes of products”) (p. 46) (Schuhwerk
and Lefkoff-Hagius 1995). Matthes et  al. (2014) echoed and suggested that high-
involvement consumers are more motivated to process the arguments displayed in an
ad than are low-involvement consumers.
In the current study, we examine how environmental involvement influences
individuals’ green attitudes (e.g., consumer skepticism toward green advertis-
ing) and behaviors (e.g., green consumption). Matthes and Wonneberger (2014)
recognized the findings from previous research and included some statistical
controls to avoid unspecified models. Individuals with a high level of environ-
mental involvement regard environmental protection as important and personally
relevant (Schultz et  al. 2004; Stanley et  al. 1996). People who are concerned
about the environment have been shown to be less skeptical toward green adver-
tising (Mohr et al. 1998). Individuals with a high level of environmental involve-
ment have been shown to hold a positive attitude toward green ads (D’Souza
and Taghian 2005). Matthes and Wonneberger (2014) suggested a negative
relationship between green consumerism and skepticism, taking into considera-
tion three facets of green consumerism: environmental concern, attitude toward

13
 Z.-H. Cheng et al.

green products, and green purchase behavior. Based on previous research, the
current research builds links among environmental involvement, consumer skep-
ticism toward green advertising and green consumption. In the green context,
involvement has been found to be a major determinant in green decisions (e.g.,
renewable energy: Bang et al. 2000; water consumption: Gregory and Leo 2003;
organic food: Grunert 1993; general green purchase behavior: Lee 2011). A con-
siderable amount of research has also found that consumer skepticism toward
advertising decreases the positive influence of advertising on purchase inten-
tions (Manuel et al. 2014; Obermiller et al. 2005), and can even have a negative
impact on purchase intentions (Albayrak et  al. 2011; Chang and Cheng 2015;
Mostafa 2006). Since a general link has been found between consumer skep-
ticism and purchase intention (Albayrak et  al. 2011; Chang and Cheng 2015;
Mostafa 2006), this study replicates the direct effect of consumer skepticism on
green consumption compare the strength of the direct effects of the different pre-
dictors (i.e., environmental involvement and consumer skepticism toward green
advertising). The above discussion leads to three additional hypotheses.

H3  Higher environmental involvement leads to lower consumer skepticism toward

green advertising.

H4  Higher environmental involvement leads to higher engagement in green

consumption.

H5  Higher consumer skepticism toward green advertising leads to lower engage-
ment in green consumption.

2.3 Mediating role of environmental involvement

The previous discussion describes the direct links among the variables. Here,
we propose environmental involvement as the mechanism that translates the
values into consumer skepticism and green consumption. Compared with low
involvement consumers, high involvement consumers are more likely to scru-
tinize green messages in a systematic way (Schuhwerk and Lefkoff-Hagius
1995). High involvement consumers are also more autonomous and may prefer
to evaluate green claims by making their own attributions (Deci and Ryan 2000).
Higher levels of autonomous motivation can enhance green behaviors (e.g., Pel-
letier 2002; Seguin et al. 1999). Since environmental involvement can naturally
be considered a prerequisite for engagement in green consumption, we propose
environmental involvement as a mediator among the links mentioned in earlier
sections.

H6  Environmental involvement mediates (a) the relationship between hedonic

shopping value and consumer skepticism toward green advertising, (b) the rela-
tionship between utilitarian shopping value and consumer skepticism toward green

13
Linking hedonic and utilitarian shopping values to consumer…

advertising, (c) the relationship between hedonic shopping value and green con-
sumption, and (d) the relationship between utilitarian shopping value and green
consumption.

2.4 Moderated mediating role of locus of control (LOC)

Previous research has shown that an internal LOC can provide people with the belief
that they can do something to change the environment. Therefore, compared with
externals, internals are more likely to believe that their adoption of green consump-
tion is worthwhile and necessary. Externals tend to deny not only the seriousness
of environmental problems but also their personal ability or competence to perform
the necessary actions to address those problems (e.g., Kalamas et al. 2014; Kaplan
2000; Lee and Holden 1999). They also perceive individual green actions as inef-
fective in reducing environmental problems (Kollmuss and Agyeman 2002). Based
on a meta-analysis, Hines et al. (1987) suggested that an internal LOC is positively
related to environmentally responsible behavior. Schwepker and Cornwell (1991)
further indicated that an internal LOC is related to the tendency to purchase ecologi-
cally packaged products. Cleveland and her colleagues (Cleveland et al. 2005, 2012;
Kalamas et al. 2014) examined how sub-dimensions of internal and external LOC
influence various pro-environmental behaviors. These studies suggested a positive
association between internal LOC and green consumption.
Different from the studies focusing on the direct effect of LOC, we examine its
indirect effect and posit that LOC will moderate the relationships proposed in earlier
sections. Facing environmental degradation evokes an emotional reaction. As Cod-
dington (1993) noted, green marketing implies the satisfaction of emotional needs.
The more intense the emotions, the more likely it is that a person will engage in
green behavior (Grob 1995; Lee and Holden 1999). Empirical research has found
that consumers actually accept markups on the price of green energy brands because
they want to feel better about themselves rather than because they are interested in
the objective environmental impact of their decision (Menges 2003). Since doing
the “right thing” can provide consumers with feelings of pleasure, hedonism has
been identified as a critical dimension of ethical consumption (Szmigin et al. 2007).
Compared with externals, internals are more likely to benefit from the hedonic
treadmill, a supposed tendency to quickly return to a relatively stable level of happi-
ness despite major positive or negative events (Brickman and Campbell 1971; Fred-
erick and Loewenstein 1999). Keller and Blomann (2008) found that learners with
an internal LOC felt happiness, in general, more than did those with an external
LOC. Koo (2009) found that, in an online game playing context, relationships that
are based on hedonic motives and intentions are stronger for internals than for exter-
nals. Based on the tendency to maintain hedonic benefits, internals are more likely
to believe that being involved with environmental issues can bring them happiness.
The positive influences of hedonic shopping value on environmental involvement
(H1) will thus be more salient for internals than for externals.
As mentioned earlier, we expect a negative relationship between utilitarian
shopping value and environmental involvement (H2). Internals’ moral judgments

