See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/374332305

Mindful consumption: Its conception, measurement, and implications

Article in Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science · September 2023

DOI: 10.1007/s11747-023-00970-2

CITATIONS READS

0 104

2 authors, including:

Sharad Gupta
Cardiff Metropolitan University
31 PUBLICATIONS 77 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Sharad Gupta on 30 September 2023.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Page 1 of 52

Mindful consumption: Its conception, measurement,

and implications

Sharad Gupta1, Jagdish Sheth2

Abstract

Most traditional marketers avoid using mindful consumption (MC) despite fast-rising
consumer mindfulness, MC-advocation by trade magazines, and the success of tech-savvy,
MC-oriented start-ups. We identify two gaps for this divergence—varying conceptions of MC
and lack of a valid MC scale. Conception clarity and a valid MC scale are important for
advancing managerial practice. We first integrate current, varying conceptions to identify
three MC dimensions: Awareness, Caring, and Temperance. These signify awareness of self,
society, and the environment (SSE), caring for the effects of consumption on SSE, and
temperance in consumption. We then develop, refine, and validate the MC scale using 10
studies. We also assess the MC nomological network and scale robustness across genders,
ages, occupations, and incomes. Marketers can use MC scale for product innovation,
differentiation, and diversification. Policymakers can use this to nudge people towards MC-
oriented sustainable behavior. This research opens multiple avenues for future research.

Keywords: Mindful consumption, Awareness, Caring, Temperance, Mindfulness

1 Senior Lecturer in Marketing Management, Cardiff School of Management, Cardiff Metropolitan University, Cardiff

Email: sgupta@cardiffmet.ac.uk; sharadgupt@gmail.com

2 Charles H. Kellstadt Professor of Business, Goizueta Business School, Emory University

Email: jagdish.sheth@emory.edu

This material is presented to ensure timely dissemination of scholarly and technical work for non-commercial use.

Copyright and all rights therein are retained by authors or by other copyright holders. Kindly adhere to copyright

terms and conditions invoked by the Journal and each author's copyright. This version of the referenced work is the

accepted / pre-print version of the article—it is NEITHER the final published version NOR the corrected proof.

You can access the final published version here - https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-023-00970-2

Kindly reference this work (in APA style) as: Gupta, S. and Sheth, J. (2023). Mindful consumption:

Its conception, measurement, and implications. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-023-00970-2

Direct link for Web Appendix: https://static-content.springer.com/esm/art%3A10.1007%2Fs11747-023-

00970-2/MediaObjects/11747_2023_970_MOESM1_ESM.docx
 Page 2 of 52

Mindful consumption: Its conception, measurement, and implications

Mindful consumption (MC) is the manifestation of mindfulness in consumer decision-making

(Bahl et al., 2016). Rising interest in MC over last two decades is evident in doctoral studies

(Armstrong, 2012; De wet, 2008; Gupta, 2019), and academic inquiries in the form of

conceptual (Sheth et al., 2011), qualitative (Hunting and Conroy, 2018), and quantitative

(Milne et al., 2020) articles. This resembles the growing emphasis on MC in practice-oriented

articles (Clark, 2014; Kotler, 2021; Mitchell, 2019) as well as books (Badiner, 2002; Emerich,

2011; Turner, 2020). Some technology-driven marketers realize the importance of MC and

maintain it at the core of their novel business models, enabling consumers to buy the product

they need, when and however little they may need it (Aronson, 2021). For example, start-ups,

such as Rent the Runway and GoPuff, challenge traditional marketing techniques (e.g.,

discounts, bundling, and conditioning) that promote overconsumption (Kadioglu and Ozturk,

2022; Rosenberg, 2004). These marketers base their business models on MC to achieve over

$1 billion in market cap (Fromm, 2019).

Despite these trends, integrating mindfulness into marketing is tough for traditional

marketers (Hagenbuch, 2022; Tiland, 2019), which is evident in never-ending discounts, click

baits, and zero pricing manipulations (Fan et al., 2022; Mukherjee et al., 2022) for pushing

excessive consumption. This divergence of traditional marketers to avoid MC despite the rise

in consumer mindfulness, widespread reinforcements by marketing experts, and the success of

MC-oriented new marketers is surprising. We examine the literature to identify the two

important challenges that marketing practice faces to integrate MC in marketing strategies.

First, the existing literature shows fragmented conceptions of MC. Many expositions

examine MC predominantly as awareness of self and others (Armstrong, 2004; Bahl et al.,

2016), and many others observe MC as temperance in consumption (Assadourian, 2009;

Sheth et al., 2011). Still others consider caring for self and others to be important for MC
 Page 3 of 52

(Milne et al., 2020; Sheth et al., 2011). Disjointedly, experimental studies equate MC with

temperance (Gupta and Verma, 2020; Mason et al., 2016). These varying conceptions do not

help in clarifying the relationships of MC with other marketing constructs and thereby make

MC more difficult to understand (Kumar et al., 2023; Sánchez and Raymaekers, 2018).

Second, the existing literature lacks any reliable and valid scale to measure MC.

Although some studies attempt to measure MC, these either focus only on temperance (Gupta

and Verma, 2019; Mohammad et al., 2021) or assess only mindful eating without evaluating

reliability and validity (Brunneder and Dholakia, 2018; Mason et al., 2016). Therefore, the

MC concept is obscure and difficult to measure (Milne et al., 2020; Sánchez and Raymaekers,

2018). We identify two research gaps: a) the ambiguous conception of MC in extant literature

and b) the absence of a valid scale to measure MC. Both gaps are inter-related and discourage

most marketers from using MC-driven marketing regardless of rising MC (in consumers),

widespread calls for mindful marketing (from marketing experts), and MC-driven, rapid

success (of tech-savvy and data-driven start-ups).

This research inquiry attempts to close these two research gaps in two phases: a)

integrating the theoretical expanse of MC concept and b) developing, refining, and validating

the MC scale, which is reliable, valid, and stable across different genders, age groups,

occupations, and family incomes. During this process, we also establish the nomological

relationships of MC with related marketing constructs of mindfulness, materialism,

compulsive buying, self-esteem, life satisfaction, and affect. We provide conceptual evidence

that MC represents a generalized predisposition toward consuming mindfully and

encompasses three distinct but related dimensions. We identify them as Awareness, Caring,

and Temperance (ACT) and call them ACT of MC. Specifically, MC captures the degree to

which consumers 1) are aware of self, society, and the environment (SSE), 2) care for the

effects of their consumption on SSE, and 3) use temperance in consumption.

 Page 4 of 52

This study supplements existing research in important ways. First, the multi-

dimensional structure of MC integrates the varied conceptualizations in existing literature to

bring much-needed clarity in MC conception (Kumar et al., 2023; Fischer et al., 2017). This

shows that MC cannot be equated with temperance in consumption (as done in prevailing

empirical studies) and includes three dimensions of ACT that marketers can understand and

measure. Mindful purchases involve use of all three dimensions of MC in different ways.

Second, this research scientifically derives a valid and reliable scale for MC that

remains stable across consumers of varied genders, age groups, occupations, and income

groups. This answers the long-pending call for a credible measurement for MC (Sheth et al.,

2011; Milne et al., 2020). This MC scale is useful in predicting and explaining consumer

behavior for mobile phones (durables), clothing (semi-durables), and cosmetics (non-

durables). Consequently, marketers may use the MC scale across product categories to

identify mindful consumers and adapt their marketing mix elements. In this way, this inquiry

also attempts to respond to the recent Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science (JAMS)

editorial call for responsible research in marketing to serve society through usefulness,

reliability, and validity (Haenlein et al., 2022).

Third, this research helps in examining nomological relationships of MC (given in

brackets) with other related constructs (Nenkov et al., 2008) like mindfulness (positive),

materialism (negative), compulsive buying (negative), self-esteem (positive), life satisfaction

(positive), positive affect (positive) and negative affect (negative). These relationships bring

further clarity to MC conception for advancing future research as well as managerial actions.

Additionally, we emphasize that MC is good not only from other-focused perspective but also

from self-focused perspective, as mindful consumers consider SSE.

 Page 5 of 52

From managerial perspective, we provide a psychometrically robust MC scale that can

be used across diverse consumer demography and product categories. Marketers can use MC

and this scale for product innovation, differentiation, and diversification while reducing their

environmental impact and increasing their marketing effectiveness. Policymakers can use this

to design policy interventions (collaborating across federal, state, and local level) for nudging

people towards MC-oriented sustainable behavior. With these implications, this research

attempts to contribute to the important role of academic research in advancing managerial

practice, as done earlier in other areas like e-service quality (Parasuraman et al., 2005),

customer satisfaction (Fornell et al., 1996), and market orientation (Kohli et al., 1993).

The remaining article unfolds as follows: We first review and integrate the existing

conceptions of MC and identify its dimensions. We then generate scale items using inductive

and deductive methods (Studies 1a and 1b) and purify the scale using expert screening and

content pre-testing (Studies 2a and 2b). We identify the MC factor structure by employing

paper-and-pen surveys (Studies 3a and 3b; n=169, 131 respectively). We refine this

preliminary scale and evaluate the nomological relationships with related constructs using an

online survey (Study 4, n=1880). We also evaluate the scale robustness across consumer

groups (segmented by gender, age, occupation, and income). We then validate this scale with

actual consumption behavior across product categories (Studies 5a, 5b, and 5c; n=63, 276,

2352 respectively). Thereafter, we discuss the important theoretical, managerial, and policy

implications. Finally, we outline limitations and directions for future research.

Review of literature

Rosenberg (2004) suggested MC as the application of mindfulness to consumption. Others laid

the groundwork for MC by either linking it to mindfulness (De Wet, 2008) or without

expressing any such linkages (Assadourian, 2009). Due to the novelty of the research, early

studies discussed MC but did not explain it in detail. Sheth et al. (2011) introduced MC to
 Page 6 of 52

mainstream marketing through their conceptual article in JAMS. These authors proposed it as a

customer-centric approach to sustainability and explained why marketers should use marketing

resources more effectively to positively impact consumers, society, and the environment. This

boundary-breaking study helped develop MC research in three directions: theorizing MC,

portraying mindful consumers, and assessing MC. We now briefly review these three directions

and present important details in web appendix A1 for lack of space.

Theorizing MC

The first research direction presents MC as an application of mindfulness to the consumption

process, discusses the importance of diverse aspects of MC, and elaborates on the effects of

MC on marketing and the environment (Bahl et al., 2016; Khaw-ngern et al., 2021; Lim, 2017;

Malhotra, Lee, and Uslay, 2012). Across these studies, the common aspect tends to be caring

about consumption’s effect on others in society and the environment. Some studies emphasize

awareness of self, society, and the environment (SSE) (Sheth et al., 2011), while others

highlight temperance of consumption in varying degrees (Assadourian, 2009). Overall, this

research direction gives rise to multiple overlapping conceptions of MC and makes this multi-

faceted construct considerably complex to understand (Kumar et al., 2023; Sánchez and

Raymaekers, 2018).

