Consumer Decision Making Regarding

a “Green” Everyday Product

John Thøgersen, Anne-Katrine Jørgensen, and Sara Sandager
Aarhus University

ABSTRACT

One of the techniques marketers use to convert low-involvement products into high-involvement
ones is adding an important product feature. A case in point is the common practice of adding a
“green” or environmentally friendly product feature to an everyday product, something which is
often assumed to elevate consumer involvement in the choice of the product. However, there is a lack
of research investigating whether adding such a “green” product attribute actually makes any
difference to how consumers make choices. Does the way in which consumers make decisions about
groceries change when both “green” and conventional alternatives are available? Does it make them
deliberate more or do they just develop another, simple choice heuristic? Based on observation and
follow-up interviews of consumers at the milk counter in two supermarkets which stock both organic
(a “green” attribute) and conventional milk, it is concluded that, rather than changing the way
consumers make decisions when buying this type of product, the availability of a “green” alternative
seems to make “green” consumers develop a new, simple choice heuristic that allows them to do their
shopping as effortless and time-efficient as consumers buying conventional products.  C 2012 Wiley
Periodicals, Inc.

Consumers usually spend little time and effort when
buying a common everyday product (e.g., Alden, Hoyer,
& Wechasara, 1989; Dickson & Sawyer, 1990; Hoyer,
1984; Macdonald & Sharp, 2000). In cases such as this,
rather than striving to make the optimal choice, con-
sumers seem content with a satisfactory solution while
they minimize the amount of time and effort spent on
the decision making (Hoyer, 1984). To reach a satis-
factory solution with minimal effort, they employ sim-
plifying heuristics (Payne, Bettman, & Johnson, 1990),
such as choosing the option with the lowest price or a
trusted brand, or just repeating a previous satisfactory
choice.
Consumers’ low involvement in this type of decisions
can be attributed to the small difference between com-
peting options and the low perceived risk (e.g., Dho-
lakia, 2001; Hoyer & MacInnis, 2006). However, in
spite of the strong evidence that consumers are little
involved in this type of decisions in general, there are
obviously exceptions (Beharrell & Denison, 1995). A
consumer’s involvement in the purchase of a common
everyday product can be elevated for both situational
and enduring reasons (e.g., Richins, Bloch, & McQuar-
rie, 1992). For instance, a person is likely to be more
involved in the choice of common food items for a din-
ner with important guests than for the usual weekday
family dinner. Also, it seems likely that, for example, an
animal rights activist will be more enduringly involved
with the choice of meat products than the average con-
sumer.
The perennial adding of new features to many ev-
eryday products are to a high extent driven by the
hope that they will elevate consumer interest and in-
volvement (e.g., Kotler, 1997). A special case of this is
products with improved environmental and/or ethical
characteristics, referred to as “green” products here-
after (e.g., Clark, Kotchen, & Moore, 2003; Ginsberg
& Bloom, 2004; Meyer, 2001; Schlegelmilch, Bohlen, &
Diamantopoulos, 1996). The last three decades have
witnessed a large and increasing number of “green”
product introductions in practically all product areas,
including food products (Tanner & Wölfing Kast, 2003;
Thøgersen, 2002a; Thøgersen, Haugaard, & Olesen,
2010), personal care products (Landolfi, 1997), paper
products (Mobley, Painter, Untch, & Unnava, 1995),
clothing (Meyer, 2001), wood products (Wagner &
Hansen, 2002), energy products (Bang, Ellinger, Had-
jimarcou, & Traichal, 2000; Clark, Kotchen, & Moore,
2003; Rowlands, Parker, & Scott, 2002), and even in-
surances (Bloemer & Ruyter, 2001). This trend is not
limited to Western countries, but is present in emerg-
ing markets as well (e.g., Chan, 2000; Chan, 2001;
Thøgersen & Zhou, In press). It is often assumed that
consumer involvement is higher when buying “green”
than when buying conventional everyday products (e.g.,
Schifferstein & Oude Ophuis, 1998; Zanoli & Naspetti,

Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 29(4): 187–197 (April 2012)

View this article online at wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/mar