13
 Z.-H. Cheng et al.

are guided by the intrinsic value of an act (Connolly and McCarrey 1978). To
form ethical judgments, managers with an internal LOC rely more on deontologi-
cal and utilitarian evaluations than do those with an external LOC (Cherry and
Fraedrich 2000). Trevino and Youngblood (1990) reported that internals display
a higher level of cognitive moral development, which is oriented toward practi-
cality. Ajzen’s (1985) theory of planned behavior assumes that people are moti-
vated by self-interest and that they choose alternatives with the highest benefits
and lowest costs. Thus, self-interest is considered to be utilitarian-oriented, since
the utilitarian shopping value is rational, functional and down-to-earth, offer-
ing cognitively oriented benefits (Babin et al. 1994; Chandon et al. 2000; Noble
et al. 2005). Compared with externals, internals tend to have greater self-control
(Mueller and Thomas 2001). We expect to find a synergistic effect between utili-
tarian shopping value (self-interest) and internal LOC (self-control). In a green
context, an internal’s environmental involvement is more likely to be negatively
influenced by a utilitarian shopping value since internals accept their liability for
environmental problems. Thus, we expect the influence of utilitarian shopping
value on environmental involvement to be more negative for internals than for
externals.
We further hypothesize that LOC moderates the effect of environmental
involvement on consumer skepticism toward green advertising. Since internals
are more willing than externals to engage in pro-environmental behaviors (Hines
et al. 1987; Kalamas et al. 2014; Schwepker and Cornwell 1991), they are likely
to consider a green message as being more positive. We expect the assimila-
tion effect (i.e., considering a message to be more positive than it actually is)
to be magnified for internals. Because of the stronger influence of the assimi-
lation effect, the negative influence of environmental involvement on consumer
skepticism toward green advertising (H3) will be stronger for internals than for
externals.
From an LOC perspective, several empirical studies have supported the view
that individuals with a stronger internal LOC exhibit greater consistency between
ethical judgments and moral actions (Chiu 2003; Trevino and Youngblood 1990).
This suggests that, compared with externals, internals are more likely to be influ-
enced by the consistency between their attitudes toward advertising and their
green consumption. Internals have stronger beliefs regarding their ability to con-
trol the state of the environment (Cleveland et al. 2005, 2012). Violations among
the relationships between environmental involvement, skepticism toward green
advertising, and green consumption (H4 and H5) are expected to be more salient
to internals. Given these salient concerns, we expect the relationships proposed in
H4 and H5 to be stronger for internals than for externals.
In accordance with the above discussion, we expect that internal LOC will
intensify both the relationship between shopping value and environmental
involvement, and the relationship between environmental involvement and skep-
ticism/green consumption. Likewise, we expect that the indirect effects of the
respective shopping values on skepticism/green consumption will be contingent
on a person’s LOC.

13
Linking hedonic and utilitarian shopping values to consumer…

Fig. 1  Conceptual framework

H7  The mediating effect of environmental involvement on (a) the relationship

between hedonic shopping value and consumer skepticism toward green consump-
tion, (b) the relationship between utilitarian shopping value and consumer skepti-
cism toward green consumption, (c) the relationship between hedonic shopping
value and green consumption, and (d) the relationship between utilitarian shopping
value and green consumption will be stronger for internals than for externals.

Figure 1 presents an integrated model which covers both the direct and indirect
effects caused by the researched variables, and summarizes the predicted relation-
ships between the variables.

3 Method

The goal of the current research is twofold. First, we examine the relationships
among consumers’ shopping values (i.e., hedonic and utilitarian shopping values),
environmental involvement, consumer skepticism toward green advertising, and
green consumption. Second, we test whether these links are influenced by LOC.
Empirical data were collected via a survey using a paper-and-pencil questionnaire.

13
 Z.-H. Cheng et al.

3.1 Participants and procedures

Trained interviewers recruited participants using an intercept technique at various

public locations (e.g., shopping malls, cultural centers and metro stations) through-
out a metropolitan city in Taiwan to capture a broad representation of the popula-
tion. When approaching potential respondents, interviewers introduced themselves
as university researchers investigating consumer behavior. The interviewers assured
participants that their responses would be confidential, anonymous, and used only
in aggregate form. The questionnaire was self-administered to eliminate any inter-
view evaluation apprehension. Participants followed the instructions in the book-
let, answered the questions in order, and were instructed to take as much time as
required. When they finished, their booklets were collected and they received a $5
shopping voucher for a supermarket. The study took most participants 15  min to
complete.
Over a three-week period in mid-2014, a total of 533 respondents participated in
the survey. Discarding incomplete responses reduced the number of usable question-
naires to 491 (usability rate: 92.1%). Females comprised 57.8% of the usable sam-
ple. The participants’ ages ranged from 21 to 67 (Mean = 30.37, SD = 7.78). Among
the respondents, 60.7% were undergraduates, and the rest were either Master’s or
doctoral students.

3.2 Instrument and measures

All research constructs were measured using multiple items from prior literature.
Hedonic and utilitarian shopping values were measured with items from Babin et al.
(1994), revised to suit our context. The hedonic shopping value scale contained 11
items (M = 4.23, SD = 1.20) (Cronbach’s α = .92), and the utilitarian shopping value
scale was comprised of six questions (M = 4.10, SD = 1.31) (Cronbach’s α = .90).
Environmental involvement was measured using four items from Schuhwerk and
Lefkoff-Hagius (1995) (M = 5.21, SD = 1.00). The 4-item scale showed sufficient
internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = .82). Consumer skepticism toward green adver-
tising was assessed with a 9-item scale from Obermiller and Spangenberg (1998)
(M = 4.21, SD = 1.56) (Cronbach’s α = .97). Green consumption was evaluated
with a self-reported scale (9 items) borrowed from Jain and Kaur (2004) (M = 4.65,
SD = .97) (Cronbach’s α = .88). All of the above scales showed high internal
consistency.
Lastly, we used a 9-item scale for LOC based on a shortened version of Rot-
ter’s (1966) Internal–External LOC scale (Ferguson 1993). Although we recog-
nized that the measurement instrument of “environmental locus of control” (ELOC)
(e.g., Cleveland et  al. 2012; Lee 2013) could serve as a specific construct, using
the ELOC measure together with the measure of green consumption risked arousing
participants’ suspicions regarding the research objective. Testing the general dispo-
sitional bias via the LOC measure could minimize this potential problem. Each item
contained two statements, representing external LOC and internal LOC, respec-
tively (e.g., [a] In the long run people get the respect they deserve in this world; [b]

13
Linking hedonic and utilitarian shopping values to consumer…

Table 1  Descriptive statistics, internal consistency estimates, and correlations among constructs

Constructs Mean SD CR AVE (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

1. HSV 4.23 1.20 .92 .53 (.92)

2. USV 4.10 1.31 .90 .61 .23*** (.90)
3. EI 5.21 1.00 .82 .54 .16** − .18*** (.82)
4. CSGA 4.21 1.56 .97 .76 − .02 − .19*** − .13** (.97)
5. GC 4.65 .97 .88 .45 .19*** .08 .64*** − .18*** (.88)

Diagonal elements (in bold) are Cronbach’s α

HSV hedonic shopping value, USV utilitarian shopping value, EI environmental involvement, CSGA con-
sumer skepticism toward green advertising, GC green consumption, CR composite reliability
*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001

Unfortunately, an individual’s worth often passes unrecognized no matter how hard

he tries). Respondents were required to choose one of the two statements. This meas-
ure was used to categorize respondents into two groups. The respondents who chose
five or more statements indicating an external LOC were categorized as externals
(261 participants), and the others were distinguished as internals (229 participants).
Except for the LOC scale, the measures of the research constructs were assessed via
7-point Likert scales ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree”. A com-
plete listing of the scale items is presented in the “Appendix”.
Prior to the formal survey, we confirmed the quality of the questionnaire through
the following procedure. First, we asked two marketing professors to modify the
question descriptions to confirm construct validity. We ensured consistency between
the English and Chinese language version by using the translation and back-transla-
tion procedure (van de Vijver and Leung 1997). Additionally, we performed a pre-
test with undergraduate students, using their feedback to modify the measurement
instrument. Overall, the three-part questionnaire contained eleven items for hedonic
shopping value, six items for utilitarian shopping value, 31 questions regarding con-
sumer attitudes and behaviors (i.e., environmental involvement, consumer skepti-
cism toward green advertising, LOC, and green consumption), and demographic
profiles (e.g., age, education, and gender). The respondents took about 15  min to
complete the questionnaire.