Portraying mindful consumers

The second research direction focuses on portraying mindful consumers, their attributes, and

their underlying motivations (Milne et al., 2020; Ndubisi, 2014; Parvatiyar and Sheth, 2023).

These consumers tend to be empathetic toward others and elevate even mundane purchases to

acts of meaning and purpose. For example, they carry their own reusable grocery bags to avoid

using plastic bags (Hunting and Conroy, 2018). At the same time, they are likely to be conscious

1
Table A1 (in web appendix A) explains three research directions in MC with all studies categorized as
conceptual, experimental, grounded theory-based, phenomenological, and survey-based.
 Page 7 of 52

of marketers’ manipulations like click bait, zero pricing, and misleading front-of-package

interpretive labels (Fan et al., 2022; Ikonen et al., 2019; Mukherjee et al., 2022) and choose to

respond rather than react to marketing promotions (Rosenberg, 2004) due to their responsible

and ethical mindset (Haider et al., 2023).

They buy products less frequently but enjoy their limited purchases more than others

(Hunting and Conroy, 2018). They buy an offering after considering its impact on themselves,

others, and the environment (Parvatiyar and Sheth, 2023). They do not insist on a particular

product variant and are more flexible in accepting alternate products with comparable benefits.

These consumers exhibit higher levels of happiness, satisfaction, trust, and commitment to

higher-quality products compared to less mindful consumers (Dhandra, 2019; Nasr Bechwati

et al., 2016). Therefore, mindful consumers tend to exhibit greater attitudinal and behavioral

brand loyalties than others. Some of these consumers are mindful of the whole consumption

journey (informed consumers), while others are mindful of marketers’ actions (marketer-

observing consumers) or price-quality assortment (consumer-first consumers) (see Milne et al.,

2020; Ndubisi, 2014).

Assessing MC

The third research direction focuses on assessing MC in different contexts but with limited

conceptual validity. Most experimental studies focus on the impact of different mindfulness

interventions on dietary habits and temperance in consumption and do not focus on developing

MC scale (Bahl et al., 2013; Dutt et al., 2019). A few investigations use single studies to propose

a scale but do not report reliability and validity (Nasr Bechwati et al., 2016; Mohammad et al.,

2021).

Some recent studies use alternative constructs, such as socially conscious purchasing

and frugal purchasing behavior (Dhandra, 2019). A few others employ qualitative methods to

explain self-awareness and caring for others in buying but do not develop the MC scale (Aktan
 Page 8 of 52

and Kaplan, 2015, 2018; Ghorbanian Gazafroudi et al., 2019). Another study uses mixed-

methods to develop the single-dimension MC scale focusing on temperance in consumption

(Gupta and Verma, 2019). While existing research does not capture the full expanse of MC,

this establishes a strong base for further MC research to produce a reliable and valid MC scale.

Specifying awareness, caring, and temperance dimensions of MC

Integrating various conceptions of MC to provide conceptual clarity (Kumar et al., 2023) is

necessary to create a valid scale that encapsulates the complete meaning of MC (Fischer et al.,

2017; Milne et al., 2020). Examination and synthesis of the existing literature (details in web

appendix A) reveal manifestations of MC in three dimensions, as shown in Table 1. We identify

them as Awareness, Caring, and Temperance (ACT), call them ACT of MC, and explain them

as such:

• Awareness: awareness of SSE

• Caring: caring for the effects of consumption on SSE

• Temperance: temperance in consumption

Awareness of SSE

Awareness of self Awareness is an observer’s ability to distinguish among several possible

stimulus states and is considered a capability to comprehend present events, anticipate future

events, and formulate an appropriate response to a stimulus (Brown and Ryan, 2003; Merikle,

1984). Awareness of self refers to the cognitive capacity to distinguish one’s emotions,

thoughts, and bodily sensations. This helps one to develop acceptance of self and situational

factors without getting overwhelmed by the external stimuli. This tends to help mindful

consumers in comprehending the conscious and subconscious processes that marketers use to

induce overconsumption. Such consumers therefore formulate their responses to marketing

promotions instead of acting impulsively (Armstrong, 2012; Bahl et al., 2016; Rosenberg,

2004).
 Page 9 of 52

Table 1. Research focus and dimensions of mindful consumption (MC) identified from themes in the existing literature

Research focus Dimensions of MC

Studies in MC literature Over- Under- Awareness of Caring for effects of consumption on Temperance in
consumption consumption Self Society Environment Self Society Environment consumption
Rosenberg, 2004 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
De Wet, 2008 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Assadourian, 2009 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Sheth et al., 2011 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Armstrong, 2012 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Pusaksrikit et al., 2013 ✓ ✓ ✓
Resnik & Koklič, 2014 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Aktan & Kaplan, 2015 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Bahl et al., 2016 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Nasr Bechwati et al., 2016 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Lim, 2017 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Sheth, 2017 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Aktan & Kaplan, 2018 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Hunting & Conroy, 2018 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Dhandra, 2019 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Ghorbanian Gazafroudi et al., 2019 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Milne et al., 2020 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Khaw-ngern et al., 2021 ✓ ✓ ✓
Zsolnai & Kovacs, 2021 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Haider et al., 2022 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Parvatiyar & Sheth, 2023 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Notes. ✓ focus of the study
 Page 10 of 52

Awareness of society and the environment Awareness of society and the environment

means the socio-cognitive consciousness of others through the senses in social and physical

environments. It includes alertness towards others’ emotions, motivations, and intentions.

This cognitive capacity is marked by the development of empathy (Vanhaudenhuyse et al.,

2011). Mindful consumers empathize with their community and natural environment. They

tend to be conscious of how marketers influence social and physical surroundings to shape

consumer beliefs and values (Rosenberg, 2004).

Manifestation of MC as awareness Before buying something new, this awareness of SSE

causes a mindful consumer to consider certain factors, such as the use of previously

purchased products2, availability of substitutes, and the socio-environmental friendliness of

the available options. First, mindful consumers strive to use products already bought (rather

than storing them unused, if they are functional), give away old possessions to others (instead

of sending them to incinerators or landfills), and buy new products if already bought products

cannot fulfill the new need in any way.

Second, mindful consumers are not picky about buying a specific variant if a

substitute that can fulfill the need is available. Third, mindful consumers also have feelings of

responsibility toward the environment and other people that guide them to prefer

environmentally friendly and non-exploitative products as much as possible (Hunting and

Conroy, 2018; Milne et al., 2020; Parvatiyar and Sheth, 2023).

In short, awareness is a consumer’s ability to comprehend their sensations, the

motivations of others, and marketing stimuli. Awareness focuses on SSE, helps one to think

of existing possessions before buying a new product, and creates a willingness to try a

substitute product. Overall, awareness of SSE means having the cognitive capacity to

2
We refer to products and services collectively as products in our conceptualization of MC to assuage
previous concerns (Lim, 2017).
 Page 11 of 52

understand oneself and being alert towards one’s community and natural environment

(Armstrong, 2012; Pusaksrikit et al., 2013; Zsolnai and Kovacs, 2021). This awareness of

SSE may be the reason for growing MC trends in some industries (like fast food and

grocery). For example, Burger King and its competitors now offer plant-based burgers to

cash in on the growing trend of plant-based diets. Similarly, Trader Joe’s follows the

positioning of “organically grown products” with increasing consumer awareness (Zilber,

2022).

Caring for the effects of consumption on SSE

Caring for the effects of consumption on self Caring is central to human well-being and

fosters trust, social cohesion, and responsibility. It connotes both affective concerns and

practical actions (Jax et al., 2018). Caring for the self refers to the activities one initiates and

manages to attend to one’s needs, health, and well-being (Bressi and Vaden, 2017). In the

MC context, caring for the self includes paying attention to health, economic well-being, and

happiness. It involves prudence to consider the effects of buying and consuming on oneself.

Self-regulation in caring reduces habitual or automatic reactions to persuasive sources, such

as celebrities and word-of-mouth. Due to this focus on well-being, mindful consumers

purchase consciously for increasing well-being but in a controlled manner (Angus and

Westbrook, 2019).

Caring for the effects of consumption on society and the environment Caring for people

and the natural world (land, bodies of water, and air) is considered moral in indigenous

communities from Africa, the Americas, Asia, and Australia. Western philosophical tradition

also emphasizes caring for the environment. Caring for society and the environment is

connected to the spiritual dimension and is considered vital for maintaining personal identity

and the concept of community. Giving and receiving care strengthens social ties that lead to

long and happy lives (Gentile et al., 2020; Jax et al., 2018).
 Page 12 of 52

Caring for the effects of consumption on society and the environment includes being

thoughtful about the impact on society and nature by making purchases. Buying eco-friendly

products and multi-use products, rather than disposable ones, indicates the caring aspect of

MC. Sharing and taking care of purchased products are as important as repairing damaged

products. Donating, recycling, and passing possessions on to others in society make caring

more meaningful (Bahl et al., 2016; Sheth et al., 2011). Overall, caring includes paying

attention to the effects of buying and consuming on one’s well-being (physico-mental,

economic, and socio-environmental), maintaining purchased products, and discarding used

products in thoughtful ways, which include donating and recycling. We also find this

dimension (in varying degrees) in each article that explains MC (refer to Table 1) and

identify it as the most important dimension.

Manifestation of MC as caring Caring for SSE is gradually shaping consumer behavior.

Some of its effects are visible in the marketplace in terms of the growing acceptance of

electric cars and the backlash to genetically modified foods. Consumers not only want to buy

(affective concern) eco-friendly vehicles but actually buy (practical action) electric cars.

Similarly, consumers have started raising concerns about genetically modified foods due to

their health and the environment (Lee-Ammons, 2019). At the same time, the effects of

caring are currently limited in terms of strength and sectoral applications. For example, all

consumers desiring to shift to electric vehicles are unable to shift because of low availability,

high cost, and inadequate charging infrastructure. Similarly, stopping genetically modified

foods is not easy due to their pervasiveness in the market and high yields. Nevertheless,

caring may gradually change norms and behaviors with policy support and technological

developments, like the gradual phasing out of chlorofluorocarbons from 1980 to 2000

(Stadelmann-Steffen et al., 2021).

 Page 13 of 52

Temperance in consumption

Temperance Temperance is an Aristotelian virtue that moderates bodily pleasure. It is one

of six common virtues found across the world’s major religions. As a virtue, it protects

against excesses and is composed of four strengths: prudence (being careful about one’s

choices and not taking undue risks); self-regulation (self-control, regulating what one feels or

does, and being disciplined); humility (modesty, letting one’s work speak for itself and not

seeking the spotlight); and forgiveness and acceptance (forgiving a wrong-doer, accepting the

shortcomings of others, giving someone a second chance, and not being vengeful) (Peterson

and Seligman, 2004; Shahab and Adil, 2020).