C 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. DOI: 10.1002/mar.20514

187

2002). When innovative “green” products (i.e., organic
food products, phosphate-free detergents, paper prod-
ucts based on recycled fibers, etc.) are introduced on a
market, low consumer involvement represents a bar-
rier to entry (Kleiser & Wagner, 1999; Prakash, 2002;
Tarkiainen & Sundqvist, 2009). On the other hand,
adding a feature that associates the product favorably
to a highly involving “green” issue or cause can be a use-
ful technique to convert a low-involvement product into
a high-involvement one (Kotler, 1997; Landolfi, 1997).
Hence, “market challengers” introducing an innovative
“green” product undoubtedly hope that the “green” at-
tribute will catch consumers’ attention, increase their
involvement in the product and in the buying process,
and make them devote sufficient time and effort to the
task to perceive and comprehend the new product’s
distinguishing characteristics (cf., Kokkinaki & Lunt,
1999). If this hope is borne out, it will greatly enhance
the new product’s likelihood of gaining a foothold in the
market (Ginsberg & Bloom, 2004).
There is plenty of evidence showing that large seg-
ments of consumers are highly involved in protect-
ing the environment in general (e.g., Dunlap, 2002;
Vermeir & Verbeke, 2006) or in more specific envi-
ronmental and/or ethical issues related to consump-
tion (e.g., de Ferran & Grunert, 2007; Manzo &
Weinstein, 1987; Vining & Ebreo, 1990). However, it is
also well documented that there is often a gap between
consumers’ environmental concerns and attitudes and
their choice of everyday products related to these same
issues (e.g., Barr, 2006; Gregory & Di Leo, 2003; Padel
& Foster, 2005; Vermeir & Verbeke, 2006). It has been
suggested that this gap is due to consumers’ general en-
vironmental attitudes being absent “in habitual shop-
ping activities with extremely limited problem-solving
requirements” (Tarkiainen & Sundqvist, 2009, p. 859).
On the other hand, consistent with the findings
that high issue involvement increases consumers’ pre-
purchase information search (when needed, that is
when prior knowledge is low; see Lee, Herr, Kardes,
& Kim, 1999), and that attitudes formed under
high-involvement conditions are more accessible from
memory (Kokkinaki & Lunt, 1999), highly involved con-
sumers’ everyday product choices tend to be more con-
sistent with their “green” attitudes than less involved
consumers’ choices (e.g., Tarkiainen & Sundqvist,
2009). These findings are only tentative, however. Un-
til now, there has been no empirical studies investi-
gating how, if at all, broader and (usually) enduring
involvement in a “green” issue is reflected in the way
consumers choose products, and in their product choice,
in everyday, low-involvement product categories where
a “green” alternative has become available. It is the
objective of this article to fill this gap.
HYPOTHESES
The empirical study, reported in the following, tests a
number of hypotheses regarding consumers’ choice of a
188
15206793, 2012, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/mar.20514 by Egyptian National Sti. Network (Enstinet), Wiley Online Library on [03/12/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
“green” everyday product. The studied product is milk
and the context is an ordinary shopping situation in a
Danish supermarket. Close to 30% of the milk sold in
Danish supermarkets is organic milk (Biisgård, 2006),
that is, milk with a “green” attribute.1 This makes this
product category and context suitable for studying how
the introduction of a “green” product variant influences
consumer decision making and whether it differs be-
tween consumers choosing “green” and conventional
products.
As indicated earlier, the fact that large segments of
consumers are highly and enduringly involved with en-
vironmental issues may have implications for how they
choose everyday products. Decision-making research
has thoroughly documented that high involvement in a
decision leads to more prepurchase information search
(e.g., Lee et al., 1999), more accessible attitudes (Kokki-
naki & Lunt, 1999), and a more extensive or deliber-
ate decision-making mode in general (Chen & Chaiken,
1999; Fazio & Towles-Schwen, 1999; Petty, Cacioppo,
& Goldman, 1981). However, in cases where a person
has made the same low-risk choice many times before,
as may often be the case for a “green” everyday product,
he or she may spend little time and effort on a specific
choice, although they are highly involved with the gen-
eral (in this case, environmental) issue (Richins, Bloch,
& McQuarrie, 1992). For example, d’Astous, Bensouda,
and Guindon (1989, p. 348) found that “even for a rel-
atively important, less frequently purchased product
category such as analgesics, consumers do not engage
in complex decision making processes.” Results such
as these suggest that, rather than making consumers
who are highly involved in the issue employ a different,
more extensive or deliberate, decision-making mode,
the availability of “green” alternatives for everyday
products may make them learn new (simple) heuristics
for choosing these products (Thøgersen, 2002b).
In order to investigate whether the availability of
a “green” version of an everyday product makes in-
volved consumers deliberate more in the choice situa-
tion and/or develop a new choice heuristic, a study was
designed to answer the following questions: Are “green”
consumers more involved with buying everyday prod-
ucts with the “green” attribute and do they perform a
more deliberate decision-making process at the point
of purchase than “conventional” consumers? In terms
of deliberation, do consumers who choose “green” (i.e.,
organic) milk (a) perform a more extensive information
search and/or (b) use more time for choosing milk than
consumers who choose conventional milk? If they use
1
The laws regulating organic food production in Denmark, and
in the European Union in general, include standards aiming
to reduce the environmental impacts of agricultural production
(e.g., banning hazardous pesticides, artificial fertilizers and ge-
netically modified organisms) and to improve the welfare of farm
animals (see “Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 of 28 June
2007 on organic production and labeling of organic products
and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91”, to be downloaded
from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:
L:2007:189:0001:0023: EN:PDF).
A “GREEN” EVERYDAY PRODUCT
Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar

simple choice heuristics, do “green” consumers use dif-
ferent heuristics than “conventional” consumers? Our
expectations are expressed in the following hypotheses:
H1: Consumers buying “green” everyday products
are more involved in the purchase, due to the
“green” issue, than consumers buying conven-
tional products.
H2: Consumers buying “green” everyday products
employ a more deliberate decision-making mode
as reflected in a larger amount of information
acquisition in the buying situation and longer
time used to make the choice.
H3: Consumers buying “green” everyday products
use different (simple) choice heuristics than con-
sumers buying conventional products.
METHOD
In order to answer our research questions and test
the hypotheses, a combination of methods is used (cf.,
Hoyer, 1984): (1) unobtrusive observation of partici-
pants when choosing milk in a retail outlet, (2) followed
by a brief questionnaire-based interview focusing on
the participant’s choice tactics and experience with this
type of purchase, and (3) concluding with participants
filling out a questionnaire capturing their involvement
in buying organic food.
The advantage of the unobtrusive observation
method is that it makes it possible to register par-
ticipants’ behavior without influencing it (e.g., Hoyer,
1984; Zikmund, 2000). Other important advantages
are independence of participants’ ability to remember
and report their behavior and/or to correctly under-
stand a question. Especially, due to the automaticity
of frequently repeated acts such as the ones studied
here, most consumers may simply not be aware of ex-
actly how much they search for information or how
much time they use for making the choice (only that
it is brief!). Important disadvantages of the observa-
tion method are that it is demanding in terms of time
and meticulousness (Zikmund, 2000) and that it is not
possible to observe psychological states of the partic-
ipants, such as beliefs, attitudes, preferences, and in-
volvement. It is also not possible to observe whether
the participant is shopping for himself or herself or for
somebody else.
For these reasons, the observations were supple-
mented by personal interviews, carried out right after
the observation (Hoyer, 1984; Pieters, 1988). It is as-
sumed that immediately after the choice the reason(s)
for making the choice is (are) still fresh in memory
and it is therefore possible for the participant to re-
port it (them) with a high level of precision. Hence,
the objective of the interview is to provide insight into
the reasons and motives behind the participant’s choice
(Hoyer, 1984).
THØGERSEN, JØRGENSEN, AND SANDAGER
Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
15206793, 2012, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/mar.20514 by Egyptian National Sti. Network (Enstinet), Wiley Online Library on [03/12/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Since the interest here is in the impact of associating
a low-involvement product with an involving issue, the
participant’s involvement in buying organic food (the
specific “green” issue) rather than, for example, in buy-
ing milk is measured. Involvement in buying organic
food was measured by means of a short, adapted version
of Zaichkowsky’s (1985) thoroughly validated involve-
ment scale (e.g., Bruner, Hensel, & James, 2005; Fox-
all & Pallister, 1998; Mittal, 1995; Stanley, Lasonde, &
Weiss, 1996).
DATA COLLECTION
Observations and interviews were carried out in May
2007 in a well-assorted supermarket (SM) and a dis-
count store (DS) in Denmark’s second largest city,
Aarhus (population ≈ 300,000). The two locations were
selected in order to reach a broad sample of the general
population and to control whether variety of the prod-
uct range in the store (which differs between the two
store types) makes any difference. The product range
of the SM/DS contained 6/4 different brands of milk of
which 2/1 were organic milk. Observations and inter-
views were made during two whole days in both stores
in order to correct for possible effects of time of day or
day of the week.
An observation form was designed for each shop and
it was designed so as to make it quick and easy for
the observer to register observations regarding infor-
mation search (i.e., number of milk cartons examined,
number of milk cartons picked up, number of within-
and between-brand comparisons) and search time (in
1/100 seconds) in an objective and unequivocal way.
The observer also registered the observee’s gender and
approximate age.
The questionnaires were proof read, printed and
pretested with five individuals before the data collec-
tion. Based on their reactions, small adjustments were
made in order to increase the legibility of the questions.
In addition, a pilot and training session was carried out
in the SM before the actual data collection.
Participants in the study were consumers buying
milk in the two stores at the time of the study. The
data collection was carried out by the second and third
author. One of the researchers discretely and unob-
trusively observed consumers at the milk counter and
filled out the observation form. The other researcher
contacted participants after they had put milk in their
shopping cart and left the counter, asked them to partic-
ipate in a brief interview, and carried out the interview
(assisted by the other researcher). At the conclusion
of the interview, the participant was asked to fill out
a one-page questionnaire with the involvement scale.
The next observation started as soon as the former
interview ended.
Except customers making their choice when another
customer was being interviewed, all customers at the
store’s milk counter during the data collection were ob-
served and interviewed. In total, 185 consumers were
189
 15206793, 2012, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/mar.20514 by Egyptian National Sti. Network (Enstinet), Wiley Online Library on [03/12/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Table 1. Summary of Search Data Separately for Organic and Conventional Consumers.
Frequency Distribution Proportions
Means 0 1 2 3 4