4 Data analysis

4.1 Confirmatory factor analysis

Confirmatory factor analysis was performed using LISREL 8.72 statistical software
to evaluate the reliability and validity of the constructs. The “Appendix” shows the
confirmatory factor analysis results for the indicators of the five constructs: hedonic
shopping value, utilitarian shopping value, environmental involvement, consumer
skepticism toward green advertising, and green consumption.

13
 Z.-H. Cheng et al.

The results indicate a good fit between the measurement model and the data
because the fit index values are close to the criteria set by Hu and Bentler (1995)
( χ2(692) = 2834.19 
; Comparative Fit Index [CFI]  = .94; Non-Normed Fit Index

[NNFI] = .94; Root Mean Square Error of Approximation [RMSEA] = .08; Stand-

ardized Root Mean Square Residual [SRMR] = .06). The factor loading of each indi-
cator was greater than .5 (ranging from .55 to .93), and was also significant (< .01),
confirming the convergent validity of the constructs (Anderson and Gerbing 1988).
The descriptive statistics, internal consistency estimates, average variance
extracted (AVE), and correlations among constructs are shown in Table 1. To deter-
mine the reliability of the research constructs, we examined Cronbach’s alpha and
composite reliability. Cronbach’s alpha values ranged from .82 to .97, above the .7
threshold suggested by Nunnally (1978) (see Table 1). Also, all constructs attained
acceptable composite reliability levels (ranging from .82 to .99) exceeding the
threshold of .7 (Fornell and Larcker 1981). Thus, the internal consistency of our
measurement scales was confirmed.
The following methods were adopted to establish discriminant validity among
the constructs. First, we observed the confidence interval of each correlation coef-
ficient. Discriminant validity is ensured if the confidence intervals of all correlation
estimates exclude the value of 1 (Anderson and Gerbing 1988). We followed this
procedure and found that the confidence interval of the correlation estimate for each
pair of constructs was not equal to 1. Second, we examined the Chi square differ-
ence between the free model (i.e., the correlation coefficient was estimated freely)
and the constrained model (i.e., the correlation coefficient was set to a value of 1)
for all possible pairs of constructs. Discriminant validity is ensured if the Chi square
difference is found to be significant (Bagozzi et  al. 1991). The results of all two-
factor models indicated that the Chi square differences were significant in all cases,
supporting discriminant validity. Third, as suggested by Fornell and Larcker (1981),
discriminant validity is supported if the value of AVE by the underlying construct
is larger than the squared intercorrelation with other constructs. Based on this cri-
terion, we found strong evidence for discriminant validity among all possible pair
of constructs. In summary, the measures used in this study exhibited satisfactory
psychometric properties.
Finally, since this current study has a cross-sectional design, there is a risk that
common method variance (CMV) (Podsakoff et al. 2003) might lead to an overesti-
mation of the impact of shopping orientation on green consumption. Thus, an appro-
priate questionnaire design (e.g., question order) was employed to minimize the bias
caused by CMV. Furthermore, we used a single-factor test (Podsakoff et al. 2003) to
estimate the CMV bias. Specifically, we compared the fit indices of the original
measurement model with those of the single-factor model (i.e., all items loaded on a
latent factor). The single-factor model indicated significantly worse fit values
( χ2(702) = 19, 502.08 ; CFI = .70; NNFI = .69; RMSEA = .23; SRMR = .22) than did

the original measurement model ( 

Δχ2(10) = 16, 667.89 , p < .001), suggesting that

CMV was not a significant problem in this research.

13
Linking hedonic and utilitarian shopping values to consumer…

Environmental
Involvement
.22*** -.12*

-.20*** .63*** Consumer

Hedonic Skepticism
Shopping Value -.03* Toward
Advertising

-.11**
.14***
.03*
Utilitarian Green
Shopping Value Consumption
-.12**

Direct effect
Indirect effect

Fig. 2  Results of structural equation analysis for the mediation model. Notes: Coefficients for direct and
indirect effects are shown in standardized values. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001

4.2 Direct effects

The mediation model was assessed via structural equation analysis using LISREL
8.72. Figure 2 presents the path coefficients of the research model, along with the fit
indices. The results reveal an acceptable fit between the data and the model
( χ2(696) = 2895.00 ; CFI = .94; NNFI = .94; RMSEA = .08; SRMR = .08). H1 posited

that hedonic shopping value has a positive effect on environmental involvement. A

significant positive path coefficient was found (β = .22, t = 4.04, p < .001). Thus, H1
was supported. H2 suggested that utilitarian shopping value is negatively related to
environmental involvement. As expected, the results indicated a significant negative
relationship (β = − .20, t = − 3.69, p < .001). Thus, H2 was supported. H3 predicted
that a person with a higher level of environmental involvement would be less likely
to be skeptical of green advertising. A significant negative coefficient estimate was
found (β = − .12, t = − 2.41, p < .05). Thus, H3 was confirmed. H4 posited that an
individual with high environmental involvement is more likely to engage in green
consumption. A significant positive path was found (β = .63, t = 8.65, p < .001).
Thus, H4 was supported. H5 proposed that a consumer with greater skepticism
toward green advertising would be less likely to engage in green consumption. A
significant negative relationship between consumer skepticism toward green adver-
tising and green consumption was found (β = − .11, t = − 2.61, p < .01). Thus, H5
was supported.