Temperance in consumption Temperance in consumption is not the sheer rejection of

consumption but, instead, consuming at an optimal level consistent with one’s well-being and

values. This means exhibiting restraint in unbridled desires (self-regulation) and carefully

evaluating alternatives to buying, such as renting (humility, forgiveness, and self-regulation),

sharing (acceptance, prudence, and self-regulation), and reusing (prudence and self-

regulation). Self-regulation helps in considering all these alternatives to completing a

purchase. Renting also requires removing mental barriers to leasing something used by others

without publicizing (humility) and excusing others who used the product before

(forgiveness). Similarly, sharing requires being careful (prudence) and tolerant of others

(acceptance). Reusing requires one to use discretion to find new uses (prudence) for an

existing product (Sheth et al., 2011; Yu et al., 2021).

Another form of temperance includes the willingness to buy substitute

products/variants. This comprises forgiving the seller (for not keeping the desired product),

accepting the available options, and applying prudence to buy a substitute product/variant

that fulfills important needs. Behavioral manifestations of temperance differ across cultures

(Shahab and Adil, 2020) and require detailed cross-cultural investigations using the World
 Page 14 of 52

Values Survey (Inglehart et al., 2022). Broadly, temperance in consumption means

consuming moderately, regulating unrestrained desires, and minimizing waste (Assadourian,

2009; Petrescu-Mag et al., 2019; Sheth et al., 2011).

Manifestation of MC as temperance Temperance is applicable to the consumption of

private and public goods. It helps moderate consumerism-oriented practices, including

acquisitive, repetitive, aspirational, convenient, and adventurous consumption (Lim, 2017;

Sheth et al., 2011). At the same time, temperance does not mean scaling down all

consumption and living with only the basic amenities in life. Instead, it means exploring

alternatives to buying (such as sharing and renting), buying what is useful, and using what is

bought. For example, global taxi apps like Uber started ridesharing when they realized that

more consumers might use their services while reducing wasteful consumption. Similarly,

Rent the Runway lets a consumer lease an expensive wedding dress without really buying it,

thus promoting temperance in terms of only buying what is useful.

Interlinking ACT dimensions and defining MC

There are certain commonalities and distinctions among the three dimensions of MC,

with self-regulation as a common denominator, which helps in responding instead of reacting

to consumption stimuli. Both awareness and caring show up in buying multi-use and

environmentally friendly products and giving away old possessions; however, both are

distinct. For example, awareness helps one not be obsessive about buying a specific variant

(Hunting and Conroy, 2018), whereas caring assists in purchasing for raising the well-being

of the self and others in a controlled manner (Angus and Westbrook, 2019). Similarly,

awareness and temperance equally show up in the willingness to buy substitute products, but

they have certain distinctions. Due to awareness, one considers existing possessions before

buying new ones, such as using a previously purchased product that remained unused (Bahl
 Page 15 of 52

et al., 2016), but due to temperance, one explores alternatives to buying, e.g., renting

(Assadourian, 2009).

Finally, caring and temperance are common in sharing, but some differences exist.

Caring enhances well-being by buying a few things for increasing happiness or pleasure, but

temperance tends to restrain buying. Mindful consumers, therefore, avoid brands that they

think are harmful to SSE but sometimes buy products that enhance the well-being of

themselves or others due to a combination of caring and temperance (Kim, 2021). This means

that mindful consumers seek to make positive buying decisions and intentionally buy/use/gift

pleasure-giving products but with some restraint (Angus and Westbrook, 2019).

All these dimensions are correlated, and their covariation is caused by the underlying

MC construct, which has a surplus meaning to these dimensions. Changes in the directly

unobservable MC construct cause changes in these dimensions. These linkages of ACT

dimensions with each other and the underlying construct indicate that MC is a reflective

second-order construct (Jarvis et al., 2003). The integrative literature review helps define MC

as follows:

Mindful consumption represents consideration of SSE in the consumption process and

requires responding (rather than reacting) to internal and external consumption stimuli. It

manifests as awareness of SSE, caring for the effects of consumption on SSE, and temperance

in the consumption.

Developing, refining, and validating the MC scale

We use the integrated conceptualization of MC to create the MC scale. We identify the

structure, refine the scale, and validate the MC scale using 10 studies. Applying the

recommendations of Hulland et al. (2018), we justify the choice of the measurement object,

explain the applicable sampling frame, describe the sampling process, and compare

respondents to the sampling frame, apart from assessing nonresponse and common method
 Page 16 of 52

biases. As shown in Figure 1, we integrate and rearrange several procedural frameworks

(Churchill, 1979; Maklan and Klaus, 2011; Malhotra, Mukhopadhyay, et al., 2012; Nenkov et

al., 2008; Rossiter, 2002) to develop a scale that aggregates the full meaning of MC within a

small number of items (Anderson and Gerbing, 1991; Bentler and Chou, 1987). We classify

our process into four stages: scale generation (Studies 1a and 1b), initial purification (Studies

2a and 2b), scale refinement (Studies 3a, 3b, and 4), and scale validation (Studies 5a, 5b, and

5c). Figure 1 outlines nine steps and 10 studies on consumers of varying genders, ages,

occupations, and income levels.

Figure 1. Methodology for creating the MC scale

Table B1 (web appendix B) summarizes the scale development stages, steps, and

studies, along with associated outcomes. Study 1 generates the initial pool of items using

inductive (Study 1a) and deductive (Study 1b) methods. Study 2 reduces these items using

expert screening (Study 2a) and content pre-testing with target populations (Study 2b). Study

3 ascertains the factor structure and construct validity (Studies 3a and 3b). Study 4 confirms

the reliability and validity of the construct and establishes the robustness of the MC scale across

consumers segmented by gender, age, occupation, and income. It also establishes nomological

relationships with related constructs. Study 5 first ascertains the relevant products for verifying

consumer behavior (Studies 5a and 5b) and then validates the final scale with actual consumer

behavior (Study 5c) for the least mindfully bought products in three categories: mobile phones

(durable), clothing (semi-durable), and cosmetics (non-durable/consumable).

 Page 17 of 52

Generating scale items: Studies 1a and 1b

Study 1 generates the initial pool of items using inductive (Study 1a) and deductive methods

(Study 1b), as recommended by Morgado et al. (2018).

Characteristics of the sampling frame We identify the characteristics of the sampling

frame in Study 1a as advised by Hulland et al. (2018). For this, we utilize the focus group

discussions (FGDs) that generate items for the MC scale (Mumford et al., 1996). These FGDs

are conducted with a guiding instrument. Question 1 captures knowledge, skills, abilities, and

personality-related characteristics that may influence MC. This helps to identify population

characteristics. Question 2 helps to identify situations in which MC can influence behaviors

and experiences. Question 3 examines people’s perceptions of, reactions to, behaviors in, and

outcomes of such situational exposures. The first three questions guide the respondents to

focus on MC. Question 4 asks respondents to suggest five statements that may be asked to the

population to determine their MC. Respondents then discuss their answers with other group

members. They may update their own answers. These FGDs generate items to capture

differential expressions of MC, as suggested by Mumford et al. (1996).

FGD participants are similar within a group but different across groups (Maklan and

Klaus, 2011). Of them, 63% are females, 54% are married, and 63% are non-students. FGDs

(duration of each between 60 and 90 minutes) include seven diverse consumer groups,

provide productive discussions, and generate several statements (Dagger et al., 2007). FGD

participants identify situations influenced by MC and people’s behaviors and experiences in

these situations. This helps to identify the following underlying characteristics of the

sampling frame for the conceptualization of MC:

• They possess the buying power to purchase products without any functional need.

• They exchange views with others in their networks frequently and regularly.

• They access multiple communication media in the internet era.

 Page 18 of 52

Possessing the power to buy products without any functional need does not mean that

consumers always exercise this buying power, especially if they have a high level of MC.

Similarly, exchanging views with others does not mean that individuals are always influenced

by others’ views and purchases, especially if they possess a high level of MC. Consumers

with MC use different views and purchases to gain different perspectives without being

heavily influenced. Likewise, accessing multiple communication media, such as phones, e-

mail, social networking sites, blogs, out-of-home media, television, newspapers, and

magazines, does not make mindful consumers easily shift to views expressed in those media,

since they consume mindfully.

Outcomes of Studies 1a and 1b Studies 1a and 1b help construct valid measures of MC

using the approach specified by Mumford et al. (1996). As explained above, the inductive

method (Study 1a) involving FGDs, generates 115 items. The deductive method (Study 1b)

includes item development based on review of the extant MC literature (including published

articles, presented papers, and dissertation research on MC) and other related scales. The

deductive method generates 276 items. Both methods produce 391 items for the initial scale.

Purifying the initial scale: Studies 2a and 2b

Study 2a (expert screening) We select three academic judges with diverse characteristics:

gender, education, income, and trait mindfulness (Dagger et al., 2007). They review each

item of the initial pool for its quality, similarity to other items, and relevance to a particular

theme (Malhotra, Mukhopadhyay, et al., 2012). Using this process, they establish the

relevance and comprehensiveness of the items. They discuss each item among themselves,

select only the appropriate items, and place those into three thematic groups that they later

named “consciousness,” “thoughtfulness,” and “restraint.” These are like the three interlinked

sub-constructs of MC (ACT), as identified earlier from the literature (Maklan and Klauss,
 Page 19 of 52

2011). We update some item statements as per experts’ suggestions. The expert screening

reduces the number of items from 391 to 95.

Study 2b (content pre-testing) We conduct content pre-testing to assess substantive validity

and content validity (Reynolds and Diamantopoulos, 1998) and reduce the scale length

(Malhotra, Mukhopadhyay, et al., 2012; Mathwick et al., 2001). Content pre-testing produces

a small scale with comprehensible and relevant items. Similar to the study by Mathwick et al.

(2001), we conduct this study with a group of 19 target consumers. We select these

consumers after evaluating if they possess three underlying characteristics of the target

population (as identified in Study 1a). These characteristics include having high buying

power3, exchanging views with others (all interacted daily with over 20 people in diverse

social settings), and accessing multiple communication media daily (all accessed more than

five communication media platforms daily). Consumers read descriptions of the conceptual

dimensions of the construct. They then read and assign each item to a dimension to which

they believe it belongs. During the process, they discard any item that does not fit into any

dimension. The proportion of the substantive index (psa > = .5) and the substantive validity

coefficient (csv > = .3) is used for identifying content-valid items (see Anderson and Gerbing,

1991). This process results in a scale of 12 items, which we categorize into awareness (four

items), caring (five items), and temperance (three items), in consultation with experts of

Study 2a (Dagger et al., 2007).

Refining the MC scale: Studies 3a, 3b, and 4

Studies 3a and 3b assist structure identification and reliability assessment using paper-and-

pen surveys. We conduct Study 4 for structure validation, reliability assessment, convergent

3
All (except one) have income above minimum taxable income, and one did not disclose the income group
 Page 20 of 52

validity, discriminant validity, nomological validity, and factorial invariance. We outline

these studies below and provide key details in web appendix C.