Number of milk cartons examined (organic) 1.22 0.00 0.81 0.17 0.00 0.02
Number of milk cartons examined (conventional) 1.21 0.00 0.83 0.14 0.03 0.00
Number of milk cartons picked up (organic) 1.13 0.00 0.88 0.13 0.00 0.00
Number of milk cartons picked up (conventional) 1.02 0.00 0.98 0.03 0.00 0.00
Number of within-brand comparisons (organic) 0.11 0.89 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00
Number of within-brand comparisons (conventional) 0.11 0.90 0.09 0.01 0.00 0.00
Number of between-brand comparisons (organic) 0.11 0.91 0.08 0.02 0.00 0.00
Number of between-brand comparisons (conventional) 0.10 0.90 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00
Frequency Distribution Seconds
0–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41
Total time in seconds (organic) 4.45 0.84 0.14 0.02 0.00 0.00
Total time in seconds (conventional) 5.09 0.84 0.14 0.02 0.00 0.01
Note: N (organic) = 64, N (conventional) = 121.

observed, 98 in the SM and 87 in the DS. Thirty refused
to participate in the interview and of those agreeing to
the interview, two refused to fill out the involvement
questionnaire and another five involvement responses
were rejected because the response pattern revealed
that they had answered the scales mechanically with-
out, for example, noticing the reversed poles of some
scales. Hence, the response rate for the main inter-
view/the involvement interview was 84/80%. Lack of
time was the primary reason for refusing to partici-
pate. No incentives for participation were offered. The
gender distribution did not differ between the rejecters
and those agreeing to participate (chi-square = 2.831,
p = 0.09). A slightly higher number of observees in the
SM than in the DS refused to participate in the inter-
view, but the difference was not significant (chi-square
= 2.625, p = 0.11). The two groups also did not differ on
any of the observations reported in Table 1 (t’s < 1.5,
p’s > 0.15).
The participants were 62/38% female/male. Their
age distribution was: 20–24 years old: 13.6%; 25–34
years old: 25.3%; 35–44 years old: 15.6%; 45–54 years
old: 24%; 55–64 years old: 12.3%; 65–90 years old: 9.1%.
They had bought milk from 1 to 75 years (M = 22.3
years). The number of previously bought milk brands
varied from 1 to 23 (M = 4.1).
THE QUESTIONNAIRE
The interview started with an open question regarding
the reason(s) for selecting the chosen brand of milk.
Then came questions about choice tactics, experience
with the product class and the brand, brand loyalty,
perceived influence from factors inside and outside the
store, and, finally, demographic questions.
Involvement was measured on a 7-point ten items
semantic differential scale translated and adapted
from Zaichkowsky (1985). After an introduction, par-
ticipants were requested to fill out ten semantic
differentials with regard to the sentence: “I find the
purchase of organic food . . . ” (emphasis in the ques-
tionnaire). The ten differentials included pairs such as
important–unimportant, involving–uninvolving, and