13
 Z.-H. Cheng et al.

Table 2  Indirect effects between internal and external locus of control

Level Mediation path

HSV → EI → CS USV → EI → CS HSV → EI → GC USV → EI → GC

β t-value β t-value Β t-value β t-value

Internals − .12** − 3.02 .06* 2.15 .16*** 4.03 − .08** − 2.58

Externals .00 .10 .00 .41 − .01 − .23 − .04 − 1.56
Difference between − .12** − 3.01 .06† 1.95 .17*** 3.64 − .05 − 1.19
internals and
externals

HSV hedonic shopping value, USV utilitarian shopping value, EI environmental involvement, CS con-
sumer skepticism toward advertising, GC green consumption
†p = .05, *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001

4.3 Mediation effects

To test the mediating role of environmental involvement (H6a, H6b, H6c, and H6d),
we used the bias-corrected (BC) bootstrap method as suggested by Cheung and Lau
(2008). Specifically, we tested the mediation effects by examining the product of the
path coefficient between the independent variable and the mediator (e.g., hedonic
shopping value → environmental involvement) and the path coefficient between the
mediator and the dependent variable (e.g., environmental involvement → consumer
skepticism toward green advertising). To overcome the problem that the product
term was not normally distributed, we employed the bootstrapping approach (5000
bootstrap samples) to build confidence intervals for the mediation effects (Preacher
et al. 2007).
H6a predicted that the effect of hedonic shopping value on consumer skepticism
toward green advertising would be mediated by environmental involvement. As
shown in Fig. 2, the indirect effect of hedonic shopping value on consumer skepti-
cism toward green advertising through environmental involvement was negative and
significant (β = − .03, t = − 2.27, p < .05). Thus, H6a was confirmed. H6b proposed
that environmental involvement would mediate the relationship between utilitar-
ian shopping value and consumer skepticism toward green advertising. The results
showed a positive indirect effect (β = .03) with a 95% confidence interval excluding
zero (t = 2.18, p < .05). Thus, H6b was supported. H6c suggested that environmen-
tal involvement would mediate the path from hedonic shopping value to green con-
sumption. A positive and significant indirect effect was observed (β = .14, t = 3.75,
p < .001). Thus, H6c was supported. H6d predicted that utilitarian shopping value
would mediate the association between utilitarian shopping value and green con-
sumption. As expected, we found that utilitarian shopping value has a negative and
significant indirect effect on green consumption via environmental involvement
(β = − .12, t = − 3.04, p < .01). Thus, H6d was supported.

13
Linking hedonic and utilitarian shopping values to consumer…

4.4 Moderated mediation effects

We further followed the procedures proposed by Edwards and Lambert (2007) to

examine the moderated mediating role of LOC (H7a, H7b, H7c, and H7d). The
indirect effects calculation based on 5000 bootstrap samples for both internal LOC
and external LOC are summarized in Table  2. H7a posited that the indirect effect
of hedonic shopping value on consumer skepticism toward green advertising via
environmental involvement would be greater for participants with a strong internal
LOC (“internals”) compared with those with a strong external LOC (“externals”).
The results showed that the negative indirect was statistically stronger for internals
(β = − .12, t = − 3.02, p < .01) than for externals (β = .00, t = .10, n.s.; βdiff = − .12,
t = − 3.01, p < .01). Thus, H7a was supported. H7b speculated that the indirect effect
of utilitarian shopping value on consumer skepticism toward green advertising
through environmental involvement would be stronger for internals than for exter-
nals. Results indicated that the indirect effect was positive and significant for inter-
nals (β = .06, t = 2.15, p < .05), but the indirect effect was not significant for externals
(β = .00, t = .41, n.s.). The difference in the indirect effects between internals and
externals was marginally significant (βdiff = .06, t = 1.95, p < .1). Thus, H7b was sup-
ported. H7c predicted that the indirect effect of hedonic shopping value on green
consumption via environmental involvement would be stronger for internals than
for externals. We found that the indirect effect was stronger for internals (β = .16,
t = 4.03, p < .001) than for externals (β = − .01, t = − .23, n.s.), with a significant dif-
ference in the indirect effects between the two groups (βdiff = .17, t = 3.64, p < .001).
Thus, H7c was supported. H7d predicted that the indirect effect of utilitarian shop-
ping value on green consumption through environmental involvement would be
stronger for internals than for externals. However, H7d was not supported: we found
no significant difference in the indirect effects between the two groups (βdiff = − .05,
t = − 1.19, n.s.).1

5 Discussion

As time goes on, the incipient change in public attitudes toward the environment
will require a profile that identifies green consumers. Based on the enhancement
of the value-belief-norm theory (Schwartz and Bilsky 1987; Stern et al. 1999), this

1
  To check whether the results of moderated mediation analysis are stable, an alternative criterion for
building the groups was used. A cluster analysis was conducted with a 3-cluster solution: internals
(n = 188, M = 2.81, SD = 1.18), externals (n = 203, M = 6.04, SD = 1.23), and the ambivalent cluster
(n = 100, M = 4.76, SD = 1.12). Next, the internals were compared with externals in terms of the media-
tion effects. Except for the indirect effect of utilitarian shopping value on consumer skepticism toward
green advertising through environmental involvement, the results were consistent with those in the cur-
rent article. Specifically, the current article indicates that the difference in the indirect effects between
internals and externals is marginally significant, but the same pattern is not significant between the two
clusters now (internal and external) (βdiff = .01, t = .45, n.s.). Although the results of this additional analy-
sis confirm the robustness of the proposed model, such results cause two problems: losing sample size
(100) and one unsupported hypothesis. Therefore, we decide to maintain the same results in the current
article.

13
 Z.-H. Cheng et al.

research proposed a model to explain green consumption. We first demonstrated

how hedonic and utilitarian shopping values play opposite roles in a green context
when consumer skepticism and green consumption are both considered. The posi-
tive drives of hedonic shopping values echo the findings of previous research in that
self-gratification and pleasure can enhance green attitudes and behaviors (Linden-
berg and Steg 2007). On the other hand, having a utilitarian shopping value reduces
a person’s environmental involvement. Drawing from the CLT (Trope et  al. 2007;
Trope and Liberman 2010), the utilitarian shopping value draws consumers’ focus
to the concrete benefits of the product or service, thus causing consumers to process
information at a low construal level. They are thus less likely to show concern for
the environment since being green is a high-construal-level goal.
Our results also show the indirect effect of these two shopping values on con-
sumer skepticism and green consumption via environmental involvement. This
mechanism echoes the importance of environmental involvement in green con-
sumption/behaviors (e.g., Bang et al. 2000; Cervellon 2012; Gregory and Leo 2003;
Grunert 1993; Kronrod et  al. 2012; Lee 2011). LOC is found to be an important
moderator. Consistent with previous research that found that having an internal
LOC is more closely associated with green consumption/behaviors (e.g., Hines et al.
1987), the links in the proposed model are more salient for internals than for exter-
nals. However, our results show that differences in LOC fail to moderate the mediat-
ing effect of environmental involvement in the relationship between utilitarian shop-
ping value and green consumption. One possible reason may be that the utilitarian
shopping value is self-oriented. Internals and externals may have an equally high
utilitarian orientation toward the natural environment. To test the validity of this
argument, we compared the utilitarian shopping values of internals and externals,
and found no significant difference (F(1, 489) = 1.23, p > .1).