Studies 3a and 3b (structure identification) We conduct Studies 3a (n = 169) and 3b (n =

131) with a gap of two weeks for pre-testing, which is considered essential for scale

development (Hulland et al., 2018). The analysis results in an 11-item scale (α = .77) with

three factors that are stable across different extraction methods and contained satisfactory

face validity, and each has three or more items per factor (Hair et al., 2017; Howard, 2016)

(see web appendix C for details). As shown in Table 2, the first three items pertain to

awareness, the next five items pertain to caring about the effects of consumption, and the last

three items pertain to temperance (restraint) in consumption.

Table 2. Three dimensions of MC scale

Factors Item description

A1. I am concerned about the impact of my consumption on my

society/community.
Awareness
A2. I am aware that my consumption impacts society.

A3. Sharing my products with others means caring for society.

C1. I try to live without damaging the environment.

C2. I satisfy my consumption needs without harming the environment.

Caring C3. I buy products that are not harmful to others.

C4. Everyone should conserve water at home.

C5. Using public services (e.g., parks, schools, transportation) is good for society.

T1. I refrain from buying the latest product if the current product is working.

Temperance T2. I try to minimize my consumption even in the case of abundance.

T3. I have a habit of minimizing the wastage of clothes.

 Page 21 of 52

Study 4 (structure validation) Study 4 validates the MC scale’s second-order factor structure

and its consistency across different consumer groups segmented by gender, age, occupation,

and income. We substantiate the sample’s appropriateness to the sampling frame characteristics

identified in Study 1 (Hulland et al., 2018). We use exponential non-discriminative snowball

sampling (Basiouka and Potsiou, 2014) to preserve the network topology (Chen et al., 2013).

After a preliminary examination of the data (n = 1880) and assessment for common method

bias and nonresponse bias, we compare five different measurement models using confirmatory

factor analysis. We find that our proposed model with second-order MC construct having

model fit indices of χ2/df = 4.59 (≤5), CFI = .98 (≥.90), TLI = .97 (≥.90), and RMSEA = .04

(≤.08) is the only model that meets the corresponding thresholds (see brackets; Gaskin and

Lim, 2016; Hu and Bentler, 1999). This structure includes three factors as shown in table 2 and

possesses reliability (α = .83) and convergent validity. Web appendix C includes further details

about the sampling method, data collection, sample validation, preliminary data examination

(including assessments of common method bias and nonresponse bias), evaluation of five

competing factor structures, and assessments of reliability and convergent validity.

Nomological and discriminant validity assessment To assess the nomological and

discriminant validity of the MC scale, we examine whether MC is distinct from other

constructs associated with mindfulness (Nenkov et al., 2008). We explore the relationships of

the MC scale with mindfulness and other constructs on which mindfulness has been

previously examined as having an influence. We assess these using existing valid and reliable

scales for mindfulness (Brown and Ryan, 2003), self-esteem (Rosenberg, 1965), materialism

(Richins, 2004), compulsive buying (Faber and O’Guinn, 1992), life satisfaction (Diener et

al., 1985), positive affect (Watson et al., 1988), and negative affect (Watson et al., 1988).

Table 3 describes these constructs and their predicted (and examined) relationship with the

MC scale. All predicted correlations come out to be significant and in the expected direction.
 Page 22 of 52

Table 3. Related constructs and their relationship with MC

Predicted Scale
Scale
Construct Description relation characterist Results
source
with MC ics
Mindfulness Mindfulness arises through paying attention, on purpose, in the present Positive Brown & M = 4.20 ɸ, r = .30,
moment, non-judgmentally (Kabat-Zinn, 2001). It also signifies self- correlation Ryan, SD = 1.09, p<.01
regulation of attention, which includes sustained attention, attention 2003 α = .89
switching, and inhibition of secondary elaborative processing (Bishop et al.,
2004). Mindfulness leads to MC by reducing our vulnerability to subtle
coercion, automaticity, and the need for fulfillment (De Wet, 2008;
Rosenberg, 2004).

Self-esteem Rosenberg (1965) suggests that self-esteem refers to a person’s sense of Positive Rosenberg, M = 4.80 ɸ, r = .37,
worth. Self-esteem also reflects an individual’s sense of competence in correlation 1965 SD = .95, p<.01
dealing with life’s challenges (Randal et al., 2015). Mindfulness reduces the α = .79
tendency to be judgmental and self-critical, which in turn may help to
increase self-esteem. Mindfulness also helps us to develop acceptance of
ourselves and is less driven by the consumer’s urge to be “somebody” else
(De Wet, 2008; Randal et al., 2015).

Materialism Materialism is a central motivating force to maintain a state of mental Negative Richins, M = 4.12 ɸ, r = −.15,
preparedness toward material goods. It represents a belief that possessions correlation 2004 SD = 1.06, p<.01
will bring happiness (Belk and Miller, 2001; Richins, 2004). Mindfulness is α = .82
negatively associated with materialism. Mindful consumption increases
connectedness with other people and the planet and remedies the sense of
emptiness that supports materialism (Armstrong, 2012; Gupta, 2019).
 Page 23 of 52

Predicted Scale
Scale
Construct Description relation characterist Results
source
with MC ics
Compulsive Compulsive buyers are unable to control repetitive buying to achieve Negative Ridgway M = 3.67 ɸ, r = −.28,
buying gratification through the buying process itself rather than from the correlation et al., SD = 1.45, p<.01
purchased product or service (Faber & O’Guinn, 1992). Mindfulness helps 2008 α = .87
in gaining control over senses, and mindful consumption enhances the
appreciation of daily experiences and makes consumers less vulnerable to
the purchase-related false sense of fulfillment (Armstrong, 2012; Gupta,
2019).

Satisfaction Life satisfaction reflects an individual’s evaluation of his or her life (Diener et Positive Diener et M = 4.60 ɸ, r = .17,
with life al., 1985). Mindfulness and pro-environmental behaviors increase life correlation al., 1985 SD = 1.12, p<.01
satisfaction (Haverkamp et al., 2022; Liang et al., 2022). α = .79

Positive Positive affect is a state of high energy, full concentration, and pleasurable Positive Watson et M = 2.86 ʊ, r = .20,
affect engagement (Watson et al., 1988). Mindfulness and eating healthy foods are correlation al., 1988 SD = .90, p<.01
related to positive affect (Carleton et al., 2018; Warner et al., 2017). α = .93

Negative Negative affect is a state of subjective distress and unpleasant engagement and Negative Watson et M = 2.06 ʊ, r = −.27,
affect is not simply the opposite of happiness (Holder, 2019; Watson et al., 1988). correlation al., 1988 SD = .83, p<.01
Mindfulness, as well as pro-environmental behaviors, is found to reduce α = .91
negative affect (Martin et al., 2019; Victorson et al., 2020).
ɸ
Notes. This is on a seven-point scale. ʊ This is on a five-point scale
 Page 24 of 52

Since all these correlations are significantly different from unity, we conclude that the MC

scale is nomologically linked to these constructs, and yet it possesses strong discriminant

validity (Nenkov et al., 2008). [We thank the editor for this suggestion.]

We further determine discriminant validity using three methods of comparing the

square of average variance extracted with factor correlations, inter-factor correlations, and

heterotrait–monotrait values (details in web appendix C).

Table 4. Demographic stability and consistency of MC scale - factorial invariance (FI)

Segmentation basis
FI level 0 FI level 1 FI level 2 FI level 3
(Segments)
Cmin/df = 3.521,
CFI = .969, CFI = .966, CFI = .961,
Gender (Male/female) CFI=.971, TLI=.951,
∆ CFI = .004 ∆ CFI = .003 ∆ CFI = .005
RMSEA = .037

Cmin/df = 1.923,
Age group (18–24, 25– CFI = .967, CFI = .964, CFI = .963,
CFI=.968, TLI=.965,
34, 35–50, over 50) ∆ CFI = .001 ∆ CFI = .003 ∆ CFI = .001
RMSEA = .022

Occupation (student, Cmin/df = 2.291,

CFI = .954, CFI = .953, CFI = .949,
employee, self- CFI=.955, TLI=.950,
∆ CFI = .001 ∆ CFI = .001 ∆ CFI = .004
employed, homemaker) RMSEA = .026

Annual income in USD

(less than 7k, 7k–14k, Cmin/df = 1.524,
CFI = .929, CFI = .929, CFI = .922,
14k–21k, 21k–28k, 28k– CFI=.928, TLI=.932,
∆ CFI = -.001 ∆ CFI < .001 ∆ CFI = .007
35k, 35k–42k, 42k–49k, RMSEA = .027
and over 49k)
Annual Income Cmin/df = 3.027, CFI = .974, CFI = .973, CFI = .974,
(disclosed/not disclosed) CFI=.977, TLI=.961, ∆ CFI = .003 ∆ CFI = .001 ∆ CFI = .001
RMSEA = .033
Notes. FI: Factorial Invariance. FI level 0: Configural invariance. FI level 1: Construct level metric invariance.
FI level 2: Equivalence of construct variances and covariances. FI level 3: Equivalence of measurement
residuals. FI Level 0 is evaluated for overall model fit indices (thresholds) of Cmin/df (≤ 5), CFI (≥ .90), TLI (≥
.90), RMSEA (≤ .08). FI levels 1, 2, and 3 are considered invariant if the change in CFI ≤ .01 compared with
levels 0, 1, and 2, respectively.

Demographic stability and consistency of MC Scale (factorial invariance to assess scale

robustness) We conduct factorial invariance (levels 0–3) to assess the stability and

consistency of the MC scale across consumers of different genders, age groups, occupations,

and income levels (details in web appendix C). Table 4 shows that consumers of all groups

associate the same sub-sets of MC scale items with the same sub-constructs (level 0). The
 Page 25 of 52

relationships among ACT are the same across consumer groups (level 1). Furthermore, the

MC scale has a similar range of construct diversity (level 2). Finally, the internal consistency

is the same for all consumer groups (level 3). Overall, this analysis establishes that the

second-order MC scale with three dimensions of ACT remains stable and consistent across

consumers belonging to different genders, age groups, occupations, and income levels.

Validating the MC scale with actual behavior: Studies 5a, 5b, and 5c

Studies 5a and 5b help to determine three of the least mindfully bought products (mobile

phones, clothing, and cosmetics), and Study 5c validates the MC scale with actual consumer

behavior for these three products.

Studies 5a and 5b (finding three least mindfully bought products) Study 5a uses

projective techniques to ask college students (n = 63, female = 54%) to list two products that

are not bought mindfully in 22 different circumstances (identified from literature, see web

appendix C). Out of 715 unique responses, the 10 least mindfully bought products (in

ascending order of mindful buying) are mobile phones, clothing, cosmetics, shoes, cars, food

items, watches, bicycles, jewelry, and chocolates. Recent consumer behavior studies have

found consistent results across college students and general consumers (Samaraweera et al.,

2021). Therefore, we approach general consumers (n = 276, female = 57%) in study 5b to

rank these 10 products (identified in Study 5a) in the ascending order of mindfulness used to

buy these. We combine 22 circumstances of Study 5a into nine ways for ease of ranking in

Study 5b (see web appendix C). The respondents in Study 5b could also include new

products. Out of 2,484 rank responses (276 respondents X nine ways), we identify mobile

phones, clothing, and cosmetics as the three least mindfully bought products across all

categories. The top reasons for buying mobile phones, clothing, and cosmetics are “novelty or

innovativeness even if current one is working well,” “good sales discount,” and “due to
 Page 26 of 52

habit,” respectively, which indicate behavior that may not be considered mindful (Sheth et

al., 2011).