boring–interesting. In order to avoid mechanical scale
use, half of the differentials had the positive pole to the
right and the other half to the left. The average score
on the ten items (after reversing the scales so that a
higher number means higher involvement) was used
as an indicator of the participant’s involvement in buy-
ing organic food (M = 4.49, SD = 1.56, Cronbach’s alpha
= 0.95).
DATA ANALYSIS
The observational data were quantified and differences
between conditions analyzed by means of simple t-tests
with Bonferroni correction (due to the large number of
exploratory analyses).
Responses to the open-ended choice tactics question
were classified into more abstract categories indepen-
dently by two judges (the last two authors). A separate
category was used for multiple statements, following
Hoyer (1984). Single statement responses were classi-
fied into the four categories proposed by Hoyer (1984)
(price tactics, affect tactics, performance tactics, and
normative tactics). Responses that did not fall naturally
into any of these four categories were then studied in
order to ascertain whether they contained additional
meaningful choice tactics categories. This led to the
identification of a habit tactics category. The two judges
agreed about the classification of individual responses
in practically all cases. The few cases of disagreement
were discussed and settled by consensus between the
judges.
Next, we explored the differences between con-
sumers using different choice tactics and the reason(s)
why they use different choice tactics. This was done by
means of a series of explorative stepwise discriminant
analyses, relating consumer choice tactics to the obser-
vation data and individual background characteristics.

190 A “GREEN” EVERYDAY PRODUCT

Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
 15206793, 2012, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/mar.20514 by Egyptian National Sti. Network (Enstinet), Wiley Online Library on [03/12/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Table 2. Responses to Open-Ended Choice Tactics Question.
Conventional Organic
Consumers, Consumers,
Total N = 101 N = 54
Total Number
Response of Consumers Percentage Percentage Percentage

Price tactics 29 18.8 26.7 3.7

Cheapest 21 13.6 7.9 0.0
The price 8 5.2 18.8 3.7
Affect tactics 10 7.8 7.9 7.4
Avoids Arla (biggest dairy) 8 5.2 5.9 3.7
Like the brand 2 1.3 2.0 0.0
Small dairy 1 0.7 0.0 1.9
Like it 1 0.7 0.0 1.9
Performance tactics 50 32.5 20.8 53.7
Organic 19 12.3 0.0 35.2
Taste 10 6.5 6.9 5.6
Low fat 8 5.2 6.9 1.9
Keeps fresh longer 6 3.9 3.0 5.6
Health 4 2.6 3.0 1.9
Package 3 2.0 1.0 3.7
Normative tactics 13 8.4 11.9 1.9
For family 7 4.6 5.9 1.9
For girlfriend 3 2.0 3.0 0.0
For others 2 1.3 2.0 0.0
Used to from home 1 0.7 1.0 0.0
Habit tactics 22 14.3 15.8 11.1
Habit 21 13.6 15.8 9.3
Bought many years 1 0.7 0.0 1.9
Nonclassified 10 6.5 8.9 1.9
Multiple statements 19 11.7 7.9 20.4
Organic one of them 11 6.5 0.9 18.5
Total 155 100.0 100.0 100.0