5.1 Theoretical contributions

This study makes three major contributions to the literature. The results show a
valid, operational model for measuring the antecedents of consumer involvement
and skepticism toward green advertising. The opposite effects of hedonic and utili-
tarian shopping values on environmental involvement echo (Babin et  al. 1994) in
that hedonic and utilitarian shopping values are complementary and intertwined.
These values need to be taken into account together to allow for a richer understand-
ing of the motivations that determine whether consumers go green.
Furthermore, previous research has proposed antecedent factors affecting skep-
ticism toward green advertising, including behavioral variables (i.e., conservation
behavior and buying behavior) (do Paço and Reis 2012) and psychological varia-
bles (i.e., environmental concern, and attitude toward green products) (Matthes and
Wonneberger 2014). Our model examined not only the antecedents (i.e., shopping
values and environmental involvement) but also the consequences (i.e., self-reported
green consumption) of skepticism.
In addition, LOC was found to be an important moderator with regard to green
consumption. Although a great deal of prior research has identified LOC as

13
Linking hedonic and utilitarian shopping values to consumer…

influential in green behavior (Guagnano 1995; McCarty and Shrum 2001; Sham-
dasani et  al. 1993), and has examined the relationship between LOC and green
behavior (Allen and Ferrand 1999; Cleveland et al. 2005, 2012; Hines et al. 1987),
little research has focused on its moderating effects. In this research, we found that
an internal LOC can magnify the anecdotal and consequential influences of environ-
mental involvement in green consumption.
Including both mediation effects and moderated mediation effects simultane-
ously in one model makes this study unique. Previous research has examined the
psychological mechanisms of either green advertising skepticism (e.g., Leonidous
and Skarmeas 2017; Matthes and Wonneberger 2014) or green behavior (e.g.,
Buerke et al. 2017; Schultz et al. 2004; Sterns et al. 1999). How those psychological
effects might differ under various circumstances remains underexplored. The current
research considers LOC as indirectly affecting (i.e., moderating) the relationships
among shopping values, consumer skepticism toward green advertising, and green
consumption. This suggests that LOC matters in those relationships. Consideration
of the above variables helps researchers explain green consumption from a compre-
hensive and dynamic perspective.

5.2 Managerial implications

Our findings have important implications for marketers. Hedonic and utilitarian
shopping values can be viewed as the outcome of an interaction involving not only
the product but also the consumer and the distribution channel (Beatty and Ferrell
1998; Chandon et al. 2000; Hirschman and Holbrook 1982; Van Trijp et al. 1996;
Wakefield and Baker 1998). From a practical perspective, the results suggest that
marketers should focus their communication on the product’s hedonic value rather
than its utilitarian value. For example, distributors and promoters of green products
should consider how to invoke the hedonic shopping value associated with green
product usage. In order to boost the hedonic shopping value, marketers should
emphasize the hedonic aspect of various product attributes (e.g., packaging, style,
taste, and product display). Marketers may also communicate with consumers using
emotional appeals, since the hedonic shopping value goes well with such appeals
(Hetsroni 2000). To enhance the brand’s perceived value, the emotional ben-
efits to be gained could also be associated with the brand through marketing and
advertising.
Based on our findings, marketers can use LOC for segmentation purposes, divid-
ing consumers into internals and externals. Treating LOC as an empowerment tool
that is capable of influencing green consumption, marketers can engage consumers
in their green marketing campaigns. Companies doing business in the green milieu
or in green product/brand (re)positioning should enhance consumers’ elevated sense
of control in regards to environmental issues and related green consumption. Public
policy marketers including educational forum administrators, awareness campaign-
ers, and non-profit organizations should ensure that the public feels more personal
control regarding environmental outcomes. It is imperative to increase an individu-
al’s perceived control over environmental issues.

13
 Z.-H. Cheng et al.

5.3 Limitations and directions for future research

While this study provides theoretical and practical implications, some limitations
should be kept in mind. First, the participants in this empirical research were rel-
atively young, and the limited size of the sample places limits on generalizing
the findings to older generations. Furthermore, we treated LOC as a dichotomous
variable, classifying individuals as either internals or externals. Since there are a
number of measures for LOC (Cleveland et al. 2005, 2012; Kalamas et al. 2014;
Paulhus 1983; Sapp and Harrod 1993), future research may consider consum-
ers along the internal–external continuum. Another limitation includes the level
of honesty in the answers provided. Given the nature of the topic (environmen-
tal attitudes), it was impossible to prevent the participants from providing only
socially desirable responses. An additional limitation is the cross-sectional and
correlational nature of the study. Although personality theorists recognize psy-
chological traits as causes of behavior, rather than the reverse (e.g., McCrae and
Costa 1999), the current research alone does not provide sufficient evidence of
causal relationships.
Several avenues present opportunities for future research. First, to overcome the
disadvantages of viewing skepticism as a single dimension, future research may con-
sider a multi-dimensional measure for consumer skepticism. Second, all researched
variables were measured using self-reported data. To minimize the impact of social
desirability, future research should include some objective assessment of these vari-
ables, especially green consumption. Third, future research should consider the dif-
ferences between low-constraint consumption (e.g., recycling and energy conserva-
tion) and high-constraint consumption (those involving major investments of money
and/or time/energy, e.g., purchasing energy-efficient appliances and automobiles).
We recommend that further explorations focus on such differences, based on our
research variables. Fourth, cultural differences may have been overlooked in our
study. We investigated LOC at the individual psychological level. Dimensions in
Hofstede’s theory, including individualism/collectivism, long-term perspective, and
power distance, can be related to the concept of LOC. For example, Smith et  al.
(1995) analyzed 9140 responses across 43 countries and found that LOC is signifi-
cantly correlated with Hofstede’s cultural dimensions of individualism and power
distance. Mueller and Thomas (2001) indicated that individuals with an internal
LOC are more prevalent in individualistic cultures than in collectivistic cultures.
Further research may explore LOC-related variables at the cultural level (e.g., dif-
ferences caused by individualism or collectivism across countries). Lastly, a quan-
titative approach was adopted in this research to examine the relationships between
each of the factors and green consumption. Such an approach could be considered
weak when attempting to identify the reasons underlying the phenomena. The trian-
gulation method can provide a more comprehensive picture and a better understand-
ing of the relationships among these variables.

13
Linking hedonic and utilitarian shopping values to consumer…

Given consumers’ increasing skepticism regarding products with alleged environ-

mentally-friendly attributes in the wake of an influx of various misleading green ads,
green marketers should pay close attention to various factors that may have a signifi-
cant bearing on green consumption. We hope that our research efforts will lead to a
culture of green consumerism within a framework based on the value-belief-norm
theory (Schwartz and Bilsky 1987; Stern et  al. 1999). The results of this research
could have important implications for advertisers, nonprofit marketers, public poli-
cymakers, and even business.