Study 5c (MC scale validation with actual buying behavior) We conduct Study 5c using

the sampling process followed in Study 4 (see web appendix C for details on the data

collection and preliminary analysis). In line with the need for the MC index (Sheth et al.,

2011), we calculate it by taking the average of all scale items (n = 2352). Table 5 shows that

the MC index negatively correlates with the buying of mobile phones (−.67, p<.001), clothing

(−.68, p<.001), and cosmetics (−.67, p<.001). Furthermore, the regression analyses confirms

that the MC index negatively impacts the buying of mobile phones (β = −.67, p<.001),

clothing (β = −.68, p<.001), and cosmetics (β = −67, p<.001). The effect sizes (Cohen’s f2) of

all of these are also large, according to Cohen’s (1988) guidelines (small = .02, medium =

.15, large = .35 and above).

Table 5. MC predicting the purchasing of mobile phones, clothing, and cosmetics

Outcomes Predictor r R2 F Cohen’s f2 B SE B β
Mobile phone −.67** .45 2104.16** .80
purchasing
MC −1.04 .03 −.67
Clothing −.68** .46 1828.78** .84
purchasing
MC −1.24 .03 −.68
Cosmetics −.68** .46 1030.33** .85
purchasing
MC −1.16 .04 −.68
2
Note: N = 2352, ** p<.001, r = correlation with MC index, R = explanatory power, F =

model fit, Cohen’s f2 = effect size, B = unstandardized regression coefficient, SE B =

standard error of unstandardized regression coefficient, β = standardized regression

coefficient

The results in Table 5 show a negative association of the MC index with buying

mobile phones (durable product), clothing (semi-durable product), and cosmetics (non-
 Page 27 of 52

durable product). The consistently high impact of the MC index shows that it is not only

applicable across product categories but also generates a prominent effect across these

categories. We also assess the impact of each of the three MC dimensions on the purchases of

mobile phones, clothing, and cosmetics sequentially (see web appendix C for details). The

results indicate that the caring, temperance, and awareness dimensions of MC impact the

buying of each product in descending order, albeit to varying extents.

Overall, Studies 5a, 5b, and 5c ascertain that the combined MC index, as well as each

dimension of the MC scale, negatively impact the buying of mobile phones, clothing, and

cosmetics, which are the three least mindfully bought products that belong to the three

categories of durable, semi-durable, and non-durable products, respectively.

Discussion

Focus on rising MC is apparent due to three reasons. First, the psychology-driven

mindfulness movement in which not only academic institutions but corporates and

policymakers also participate actively and beneficially (Gerszberg, 2023; Islam et al., 2022;

Zhang et al., 2021). Second, mindfulness has multiple links with sustainability (see

Thiermann and Sheate, 2021), which is becoming important globally as evident by the

Sustainable Development Goals and the Paris Agreement (UN, n.d.; UNFCCC, n.d.). Third,

academicians are increasingly encouraging companies to focus on stakeholders beyond

investors (that is consumers, suppliers, community, and environment) and these calls

emphasize the importance of conscious capitalism (see Sisodia et al., 2003; Thompson and

Kumar, 2022) and mindful consumers (Milne et al., 2020; Parvatiyar and Sheth, 2023).

Despite this widespread rising focus on MC, rapid embrace of MC by consumers

(Kotler, 2021), and fast growth of MC-oriented technology-driven companies (Aronson,

2021), many traditional marketers are yet to use MC. We identified two reasons for this
 Page 28 of 52

dichotomy—fragmented conceptions of MC in existing literature, and lack of a valid and

reliable scale to measure MC. This research integrates the existing literature to identify three

dimensions of MC and undertakes ten studies to develop, refine, and validate the MC scale.

This scale is stable across consumers of different genders, age groups, occupations, and

income levels. We now discuss theoretical, managerial, and policy implications of this

research.

Theoretical implications

MC consists of awareness, caring, and temperance This research responds to persistent

calls for clear conceptualization of MC (Fischer et al., 2017; Kumar et al., 2023). Awareness,

caring, and temperance are the three interrelated but distinct dimensions of MC. This

conceptualization is significant since existing empirical studies focus on temperance only

(see third research direction in web appendix A). Each of the three dimensions of MC

influences mindful purchases. For examples, studies on front-of-package interpretive labels

show rising consumer awareness of buying healthy brands, even if unhealthy brands use

similar packaging (Ikonen et al., 2019). Consumers are also careful to assess product

information intently before buying beneficial brands and rejecting others (Zou and Liu,

2019). Similarly, manipulations of click bait and zero pricing fail to reduce consumer

temperance and sometimes even cause the boomerang effect (Fan et al., 2022; Mukherjee et

al., 2022).

MC scale is reliable, valid, and robust This research develops the first psychometrically

valid and robust scale for MC. This scale shows high reliability, content validity, criterion

validity, and construct validity for the second-order construct of MC. This demonstrates that

the three dimensions of awareness, caring, and temperance sufficiently represent the MC

construct. The stability of MC factor structure across diverse consumer segments shows that

these segments understand the overall scale, its three elements, and all item statements in the
 Page 29 of 52

same way. In this way, this research responds to the recent call for investigating MC in

consumers belonging to a wide demographic range (Milne et al., 2020). This research

contributes to extending MC research both conceptually and empirically as this reliable,

valid, and robust scale may be used for further academic and managerial studies.

Nomological network of MC We establish the nomological relationships of MC with

related constructs (associations given in brackets), such as mindfulness (positive),

materialism (negative), compulsive buying (negative), self-esteem (positive), satisfaction

with life (positive), positive affect (positive), and negative affect (negative). Our analysis

confirms the theoretical predictions for these nomological relationships (Armstrong, 2012;

Carleton et al., 2018; Gupta, 2019; Liang et al., 2022; Rosenberg, 2004; Victorson et al.,

2020). This clarity about the nomological network4 is important for understanding mindful

consumers and is necessary to advance the research in this growing area.

MC is good from self-focused perspective also. Mindful consumers show empathy towards

others and show higher levels of trust and behavioral loyalty toward providers of superior

value (Fischer et al., 2017; Ndubisi, 2014). These mindful behaviors do not indicate that MC

is good only from the other-focused perspective. Our synthesis of literature also shows that

MC is very beneficial from the self-focused perspective also5 as mindful consumers buy after

considering the impact of buying on self also (Bahl et al., 2016; Sheth et al., 2011). For

example, when credit cardholders are not mindful of the implications of their repeated

automatic minimum payouts, their credit card debt grows quickly. But when these consumers

mindfully enroll in (sufficiently high) automatic fixed payments, their credit card debt

amortizes faster (see Adams et al., 2022 for details).

4
We acknowledge the editor and anonymous reviewer for this suggestion.
5
We acknowledge the other anonymous reviewer for emphasizing on this.
 Page 30 of 52

Managerial Implications

Mindful consumers develop multiple perspectives (Rosenberg, 2004) and accept new

technology that brings mindful consumers to mindful retailers, such as GoPuff, which is now

valued at $15 billion6. The Philadelphia-based GoPuff integrates MC into its business model

and helps consumers in over 1,000 cities across the U.S. and Europe to only buy the product

they need, when and however little they need it (Fromm, 2019). This shows that with

technological advances, retailers need to swiftly understand changing consumer behavior

towards MC (Kotler, 2021; Parvatiyar and Sheth, 2023) and adapt their strategies to create,

communicate, and deliver value to their customers (Grewal et al., 2020).

We suggest technology-driven marketers to use MC and MC scale for leveraging the

expanding segment of mindful consumers in different product categories (Caddy, 2023;

Gilsogamo, 2023; Kotler, 2021). Marketers can leverage MC in product innovation,

differentiation, and diversification. Heeding to long due calls by CMO and Forbes for

integrating mindfulness in marketing strategies (Clark, 2014; Mitchell, 2019), this transition

to mindful marketing is expected to improve marketing resource utilization (Sheth et al.,

2011). We now discuss how such marketers can use MC and this scale for product

innovation, differentiation, and diversification.

Product innovation Marketers can incorporate MC in their product innovation in three ways

– recycle, reuse, and reduce. Marketers like Patagonia and Eileen Fischer encourage

recycling and reusing by encouraging consumers to give back used products that they can

recycle or reuse as second-hand clothing in certain markets. Similarly, marketers can reduce

harmful products like genetically modified foods (Lee-Ammons, 2019). Transitioning to

organic farming can help in avoiding the issue of disposal of agricultural chemicals.

6
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/05/17/gopuff-disruptor-50.html
 Page 31 of 52

Marketers can use this robust MC scale to identify mindful consumers, understand their

needs, and design sustainable products to target them appropriately.

Differentiation We suggest marketers use MC for differentiation in multiple ways.

Marketers like Trader Joe’s have used organically grown products in their labelling and are

using MC to their advantage with the growing consumer mindfulness. Other mindful retailers

like Patagonia use MC in their positioning by emphasizing reselling, repairing, and donating

their products. Some other retailers like REI Co-Op also promote practices like sharing and

renting their products (Gritters, 2019). Using the MC scale, these mindful retailers can

identify mindful consumers more easily and target their mindful marketing communications

toward such consumers (Jain and Gupta, 2018). This will help to strengthen their positioning,

reduce their communication budgets, and improve their marketing effectiveness (Sheth et al.,

2011).

Similarly, Levi’s recently launched the “Buy better, wear longer” campaign, which

focuses on mindfulness in consumption (Segran, 2021). This campaign emphasizes on

differentiated offering of long-lasting jeans that reduces purchase frequency and encourages

MC. Such traditional marketers, who want to target mindful consumers with their long-

lasting products can also benefit through identifying mindful consumers through the MC

scale and then launch smaller campaigns targeting such consumers using relevant channels.

This refining of communications with the MC scale can make such efforts of mindful

marketing more effective. This is also applicable to several other retailers who try to invoke

mindfulness in all consumers through their widespread anti-Black-Friday campaigns (see

Kadioglu and Ozturk 2022 for details).

Diversifying Marketers can also diversify by developing new products for this growing

segment of mindful consumers. Our research indicates that mindful consumers care for SSE
 Page 32 of 52

and therefore embrace products that benefit consumers, the community, and nature. This

increasing MC is apparent in the growing quest for sustainability-focused products (BCG,

2021). Since mindful consumers evaluate products from multiple perspectives, products with

just a mask of sustainability may not succeed in persuading mindful consumers. Marketers

can develop truly sustainability-focused products, such as edible cutlery and soapnut-based

natural shampoos and detergents for mindful consumers. Such diversification can help in

protecting the interests of individual consumers, community, and nature.

Policy implications for sustainability

MC is a customer-centric approach to sustainability (Sheth et al., 2011). This is a major yet

gradual social change from the current practice of overconsumption. This steady shift from

overconsumption can take decades, as with the example of phasing out chlorofluorocarbons

(Stadelmann-Steffen et al., 2021). Similarly, this social change requires policy interventions

with structural support and ongoing controls (Sheth and Frazier, 1982). These help regulators

to create a choice architecture (Thaler et al., 2013) that potentially nudges people towards

MC-oriented sustainable behavior.

This customer-centric approach to sustainability requires collaborative efforts of

different regulators across the federal level (like the Environmental Protection Agency [EPA]

and the Federal Trade Commission [FTC]), state level (like Departments of Health and

Departments of Natural Resources), and local level (like Departments of Solid Waste and

Zoning). When extended globally, such regulatory collaboration provides effective policy

interventions. Some of these are visible. For example, regulators across the globe are

gradually providing structural support and ongoing controls for switching to electric vehicles

by creating the necessary charging infrastructure and different subsidies to consumers and

marketers. There are three policy implications of MC in terms of increasing awareness about
 Page 33 of 52

MC, providing incentives/disincentives, and imposing mandatory de-consumption, where

required.

Increase awareness about MC To achieve sustainability through MC, regulators like the

EPA, State Departments of Health, and local Departments of Zoning can collaborate to

increase awareness. For example, they can provide structural support in the form of

“exchange-cum-donation centers” in different localities, where consumers can exchange

and/or donate their used products separately in categories of durable (mobile phones,

furniture, etc.), semi-durable (clothing, footwear, etc.), and non-durable (cosmetics, food

items, etc.) products. Similarly, they make people more aware about single-use plastics and

food wastage. Non-profit organizations can also contribute to such efforts. For example,

many academic institutions like Emory University (USA) and Cardiff Metropolitan

University (UK) have phased out plastic bottles from their campuses and encourage

employees and students to carry their water bottles to refill at several points across their

campuses.

Provide incentives and/or disincentives Regulators can consider giving tax incentives to

mindful marketers that offer sustainability-focused products and/or promote MC activities,

such as recycling, renting, sharing, and reusing. Regulators like the FTC and EPA can

collaborate to develop ongoing controls, such as point-based systems for consumers, like the

credit scoring system of the FTC. This system can award positive points for MC-oriented

behaviors like carpooling, buying biodegradable soaps/detergents, and donating used

clothing.

Similarly, the system can issue negative points for overconsumption-oriented

behaviors, such as purchasing two cars by one person, buying food that wastes a lot of carbon

during processing, and buying clothing very frequently in a month. The system can allow
 Page 34 of 52

consumers to use positive points for buying/renting/sharing a product later or donating to a

social/environmental cause. Conversely, too many negative points can make future purchases

more expensive, such as costlier credit, reduction in credit limit, or lower discounts. For

initial success, regulators can use the MC scale to identify initial locations (having

substantially mindful consumers) for rolling out such a system. On successful

implementation, other federal agencies like the Department of Energy and Department of

Transportation can also participate.

Mandatory de-consumption Regulators can take cognizance of MC and require mandatory

de-consumption like bans on chlorofluorocarbon usage (in the last century) and public

consumption of smoking and alcohol (in this century). These bans take time to show their

utility but are effective in long term. For example, companies do not use chlorofluorocarbons

in consumer refrigerators now and smoking has reduced steadily in 20 years from 35% to

12% in US adults aged 18-29 years (Armstrong, 2022). Similarly, binge-usage of alcohol has

reduced in 20 years from 50.2% to 27.8% in US males (Elflein, 2023). De-consumption

regulations by policymakers can be helpful not only to reduce overconsumption across

product categories but also can encourage new market development by marketers to increase

their revenues instead of pushing up consumption by same customers (Sheth, 2011).

Limitations and future research directions

We take several steps to overcome limitations of scale development, especially those related

to measurement and survey unit representation (Hulland et al., 2018; Morgado et al., 2018),

as discussed in web appendix C. There still remain certain limitations of this research that

future studies can improve upon. First, the use of self-reported cross-section data to establish

causality is limited by selection bias and temporal bias. Though we use multiple methods and

times for collecting heterogenous samples, the causality can still be improved by conducting
 Page 35 of 52

experiments. Future experimental studies can use the reliable, valid, and robust MC scale to

strengthen causality.

Second, the MC scale needs to be revalidated or updated before application across

different socio-cultural contexts. As evident by the World Values Survey (Inglehart et al.,

2022), world cultures can be mapped across two dimensions of traditional (vs. secular) values

and survival (vs. self-expression) values. This cultural diversity shows that capturing all

world values may not be feasible in a single MC scale. Countries like Sweden, the U.K., the

U.S., Argentina, and India remain on the same line (at about the same distance) in decreasing

order of both values in the World Values Survey. This indicates that a MC scale developed in

India may need revalidation for application in the U.S. and may need to be thoroughly

revised before application in Sweden. Future researchers can revalidate the MC scale across

different cultures and can develop multiple MC scales that are applicable in different world

cultures. Future studies can also evaluate cross-cultural differences in MC. Within this

context, researchers can also explore the roles of resource constraints and culture-anchored

habits.

Third, we could not focus on antecedents and consequences of MC due to ambiguous

conceptions of MC in existing literature and our limited scope. Though we showed

nomological relationships of MC with related marketing constructs, future research can focus

on establishing antecedents and consequences of MC after considering more constructs

(Gupta et al., 2023). Future research can also explore relationships of MC with related

constructs (one indicative scale given in brackets for each) like voluntary simplicity (Rich et

al., 2020), sustainable consumption (Balderjahn et al., 2013), collaborative consumption (Dall

Pizzol et al., 2017), frugality (Lastovicka et al., 1999), anti-consumption (Iyer and Muncy,

2009), and sharing (Ozanne and Ballantine, 2010), amongst others.

 Page 36 of 52

Further, future studies can explore the impact of changing socio-cultural attributes

(e.g., aging populations, increasing dual-income households, or consumer life stages) on MC

to widen the current focus from gender, age group, occupation, and family income. Further

research can also focus on socio-cultural attributes that may moderate nomological

relationships of MC with related constructs. Finally, future research can also extend our last

study by evaluating if and how manifestation of MC differs between products and services or

across different product categories. Researchers can also use MC scale to assess the

theoretical relationships of mindfulness with sustainability and sustainable development goals

to advance this growing research (Fischer et al., 2017; Frank et al., 2020; Parvatiyar and

Sheth, 2023).

Conflicts of Interest The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
 Page 37 of 52

References

Adams, P., Guttman‐Kenney, B., Hayes, L., Hunt, S., Laibson, D., & Stewart, N. (2022). Do nudges

reduce borrowing and consumer confusion in the credit card market? Economica, 89, 178–

199.

Aktan, D., & Kaplan, M. D. (2015). Mindful consumption and communicating with Gen Y. In 20th

International Conference on Corporate and Marketing Communications.

Aktan, D., & Kaplan, M. D. (2018). Mindful consumption and generation Y: Comprehension,

conceptualization and communication. 2018 Macromarketing Conference Proceedings, pp.

15–35.

Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1991). Predicting the performance of measures in a confirmatory

factor analysis with a pretest assessment of their substantive validities. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 76(5), 732.

Angus, A., & Westbrook, G. (2019). Top 10 global consumer trends. Euromonitor International.

Armstrong, A. (2012). Mindfulness and consumerism: A social psychological investigation [Doctoral

dissertation, University of Surrey, Surrey].

Armstrong, M. (November 29, 2022). Smoking Isn't Fire. Statista. Retrieved March 26, 2023, from

https://www-statista-com.ezproxy.cardiffmet.ac.uk/chart/28835/smoking-rates-united-states-

adults/

Aronson, G. (2021). Do I need this? Necessity will be the strongest consumer force of 2022. Nielsen

IQ. Available at: https://nielseniq.com/global/en/insights/commentary/2021/necessity-will-be-

the-strongest-consumer-driving-force-of-2022/

Assadourian, E. (2009). The living earth ethical principles: Just livelihood and mindful

consumption. World Watch, Jan/Feb, 30–31.

 Page 38 of 52

Badiner, A. H. (2002) Mindfulness in the Marketplace: Compassionate Responses to Consumerism.

Berkeley: Parallax Press

Bahl, S., Milne, G. R., Ross, S. M., & Chan, K. (2013). Mindfulness: A long-term solution for

mindless eating by college students. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 32(2), 173–184.

Bahl, S., Milne, G. R., Ross, S. M., Mick, D. G., Grier, S. A., Chugani, S. K., Chan, S. S., Gould, S.,

Cho, Y., Dorsey, J. D., Schindler, R. M., Mordock, M. R., & Boesen-Mariani, S. (2016).

Mindfulness: Its transformative potential for consumer, societal, and environmental well-

being. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 35(2), 198–210.

Balderjahn, I., Buerke, A., Kirchgeorg, M., Peyer, M., Seegebarth, B., & Wiedmann, K. P. (2013).

Consciousness for sustainable consumption: scale development and new insights in the

economic dimension of consumers’ sustainability. AMS review, 3, 181-192.

Basiouka, S., & Potsiou, C. (2014). The volunteered geographic information in cadastre:

Perspectives and citizens’ motivations over potential participation in

mapping. GeoJournal, 79(3), 343–355.

BCG. (2021, October). How COVID-19 changed the consumer. BCG Executive Perspectives.

Available at https://media-publications.bcg.com/BCG-Executive-Perspectives-How-Covid-

Changed-the-Consumer.pdf.

Belk, R. W., & Miller, D. (2001). Materialism and the making of the modern American Christmas.

Consumption: Critical Concepts in the Social Sciences, 319-44.

Bentler, P. M., & Chou, C. P. (1987). Practical issues in structural modeling. Sociological Methods

& Research, 16(1), 78–117.

 Page 39 of 52

Bishop S.R., Lau M., Shapiro S., Carlson L., Anderson N.D., Carmody J. Segal Z.V., Abbey S.,

Speca M., Velting D. & Devins G. (2004). Mindfulness: A Proposed Operational Definition.

Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice.11(3): 230-241.

Bressi, S. K., & Vaden, E. R. (2017). Reconsidering self care. Clinical Social Work Journal, 45(1),

33–38.

Brown, K.W., & Ryan, R.M. (2003). The benefits of being present: Mindfulness and its role in

psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(4), 822–848.

Brunneder, J., & Dholakia, U. (2018). The self-creation effect: Making a product supports its

mindful consumption and the consumer’s well-being. Marketing Letters, 29(3), 377–389.

Caddy, T. (2023, Jan). 2023 Eating Out Review - UK – 2023. Mintel. Retrieved from

https://reports.mintel.com/display/1154783/.

Carleton, E. L., Barling, J., & Trivisonno, M. (2018). Leaders’ trait mindfulness and transformational

leadership: The mediating roles of leaders’ positive affect and leadership self-efficacy.

Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue canadienne des sciences du comportement,

50(3), 185.

Chen, X., Chen, Y., & Xiao, P. (2013). The impact of sampling and network topology on the

estimation of social intercorrelations. Journal of Marketing Research, 50(1), 95–110.