Appendix: Measures of research constructs

Construct Factor loading t-value

Hedonic shopping value (adapted from Babin et al. 1994)

1. Going shopping is truly a joy .75 18.89
2. I continue to shop, not because I have to, but .68 16.55
because I want to
3. Compared to other things I could have done, .80 20.84
the time spent shopping is truly enjoyable
4. I enjoy a shopping trip for its own sake, not .78 20.06
just for the items I may have purchased
5. I have a good time during a shopping trip .58 13.70
because I am able to act on the “spur of the
moment”
6. While shopping, I am able to forget my .79 20.67
problems
7. During a shopping trip, I feel the excitement .82 21.58
of the hunt
8. Going shopping is not a very nice time out .79 20.72
(R)a
9. Going shopping truly feels like an escape .70 17.28
10. While shopping, I feel a sense of adventure .63 15.17
11. I enjoy being immersed in exciting new .61 14.46
products
Utilitarian shopping value (adapted from Babin et al. 1994)
1. I accomplish just what I want to on a shop- .77 19.54
ping trip
2. I am disappointed because I have to go to .64 15.49
another store(s) to complete my shopping
3. A good store visit to me is one that is quick .71 17.68
4. While shopping, I find just the item(s) I am .77 19.54
looking for
5. I feel smart about my shopping decisions .90 25.21
6. I can buy what I really need .85 22.97

13
 Z.-H. Cheng et al.

Construct Factor loading t-value

Environmental involvement (adopted from Schuhwerk and Lefkoff-Hagius
1995)
1. My actions impact on the environment .64 14.75
2. I am willing to make sacrifices to protect the .81 20.26
environment
3. The condition of the environment affects the .72 17.11
quality of my life
4. I am concerned about the environment .76 18.62
Consumer skepticism toward green advertising (adopted from Obermiller and
Spangenberg 1998)
1. We can depend on getting the truth in most .87 24.34
green advertising
2. Green advertising’s aim is to inform the .66 16.22
consumer about the environmental aspects
of companies’ products and services
3. I believe green advertising is informative .78 20.33
4. Green advertising is generally truthful .92 26.77
5. Green adverting is a reliable source of infor- .93 27.28
mation about the quality and performance
of green products
6. Green advertising is truth well told .93 27.17
7. In general, green advertising presents a .90 25.54
true picture of the green product being
advertised
8. I feel I’ve been accurately informed after .93 27.37
viewing most green advertisements
9. Most green advertising provides consumers .87 24.05
with essential information
Green consumption (adopted from Jain and Kaur 2004)
1. I look for environmental information when I .55 12.52
buy everyday items
2. I minimize purchases of products using .62 14.50
scarce/short supply resources
3. I purchase products that cause less pollution .66 15.91
4. I do not buy products of ecologically irre- .68 16.38
sponsible companies
5. I buy products which can be recycled .83 21.74
6. I buy energy efficient household appliances .79 20.19
7. I buy toilet paper/napkins made from recy- .56 12.75
cled paper
8. I have switched brands for ecological reasons .64 15.20
9. I have switched products for ecological .63 14.81
reasons
Locus of control (adopted from Ferguson 1993)
1. (a) Many of the unhappy things in people’s – –
lives are partly to the result of bad luck
(b) People’s misfortunes result from the
mistakes they make

13
Linking hedonic and utilitarian shopping values to consumer…

Construct Factor loading t-value

2. (a) In the long run, people get the respect – –
they deserve in this world
(b) Unfortunately, an individual’s worth often
passes unrecognized no matter how hard
he tries
3. (a) Becoming a success is a matter of hard – –
work; luck has little or nothing to do with it
(b) Getting a good job depends mainly on
being in the right place at the right time
4. (a) The average citizen can have an influence – –
in government decisions
(b) This world is run by the few people in
power, and there is not much the little guy
can do about it
5. (a) When I make plans, I am almost certain – –
that I can make them work
(b) It is not always wise to plan too far ahead
because many things turn out to be a matter
of good or bad fortune after all
6. (a) As far as world affairs are concerned, – –
most of us are the victims of forces we can
neither understand, nor control
(b) By taking an active part in political and
social affairs the people can control world
events
7. (a) Getting people to do the right thing – –
depends upon ability. Luck has little or
nothing to do with it
(b) Who gets to be the boss often depends on
who was lucky enough to be in the right
place first
8. (a) Most misfortunes are the result of lack of – –
ability, ignorance, laziness, or all three
(b) In the long run the bad things that happen
to us are balanced by the good ones
9. (a) There really is no such thing as “luck” – –
(b) Most people don’t realize the extent to
which their lives are controlled by acciden-
tal happenings
a
 Reverse formulated item

References
Ajzen I (1985) From intentions to actions: a theory of planned behavior. In: Kuhl J, Beckmann J (eds)
Action control. Springer, New York, pp 11–39
Albayrak T, Caber M, Moutinho L, Herstein R (2011) The influence of skepticism on green purchase
behavior. Int J Bus Soc Sci 2:189–197
Allen JB, Ferrand JL (1999) Environmental locus of control, sympathy, and proenvironmental behavior: a
test of geller’s actively caring hypothesis. Environ Behav 2:338–353

13
 Z.-H. Cheng et al.

Anderson JC, Gerbing DW (1988) Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and recommended
two-step approach. Psychol Bull 103:411–423
Babin BJ, Darden WR, Griffin M (1994) Work and/or fun: measuring hedonic and utilitarian shopping
value. J Consum Res 20:644–656
Bagozzi RP, Yi Y, Phillips LW (1991) Assessing construct validity in organizational research. Adm Sci
Q 36:421–458
Bang HK, Ellinger AE, Hadjimarcou J, Traichal PA (2000) Consumer concern, knowledge, belief, and
attitude toward renewable energy: an application of the reasoned action theory. Psychol Mark
17:449–468
Beatty SE, Ferrell ME (1998) Impulse buying: modeling its precursors. J Retail 74:161–167
Bellenger DN, Steinberg E, Stanton WW (1976) The congruence of store image and self image. J Retail
52:17–32
Brickman P, Campbell DT (1971) Hedonic relativism and planning the good society. In: Apley MH (ed)
Adaptation-level theory. Academic Press, New York, pp 287–302
Buerke A, Straatmann T, Lin-Hi N, Muller K (2017) Consumer awareness and sustainability-focused
value orientation as motivating factors of responsible consumer behavior. Rev Manag Sci
11:959–991
Carlson L, Grove SJ, Kangun N (1993) A content analysis of environmental advertising claims: a matrix
method approach. J Advert 22:27–39
Cervellon MC (2012) Victoria’s dirty secrets: effectiveness of green not-for-profit messages targeting
brands. J Advert 41:133–145
Chandon P, Wansink B, Laurent G (2000) A benefit congruency framework of sales promotion effective-
ness. J Mark 64:65–81
Chang CT, Cheng ZH (2015) Tugging on heartstrings: shopping orientation, mindset, and consumer
responses to cause-related marketing. J Bus Ethics 127:337–350
Cherry J, Fraedrich J (2000) An empirical investigation of locus of control and the structure of moral
reasoning: examining the ethical decision-making processes of sales managers. J Pers Sell Sales
Manag 20:173–188
Cheung GW, Lau RS (2008) Testing mediation and suppression effects of latent variables: bootstrapping
with structural equation models. Organ Res Methods 11:296–325
Chiu RK (2003) Ethical judgment and whistleblowing intention: examining the moderating role of locus
of control. J Bus Ethics 43:65–74
Cleveland M, Kalamas M, Laroche M (2005) Shades of green: linking environmental locus of control and
pro-environmental behaviors. J Consum Mark 22:198–212
Cleveland M, Kalamas M, Laroche M (2012) “It’s not easy being green”: exploring green creeds, green
deeds, and internal environmental locus of control. Psychol Mark 29:293–305
Coddington W (1993) Environmental marketing: positive strategies for reaching the green consumer.
McGraw-Hill, New York
Connolly J, McCarrey M (1978) The relationship between levels of moral judgment maturity and locus of
control. Can J Behav Sci 10:162–175
Crane A (2000) Facing the backlash: green marketing and strategic reorientation in the 1990s. J Strateg
Mark 8:277–296
D’Souza C, Taghian M (2005) Green advertising effects on attitude and choice of advertising themes.
Asia Pac J Mark Logist 17:51–66
Davis JJ (1991) A blueprint for green marketing. J Bus Strategy 12:14–17
de Groot JIM, Steg L (2008) Value orientations to explain beliefs related to environmental significant
behavior: how to measure egoistic, altruistic, and biospheric value orientations. Environ Behav
40:330–354
De Young R (2000) New ways to promote proenvironmental behavior: expanding and evaluating motives
for environmentally responsible behavior. J Soc Issues 56:509–526
Deci EL, Ryan RM (2000) The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: human needs and the self-determina-
tion of behavior. Psychol Inq 11:227–268
do Paço AMF, Reis R (2012) Factors affecting skepticism toward green advertising. J Advert 41:147–155
Edwards JR, Lambert LS (2007) Methods for integrating moderation and mediation: a general analytical
framework using moderated path analysis. Psychol Methods 12:1–22
Ferguson E (1993) Rotter’s locus of control scale: a ten-item two-factor model. Psychol Rep
73:1267–1278

13
Linking hedonic and utilitarian shopping values to consumer…

Fornell C, Larcker DF (1981) Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and
measurement error. J Mark Res 18:39–50
Frederick S, Loewenstein G (1999) Hedonic adaptation. In: Kahneman D, Diener E, Schwartz N (eds)
Well-being: the foundations of hedonic psychology. Russell Sage, New York, pp 302–329
Goh SW, Balaji MS (2016) Linking green skepticism to green purchase behavior. J Clean Prod
131:629–638
Gregory GD, Leo MD (2003) Repeated behavior and environmental psychology: the role of per-
sonal involvement and habit formation in explaining water consumption1. J Appl Soc Psychol
33:1261–1296
Griskevicius V, Cantú SM, Vugt MV (2012) The evolutionary bases for sustainable behavior: implica-
tions for marketing, policy, and social entrepreneurship. J Publ Policy Mark 31:115–128
Grob A (1995) A structural model of environmental attitudes and behaviour. J Environ Psychol
15:209–220
Grunert SC (1993) Everybody seems concerned about the environment, but is this concern reflected in
(Danish) consumers’ food choice? In: Raaij WFV, Bamossy GJ (eds) European advances in con-
sumer research. Association for Consumer Research, Provo, pp 428–433
Guagnano GA (1995) Locus of control, altruism and agentic disposition. Popul Environ 17:63–77
Haytko DL, Matulich E (2008) Green advertising and environmentally responsible consumer behaviors:
linkages examined. J Manag Mark Res 1:5–14
Helm R, Hegenbart T, Endres H (2013) Explaining costumer reactions to real stockouts. Rev Manag Sci
7:223–246
Hetsroni A (2000) The relationship between values and appeals in Israeli advertising: a smallest space
analysis. J Advert 29:55–68
Hines JM, Hungerford HR, Tomera AN (1987) Analysis and synthesis of research on responsible envi-
ronmental behavior: a meta-analysis. J Environ Educ 18:1–8
Hirschman EC, Holbrook MB (1982) Hedonic consumption: emerging concepts, methods and proposi-
tions. J Mark 46:92–101
Hu LT, Bentler PM (1995) Evaluating model fit. In: Hoyle RH (ed) Structural equation modeling: con-
cepts, issues, and applications. Sage, Thousand Oaks, pp 76–99
Iyer E, Banerjee B (1993) Anatomy of green advertising. Adv Consum Res 20:494–501
Jain SK, Kaur G (2004) Green marketing: an attitudinal and behavioural analysis of Indian consumers.
Glob Bus Rev 5:187–205
Kalamas M, Cleveland M, Laroche M (2014) Pro-environmental behaviors for thee but not for me: green
giants, green Gods, and external environmental locus of control. J Bus Res 67:12–22
Kaplan S (2000) New ways to promote proenvironmental behavior: human nature and environmentally
responsible behavior. J Soc Issues 56:491–508
Keller J, Blomann F (2008) Locus of control and the flow experience: an experimental analysis. Eur J
Pers 22:589–607
Kollmuss A, Agyeman J (2002) Mind the gap: why do people act environmentally and what are the barri-
ers to pro-environmental behavior? Environ Educ Res 8:239–260
Koo DM (2009) The moderating role of locus of control on the links between experiential motives and
intention to play online games. Comput Hum Behav 25:466–474
Kronrod A, Grinstein A, Wathieu L (2012) Go green! Should environmental messages be so assertive? J
Mark 76:95–102
Lee K (2011) The green purchase behavior of hong kong young consumers: the role of peer influence,
local environmental involvement, and concrete environmental knowledge. J Int Consum Mark
23:21–44
Lee YK (2013) The influence of message appeal, environmental hyperopia, and environmental locus of
control on green policy communication. Soc Behav Pers 41:731–738
Lee JA, Holden SJS (1999) Understanding the determinants of environmentally conscious behavior. Psy-
chol Mark 16:373–392
Leonidous CN, Skarmeas D (2017) Gray shades of green: causes and consequences of green skeptism. J
Bus Ethics 144:401–415
Lindenberg S, Steg L (2007) Normative, gain and hedonic goal frames guiding environmental behavior. J
Soc Issues 63:117–137
Manuel E, Youn S, Yoon D (2014) Functional matching effect in CRM: moderating roles of perceived
message quality and skepticism. J Mark Commun 20:397–418