Churchill Jr., G. A. (1979). A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing

constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 16(1), 64–73.

Clark, D. (2014). Why mindfulness is the next revolution in marketing. Forbes. Retrieved from

https://www.forbes.com/sites/dorieclark/2014/09/24/why-mindfulness-is-the-next-revolution-

in-marketing/
 Page 40 of 52

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates.

Dagger, T. S., Sweeney, J. C., & Johnson, L. W. (2007). A hierarchical model of health service

quality: Scale development and investigation of an integrated model. Journal of Service

Research, 10(2), 123–142.

Dall Pizzol, H., Ordovás de Almeida, S., & do Couto Soares, M. (2017). Collaborative consumption:

a proposed scale for measuring the construct applied to a carsharing setting. Sustainability,

9(5), 703.

De Wet, M. J. (2008). An exploration of modern consumer society and a guide towards mindful

consuming. [Dissertation, University of Hartford].

Dhandra, T. K. (2019). Achieving triple dividend through mindfulness: More sustainable

consumption, less unsustainable consumption and more life satisfaction. Ecological

Economics, 161, 83–90.

Diener, E. D., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale.

Journal of Personality Assessment, 49(1), 71–75.

Dutt, S., Keyte, R., Egan, H., Hussain, M., & Mantzios, M. (2019). Healthy and unhealthy eating

amongst stressed students: Considering the influence of mindfulness on eating choices and

consumption. Health Psychology Report, 7(2), 113–120.

Elflein, J.. (January 4, 2023). Binge alcohol use in the past month among persons aged 18-25 years in

the U.S. from 2002 to 2021, by gender [Graph]. Statista. Retrieved March 26, 2023, from

https://www-statista-com.ezproxy.cardiffmet.ac.uk/statistics/354280/binge-alcohol-use-in-

adults-18-to-25-in-the-us-by-gender/?locale=en
 Page 41 of 52

Emerich. M.M. (2011). The Gospel of Sustainability: Media, Market, and LOHAS. Baltimore:

University of Illinois Press.

Faber, R. J., & O’Guinn, T. C. (1992). A clinical screener for compulsive buying. Journal of

Consumer Research, 19(3), 459–469.

Fan, X., Cai, F. C., & Bodenhausen, G. V. (2022). The boomerang effect of zero pricing: When and

why a zero price is less effective than a low price for enhancing consumer demand. Journal

of the Academy of Marketing Science, 50(3), 521–537.

Fischer, D., Stanszus, L., Geiger, S., Grossman, P., & Schrader, U. (2017). Mindfulness and

sustainable consumption: A systematic literature review of research approaches and findings.

Journal of Cleaner Production, 162, 544–558.

Fornell, C., Johnson, M. D., Anderson, E. W., Cha, J., & Bryant, B. E. (1996). The American

customer satisfaction index: nature, purpose, and findings. Journal of marketing, 60(4), 7-18.

Frank, P., Fischer, D., & Wamsler, C. (2020). Mindfulness, education, and the sustainable

development goals. Quality Education. In: Leal Filho, W., Azul, A.M., Brandli, L., Özuyar,

P.G., Wall, T. (eds) Quality Education. Encyclopedia of the UN Sustainable Development

Goals (pp. 545-555). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95870-5_105

Fromm, J. (2019). Marketing convenience to the modern consumer. Forbes. Retrieved from

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jefffromm/2019/01/04/marketing-convenience-to-the-modern-

consumer/?sh=5c665eb5127f

Gaskin, J., & Lim, J. (2016). Model fit measures. Gaskination’s StatWiki.

Gentile, D. A., Sweet, D. M., & He, L. (2020). Caring for others cares for the self: An experimental

test of brief downward social comparison, loving-kindness, and interconnectedness

contemplations. Journal of Happiness Studies, 21(3), 765–778.

 Page 42 of 52

Gerszberg, C.O. (2023). How UK Politicians Are Learning to Disagree—More Agreeably. Mindful.

Retrieved from https://www.mindful.org/how-uk-politicians-are-learning-to-disagree-more-

agreeably/

Ghorbanian Gazafroudi, M. S., Kheiri, B., Esmailpour, H., & Aligholi, M. (2019). Identifying the

dimensions of mindful mindset as one of the facets of mindful consumption. Journal of

Business Management, 11(4), 965–991.

Gilsogamo, A.P. (2023, January). 2023 Food and Drink Trends – LATAM [Industry Report]. Mintel.

Retrieved from https://clients.mintel.com/content/report/2023-food-drink-trends-latam.

Grewal, D., Hulland, J., Kopalle, P. K., & Karahanna, E. (2020). The future of technology and

marketing: A multidisciplinary perspective. Journal of the Academy of Marketing

Science, 48(1), 1–8.

Gritters, J. (2019, October 21). How to build a life based on intentional, mindful consumption.

Uncommon Path. Retrieved from https://www.rei.com/blog/news/mindless-consumption

Gupta, S. (2019). Mindful consumption: Antecedents, consequences and marketing implications.

Delhi, India: University of Delhi.

Gupta, S., & Verma, H. V. (2019). Mindful consumption behaviour: Scale development and

validation. Asian Journal of Multidimensional Research (AJMR), 8(5), 271–278.

Gupta, S., & Verma, H. V. (2020). Mindfulness, mindful consumption, and life satisfaction. Journal

of Applied Research in Higher Education, 12(3), 456–474.

Gupta, S., Lim, W. M., Verma, H. V., & Polonsky, M. (2023). How can we encourage mindful

consumption? Insights from mindfulness and religious faith. Journal of Consumer Marketing,

40(3), 344-358.
 Page 43 of 52

Haenlein, M., Bitner, M. J., Kohli, A. K., Lemon, K. N., & Reibstein, D. J. (2021). Guest editorial:

Responsible research in marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 1-5.

Hagenbuch, D. (2022, Dec). Ensuring ethical advertising. Mindful Marketing. Retrieved from

https://www.mindfulmarketing.org/mindful-matters-blog.

Haider, M., Shannon, R., & Moschis, G. P. (2022). Sustainable consumption research and the role of

marketing: A review of the literature (1976–2021). Sustainability, 14(7), 3999.

Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2017). Multivariate data analysis, 8th ed.

Noida, India: Dorling Kindersley India Pvt. Ltd.

Haverkamp, T. K., Welsch, H., & Ziegler, A. (2022). The relationship between pro-environmental

behavior, economic preferences, and life satisfaction: Empirical evidence from Germany

(No. 04-2022). MAGKS Joint Discussion Paper Series in Economics.

Holder, M. D. (2019). The contribution of food consumption to well-being. Annals of Nutrition and

Metabolism, 74(2), 44–52.

Howard, M. C. (2016). A review of exploratory factor analysis decisions and overview of current

practices: What we are doing and how can we improve? International Journal of Human-

Computer Interaction, 32(1), 51–62.

Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:

Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A

Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55.

Hulland, J., Baumgartner, H., & Smith, K. M. (2018). Marketing survey research best practices:

Evidence and recommendations from a review of JAMS articles. Journal of the Academy of

Marketing Science, 46(1), 92–108.

 Page 44 of 52

Hunting, A., & Conroy, D. (2018). Spirituality, stewardship and consumption: New ways of living in

a material world. Social Responsibility Journal. https://doi.org/10.1108/SRJ-06-2016-0097

Ikonen, I., Sotgiu, F., Aydinli, A., & Verlegh, P. W. (2019). Consumer effects of front-of-package

nutrition labeling: An interdisciplinary meta-analysis. Journal of the Academy of Marketing

Science, 1–24.

Inglehart, R., Haerpfer, C., Moreno, A., Welzel, C., Kizilova, K., Diez-Medrano J., M. Lagos, P.,

Norris, P., Ponarin, E., & Puranen, B. (Eds.). (2022). World Values Survey: All Rounds –

Country-Pooled Datafile Version 4.0. Madrid, Spain & Vienna, Austria: JD Systems Institute

& WVSA Secretariat. doi:10.14281/18241.22.

Islam, G., Holm, M., & Karjalainen, M. (2022). Sign of the times: Workplace mindfulness as an

empty signifier. Organization, 29(1), 3-29.

Iyer, R., & Muncy, J. A. (2009). Purpose and object of anti-consumption. Journal of business

research, 62(2), 160-168.

Jain, A., & Gupta, S. (2018). Impact of mindfulness on social media promotions for FMCG

products—An exploratory study. International Journal of Creative Research Thoughts, 6(2),

578–584.

Jarvis, C. B., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, P. M. (2003). A critical review of construct indicators

and measurement model misspecification in marketing and consumer research. Journal of

Consumer Research, 30(2), 199–218.

Jax, K., Calestani, M., Chan, K. M., Eser, U., Keune, H., Muraca, B., O’Brien, L., Potthast, T.,

Voget-Kleschin, L., & Wittmer, H. (2018). Caring for nature matters: A relational approach

for understanding nature’s contributions to human well-being. Current Opinion in

Environmental Sustainability, 35, 22–29.

 Page 45 of 52

Kabat-Zinn, J. (2001). Mindfulness meditation for everyday life. London, UK: Piatkus.

Kadioglu, C. T., & Ozturk, E. (2022). Demarketing for sustainability: Examining anti-“Black

Friday” communication campaigns of global brands. Pacific Business Review (International),

14(12), 52–65.

Khaw-ngern, C., Khamken, P. W., Kono, S., & Khaw-ngern, K. (2021). A road to circular economy:

Mindful consumption. Psychology and Education Journal, 58(1), 1447–1452.

Kim, J. (2021). A multi-theory approach to understanding anti-consumption for environmental

sustainability [Doctoral dissertation, University of Hawai’i at Manoa, Honolulu, HI].

Kohli, A. K., Jaworski, B. J., & Kumar, A. (1993). MARKOR: A measure of market orientation.

Journal of Marketing Research, 30(4), 467–477.

Kotler, P. (2021). Mindful consumption and production. Medium. Retrieved from

https://4pkotler.medium.com/mindful-consumption-and-production-6f780e4df3e7

Kumar, R., Prabha, V., Kumar, V., & Saxena, S. (2023). Mindfulness in marketing & consumption: a

review & research agenda. Management Review Quarterly. Available online at

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-023-00323-x

Lastovicka, J. L., Bettencourt, L. A., Hughner, R. S., & Kuntze, R. J. (1999). Lifestyle of the tight

and frugal: Theory and measurement. Journal of consumer research, 26(1), 85-98.

Lee-Ammons, N. H. (2019). Public perceptions of “Genetically modified” food in the United States:

The roles of knowledge, risk, and trust [Doctoral dissertation, University of Colorado

Boulder, Boulder, CO].

Liang, S., Dong, M., Zhao, H., Song, Y., & Yang, A. (2022). Mindfulness and life satisfaction: The

moderating effect of self-control and the moderated moderating effect of resilience.

Personality and Individual Differences, 185, 211-241.