13
 Z.-H. Cheng et al.

Matthes J, Wonneberger A (2014) The skeptical green consumer revisited: testing the relationship
between green consumerism and skepticism toward advertising. J Advert 43:115–127
Matthes J, Wonneberger A, Schmuck D (2014) Consumers’ green involvement and the persuasive effects
of emotional versus functional ads. J Bus Res 67:1885–1893
McCarty JA, Shrum LJ (2001) The influence of individualism, collectivism, and locus of control on envi-
ronmental beliefs and behavior. J Publ Policy Mark 20:93–104
McCrae RR, Costa PT (1999) A five-factor theory of personality. In: Pervin L, John O (eds) Handbook of
personality: theory and research. Guilford Press, New York, pp 139–153
Menges R (2003) Supporting renewable energy on liberalised markets: green electricity between addi-
tionality and consumer sovereignty. Energy Policy 31:583–596
Mohr LA, Eroǧlu D, Ellen PS (1998) The development and testing of a measure of skepticism toward
environmental claims in marketers’ communications. J Consum Aff 32:30–55
Mostafa MM (2006) Antecedents of egyptian consumers’ green purchase intentions. J Int Consum Mark
19:97–126
Mueller SL, Thomas AS (2001) Culture and entrepreneurial potential: a nine country study of locus of
control and innovativeness. J Bus Ventur 16:51–75
Noble SM, Griffith DA, Weinberger MG (2005) Consumer derived utilitarian value and channel utiliza-
tion in a multi-channel retail context. J Bus Res 58:1643–1651
Nunnally JC (1978) Psychometric theory. McGraw-Hill, New York
Nyilasy G, Gangadharbatla H, Paladino A (2014) Perceived greenwashing: the interactive effects of
green advertising and corporate environmental performance on consumer reactions. J Bus Ethics
125:693–707
Obermiller C, Spangenberg ER (1998) Development of a scale to measure consumer skepticism toward
advertising. J Consum Psychol 7:159–186
Obermiller C, Spangenberg ER, MacLachlan DL (2005) Ad skepticism: the consequences of disbelief. J
Advert 34:7–17
Ottman JA (2008) The five simple rules of green marketing. Des Manag Rev 19:65–69
Paulhus D (1983) Sphere-specific measures of perceived control. J Pers Soc Psychol 44:1253–1265
Pelletier LG (2002) A motivational analysis of self-determination for pro-environmental behaviors. In:
Deci EL, Ryan R (eds) Handbook of self-determination research. University of Rochester Press,
Rochester, pp 205–232
Pelletier LG, Tuson KM, Green-Demers I, Noels K, Beaton AM (1998) Why are you doing things for
the environment? The motivation toward the environment scale (MTES). J Appl Soc Psychol
28:437–468
Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Lee JY, Podsakoff NP (2003) Common method biases in behavioral
research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J Appl Psychol 88:879–903
Preacher KJ, Rucker DD, Hayes AF (2007) Addressing moderated mediation hypotheses: theory, meth-
ods, and prescriptions. Multivar Behav Res 42:185–227
Reitman V (1992) ‘Green’ product sales seem to be wilting. Wall St J 18:B1
Rogers M, Curtis A, Mazur N (2012) The influence of cognitive processes on rural landholder responses
to climate change. J Environ Manag 111:258–266
Roper (2011) The environment: public attitudes and individual behavior—a twenty-year evolution. Roper
Organization, New York
Rotter JB (1966) Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychol
Monogr 80:1–28
Samuelson CD (1990) Energy conservation: a social dilemma approach. Soc Behav 5:207–230
Sapp SG, Harrod WJ (1993) Reliability and validity of a brief version of levenson’s locus of control
scale. Psychol Rep 72:539–550
Scarpi D (2006) Fashion stores between fun and usefulness. J Fash Mark Manag 10:7–24
Scarpi D (2012) Work and fun on the internet: the effects of utilitarianism and hedonism online. J Interact
Mark 26:53–67
Schuhwerk ME, Lefkoff-Hagius R (1995) Green or non-green? Does type of appeal matter when adver-
tising a green product? J Advert 24:45–54
Schultz PW, Shriver C, Tabanico JJ, Khazian AM (2004) Implicit connections with nature. J Environ
Psychol 24:31–42
Schwartz SH, Bilsky W (1987) Toward a universal psychological structure of human values. J Pers Soc
Psychol 53:550–562

13
Linking hedonic and utilitarian shopping values to consumer…

Schwepker CH, Cornwell TB (1991) Ecologically concerned consumers and their intention to purchase
ecologically packaged products. J Publ Policy Mark 10:77–101
Seguin C, Pelletier LG, Hunsley J (1999) Predicting environmental behaviors: the influence of self-deter-
mined motivation and information about perceived environmental health risks. J Appl Soc Psychol
29:1582–1604
Shamdasani P, Chon-Lin GO, Richmond D (1993) Exploring green consumers in an oriental culture: role
of personal and marketing mix factors. In: McAlister LL, Rothschild ML (eds) Advances in con-
sumer research. Association for Consumer Research, Provo, pp 488–493
Sheehan K, Atkinson L (2012) Revisiting green advertising and the relutant consumer. J Advert 41:5–7
Sherry JF (1990) A sociocultural analysis of a midwestern American flea market. J Consum Res 17:13–30
Shrum LJ, McCarty JA, Lowrey TM (1995) Buyer characteristics of the green consumer and their impli-
cations for advertising strategy. J Advert 24:71–82
Smith PB, Trompenaars F, Dugan S (1995) The rotter locus of control scale in 43 countries: a test of cul-
tural relativity. Int J Psychol 30:377–400
Stanley LR, Lasonde KM, Weiss J (1996) The relationship between environmental issue involvement
and environmentally-conscious behavior: an exploratory study. In: Corfman KP, Lynch JG (eds)
Advances in consumer research. Association for Consumer Research, Provo, pp 183–188
Stern PC (2000) New environmental theories: toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant
behavior. J Soc Issues 56:407–424
Stern PC, Dietz T, Kalof L (1993) Value orientations, gender, and environmental concern. Environ Behav
25:322–348
Stern PC, Dietz T, Abel T, Guagnano GA, Kalof L (1999) A value-belief-norm theory of support for
social movements: the case of environmentalism. Hum Ecol Rev 6:81–98
Szmigin I, Carrigan M, O’Loughlin D (2007) Integrating ethical brands into our consumption lives. J
Brand Manag 14:396–409
Tangari AH, Burton S, Smith RJ (2015) Now that’s a bright idea: the influence of consumer elaboration
and distance perceptions on sustainable choices. J Retail 91:410–421
To PL, Liao C, Lin TH (2007) Shopping motivations on internet: a study based on utilitarian and hedonic
value. Technovation 27:774–787
Trevino LK, Youngblood SA (1990) Bad apples in bad barrels: a causal analysis of ethical decision-
making behavior. J Appl Psychol 75:378–385
Trope Y, Liberman N (2010) Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychol Rev 117:440–463
Trope Y, Liberman N, Wakslak C (2007) Construal levels and psychological distance: effects on repre-
sentation, prediction, evaluation, and behavior. J Consum Psychol 17:83–95
van Dam YK (2016) Sustainable consumption and marketing. Dissertation, Wageningen University
van Dam YK, Fischer ARH (2015) Buying green without being seen. Environ Behav 47:328–356
Van de Vijver F, Leung K (1997) Methods and data analysis of comparative research. In: Berry JW,
Poortinga YH, Pandey J (eds) Handbook of cross-cultural psychology. Allyn & Bacon, Needham
Heights, MA, pp 247–300
Van Trijp HCM, Hoyer WD, Inman JJ (1996) Why switch? Product category: level explanations for true
variety-seeking behavior. J Mark Res 33:281–292
Wakefield KL, Baker J (1998) Excitement at the mall: determinants and effects on shopping response. J
Retail 74:515–539
Webb DJ, Mohr LA (1998) A typology of consumer responses to cause-related marketing: from skeptics
to socially concerned. J Publ Policy Mark 17:226–238
Zinkhan GM, Carlson L (1995) Green advertising and the reluctant consumer. J Advert 24:1–6

13