 Page 46 of 52

Lim, W. M. (2017). Inside the sustainable consumption theoretical toolbox: Critical concepts for

sustainability, consumption, and marketing. Journal of Business Research, 78, 69–80.

Maklan, S., & Klaus, P. (2011). Customer experience: Are we measuring the right

things? International Journal of Market Research, 53(6), 771–772.

Malhotra, N. K., Lee, O. F., & Uslay, C. (2012). Mind the gap: The mediating role of mindful

marketing between market and quality orientations, their interaction, and consequences.

International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 29(6), 607–625.

Malhotra, N. K., Mukhopadhyay, S., Liu, X., & Dash, S. (2012). One, few or many?: An integrated

framework for identifying the items in measurement scales. International Journal of Market

Research, 54(6), 835–862.

Martin, L., Pahl, S., White, M. P., & May, J. (2019). Natural environments and craving: The

mediating role of negative affect. Health & Place, 58, 102-160.

Mason, A. E., Epel, E. S., Kristeller, J., Moran, P. J., Dallman, M., Lustig, R. H., Acree, M.,

Bacchetti, P., Laraia, B. A., Hecht, F. M., & Daubenmier, J. (2016). Effects of a mindfulness-

based intervention on mindful eating, sweets consumption, and fasting glucose levels in obese

adults: Data from the SHINE randomized controlled trial. Journal of Behavioral Medicine,

39(2), 201–213.

Mathwick, C., Malhotra, N., & Rigdon, E. (2001). Experiential value: Conceptualization,

measurement and application in the catalog and Internet shopping environment. Journal of

Retailing, 77(1), 39–56.

Merikle, P. M. (1984). Toward a definition of awareness. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 22(5),

449–450.
 Page 47 of 52

Milne, G. R., Ordenes, F. V., & Kaplan, B. (2020). Mindful consumption: Three consumer segment

views. Australasian Marketing Journal, 28(1), 3–10.

Mitchell, V. (2019). Mindfulness: How it can supercharge your marketing function. CMO. Retrieved

from https://www.cmo.com.au/article/662656/mindfulness-marketing/

Mohammad, J., Quoquab, F., & Sadom, N. Z. M. (2021). Mindful consumption of second-hand

clothing: The role of eWOM, attitude and consumer engagement. Journal of Fashion

Marketing and Management: An International Journal, 25(3), 482–510.

Morgado, F. F., Meireles, J. F., Neves, C. M., Amaral, A. C., & Ferreira, M. E. (2018). Scale

development: Ten main limitations and recommendations to improve future research

practices. Psicologia: Reflexão e Crítica, 30(1), 3.

Mukherjee, P., Dutta, S., & De Bruyn, A. (2022). Did clickbait crack the code on virality? Journal of

the Academy of Marketing Science, 50(3), 482–502.

Mumford, M. D., Costanza, D. P., Connelly, M. S., & Johnson, J. F. (1996). Item generation

procedures and background data scales: Implications for construct and criterion‐related

validity. Personnel Psychology, 49(2), 361–398.

Nasr Bechwati, N., Mounkkaddem Baalbaki, A., Nasr, N. I., & Baalbaki, I. B. (2016). Mindful

consumer behavior: A cross-cultural comparison. Journal of International &

Interdisciplinary Business Research, 3(1), 100–113.

Ndubisi, N. O. (2014). Consumer mindfulness and marketing implications. Psychology &

Marketing, 31(4), 237–250.

Nenkov, G. Y., Inman, J. J., & Hulland, J. (2008). Considering the future: The conceptualization and

measurement of elaboration on potential outcomes. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(1),

126–141.
 Page 48 of 52

Ozanne, L. K., & Ballantine, P. W. (2010). Sharing as a form of anti‐consumption? An examination

of toy library users. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 9(6), 485-498.

Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Malhotra, A. (2005). ES-QUAL: A multiple-item scale for

assessing electronic service quality. Journal of Service Research, 7(3), 213–233.

Parvatiyar, A., & Sheth, J. N. (2023). Confronting the deep problem of consumption: Why individual

responsibility for mindful consumption matters. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 57( 2), 785–

820.

Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. (2004). Character strengths and virtues: A handbook and

classification (Vol. 1). Oxford University Press.

Petrescu-Mag, R. M., Petrescu, D. C., & Robinson, G. M. (2019). Adopting temperance-oriented

behavior? New possibilities for consumers and their food waste. Journal of Agricultural and

Environmental Ethics, 32(1), 5–26.

Pusaksrikit, T., Pongsakornrungsilp, S., & Pongsakornrungsilp, P. (2013). The development of the

mindful consumption process through the sufficiency economy. In Botti, S., & Labroo, A.

(Eds.), NA-Advances in Consumer Research: Vol. 41 (pp. 332–336). Association for

Consumer Research. https://www.acrwebsite.org/volumes/v41/acr_v41_14843.pdf

Randal, C., Pratt, D., & Bucci, S. (2015). Mindfulness and self-esteem: A systematic review.

Mindfulness, 6(6), 1366–1378.

Resnik, S., & Koklič, M. K. (2014, November). Conceptualizing the role of mindful consumption in

shaping consumer happiness. In Economic and Business Review Conference 2014. Slovenia.

Reynolds, N., & Diamantopoulos, A. (1998). The effect of pretest method on error detection rates:

Experimental evidence. European Journal of Marketing, 32(5/6), 480–498.

 Page 49 of 52

Rich, S. A., Wright, B. J., & Bennett, P. C. (2020). Development of the voluntary simplicity

engagement scale: Measuring low-consumption lifestyles. Journal of Consumer Policy, 43,

295-313.

Richins, M. L. (2004). The material values scale: Measurement properties and development of a

short form. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(1), 209–219.

Ridgway, N. M., Kukar-Kinney, M., & Monroe, K. B. (2008). An expanded conceptualization and a

new measure of compulsive buying. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(4), 622–639.

Rosenberg, E. L. (2004). Mindfulness and consumerism. In Kasser, T., & Kanner, A.D. (Eds.),

Psychology and consumer culture: The struggle for a good life in a materialistic world, 107–

125. American Psychological Association.

Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton University Press.

Rossiter, J. R. (2002). The C-OAR-SE procedure for scale development in marketing. International

Journal of Research in Marketing, 19(4), 305–335.

Samaraweera, M., Sims, J. D., & Homsey, D. M. (2021). Will a green color and nature images make

consumers pay more for a green product? Journal of Consumer Marketing, 38(3), 305–312.

Sánchez, L. A., & Raymaekers, A. (2018). In search of the meaning of mindful consumption: An

exploratory study of Generation Y [Master’s Thesis, Sweden: Lund University School of

Economics and Management].

Segran, E. (2021). Levi’s wants you to stop buying so many jeans. Fast Company. Retrieved from

https://www.fastcompany.com/90627224/levis-wants-you-to-stop-buying-so-many-jeans

Shahab, S. O., & Adil, A. (2020). Development and validation of Temperance Scale in Pakistan.

PsyCh Journal, 9(6), 911–923.

 Page 50 of 52

Sheth, J. (2017). The future history of consumer research: Will the discipline rise to the opportunity?

ACR North American Advances. In Gneezy, A., Griskevicius, V., & Williams, P. (Eds.), NA -

Advances in Consumer Research Vol. 45, Association for Consumer Research.

https://www.acrwebsite.org/volumes/v45/acr_vol45_9000006.pdf

Sheth, J. N., & Frazier, G. L. (1982). A model of strategy mix choice for planned social change.

Journal of Marketing, 46(1), 15–26.

Sheth, J. N., Sethia, N. K., & Srinivas, S. (2011). Mindful consumption: A customer-centric

approach to sustainability. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39(1), 21–39.

Sisodia, R., Wolfe, D., & Sheth, J. N. (2003). Firms of endearment: How world-class companies

profit from passion and purpose. Pearson Prentice Hall.

Stadelmann-Steffen, I., Eder, C., Harring, N., Spilker, G., & Katsanidou, A. (2021). A framework for

social tipping in climate change mitigation: What we can learn about social tipping dynamics

from the chlorofluorocarbons phase-out. Energy Research & Social Science, 82, 102307.

Thaler, R. H., Sunstein, C. R., & Balz, J. P. (2013). Choice architecture. In Shafir, E. (Ed.) The

behavioral foundations of public policy (pp. 428–439). Princeton University Press.

Thiermann, U. B., & Sheate, W. R. (2021). The way forward in mindfulness and sustainability: a

critical review and research agenda. Journal of Cognitive Enhancement, 5, 118-139.

Thompson, C. J., & Kumar, A. (2022). Analyzing the cultural contradictions of authenticity:

Theoretical and managerial insights from the market logic of conscious capitalism. Journal of

Marketing, 86(5), 21-41.

Tiland, R. (2019, Oct). How To Approach And Apply Mindfulness In Marketing. The Manifest.

Retrieved from https://themanifest.com/digital-marketing/blog/mindfulness-in-marketing.

 Page 51 of 52

Turner, N. (2020). Living Lightly: The busy person’s guide to mindful consumption. New Zealand:

Harper Collins.

UN. (n.d.). 17 Goals to transform our World. United Nations Sustainable Development. Retrieved

from https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/.

UNFCCC (n.d.). The Paris Agreement. The Paris Agreement | UNFCCC. Retrieved from

https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement.

Vanhaudenhuyse, A., Demertzi, A., Schabus, M., Noirhomme, Q., Bredart, S., Boly, M., Phillips, C.,

Soddu, A., Luxen, A., Moonen, G., & Laureys, S. (2011). Two distinct neuronal networks

mediate the awareness of environment and of self. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23(3),

570–578.

Victorson, D. E., Sauer, C. M., Wolters, L., Maletich, C., Lukoff, K., & Sufrin, N. (2020). Meta-

analysis of technology-enabled mindfulness-based programs for negative affect and mindful

awareness. Mindfulness, 11(8), 1884–1899.

Warner, R.M., Frye, K., Morrell, J.S., & Carey, G. (2017). Fruit and vegetable intake predicts

positive affect. Journal of Happiness Studies, 18, 809–826.

Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of

positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 54(6), 1063.

Yu, Z., Tong, E. M., Leung, C. C., Chin, E. D., & Lee, P. (2021). Humility predicts resistance to

substance use: A self-control perspective. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 16(1), 105–

115.

Zhang, D., Lee, E. K., Mak, E. C., Ho, C. Y., & Wong, S. Y. (2021). Mindfulness-based

interventions: an overall review. British medical bulletin, 138(1), 41-57.

 Page 52 of 52

Zilber, A. (2022, January 20). McDonald’s, Beyond Meat collaborating for McPlant veggie burger.

New York Post. Retrieved from https://nypost.com/2022/01/20/mcdonalds-offers-mcplant-

veggie-burger-with-beyond-meat/

Zou, P., & Liu, J. (2019). How nutrition information influences online food sales. Journal of the

Academy of Marketing Science, 47(6), 1132–1150.

Zsolnai, L., & Kovacs, G. (2021). Buddhist Values for Creating Mindful Markets. Journal of

Management, Spirituality & Religion, 18(1), 57–70.

View publication stats