RESULTS organic and conventional milk. Because they also chose

Choice and Involvement
Thirty-five percent of the observed shoppers chose or-
ganic milk. These shoppers were significantly more in-
volved in buying organic food than shoppers choosing
conventional milk (Mo = 5.41, Mc = 3.98; t = 5.918
[146], p < 0.001). This is consistent with previous re-
search (e.g., Stanley, Lasonde, & Weiss, 1996) and with
the hypothesis that consumers buying “green” every-
day products are more involved in the purchase, due to
the “green” issue, than consumers buying conventional
products. Hence, it is highly unlikely that the observed
choices of organic or conventional milk were made at
random or that the choice of organic milk is unrelated
to the shopper’s involvement in buying organic food.
Information Search and Time-Use
The whole choice process at the milk counter was very
fast, only about 5 seconds on average, irrespective of
whether a conventional or an organic brand was chosen.
Table 1 reports the most important results regarding
the amount of information search and the time spent on
making the choice separately for consumers who chose
organic milk, eight consumers who bought both types of
milk are included among the organic consumers. Partic-
ipants in the two retail stores did not differ significantly
at the Bonferroni-corrected 0.01 significance level on
any of the variables reported in Table 1 (t[examined]
= 1.601, p = 0.11; t[picked] = 1.136, p = 0.26;
t[within] = 1.992, p = 0.05; t[between] = 0.427, p = 0.67;
t[time] = 1.470, p = 0.14). Hence, the observations were
pooled.
None of the differences appearing in Table 1 between
consumers choosing organic and conventional milk was
significant at the Bonferroni-corrected 0.01 significance
level (t[examined] = 0.427, p = 0.44; t[picked] = 2.276, p
= 0.03; t[within] = 0.432, p = 0.67; t[between] = 0.755,
p = 0.45; t[time] = 1.333, p = 0.18). Few consumers in
both the conventional and the organic group inspected
more than one milk carton before making the choice and
even fewer made any comparisons within or between
brands.
These results support findings regarding the choice
of other everyday products, such as detergents (Hoyer,
1984), toothpaste, margarine, coffee, and cereals (Dick-
son & Sawyer, 1990), and with the assumptions that
milk is a low-involvement product and that consumers
are, hence, not motivated to spend much time and
effort when choosing milk. However, the results do

THØGERSEN, JØRGENSEN, AND SANDAGER 191

Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
 15206793, 2012, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/mar.20514 by Egyptian National Sti. Network (Enstinet), Wiley Online Library on [03/12/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
not support the hypothesis that the presence of a facts that the shoppers know the product very well and
“green” product alternative increases the consumer’s that the choice entails very little risk seem to be con-
deliberation during decision making. An important rea- siderably more important for the type of choice process
son for this was revealed by the questionnaire study. implemented than the presence of a “green” attribute.
When intercepted for this study, the organic shoppers
had bought the chosen organic brand for 6.5 years, Explaining Choice Tactics
on average. Hence, the average organic shopper had
considerable experience with making this choice and For the study of the differences between consumers us-
therefore did not need much deliberation in the situa- ing different choice tactics and why they use different
tion. Instead, they relied on simple choice tactics. choice tactics, we slightly adapted the five aggregate
choice tactics groups identified in Table 2. First, be-
cause the objective of this study is to investigate the
Choice Tactics impacts on choices of adding a “green” attribute to a
product, the performance tactics group was divided into
Table 2 reports the classification and distribution of the
those using organic as a choice criterion and the rest.
responses to the open-ended choice tactics question. As
Second, ten subjects quoting organic as one of multiple
shown in Table 2, 88% of the 155 shoppers that agreed
reasons for making the choice were included in the “or-
to participate in the interview gave only a single reason
ganic tactics” group. Finally, in order to simplify and to
for their choice, such as “because it is the cheapest” or
achieve more equal group sizes, the remaining perfor-
“because it is organic.” Sixteen participants mentioned
mance tactics group and the affect tactics group were
two reasons, such as “it is organic and I like the taste,”
merged (cf., Hoyer, 1984).
and two participants gave three reasons. These findings
In the first step, each of the following five groups
support previous research (e.g., Hoyer, 1984) and are
of variables’ ability to discriminate between choice tac-
usually assumed to reflect that consumers use simple
tics groups was tested separately: (1) decision effort
choice tactics rather than an extensive and systematic
variables, (2) demographic variables, (3) experience
problem-solving process in everyday repeat purchase
variables, (4) attitudinal variables, and (5) perceived
situations.
influence by marketing stimuli variables. Next, the
Consistent with hypothesis H3, the choice tactics dif-
“surviving” variables from each of these analyses were
fer between organic and conventional consumers. The
pooled and a final stepwise discriminant analysis was
biggest difference is with regard to using organic as a
carried out. The results of these analyses are summa-
choice criterion, which 54% of the organic consumers
rized before presenting an integrated view of how the
(35% as the only reason) and only one of the conven-
variables discriminate between choice tactics groups in
tional consumers did.2 At a higher level of abstraction,
Table 3.
this also means that organic consumers were signif-
According to the first set of discriminant analyses,
icantly more likely to use a performance tactic than
information search effort and time variables (Table 1)
conventional consumers (54% vs. 21%, not including
do not discriminate between individuals using differ-
participants giving multiple answers, chi-square =
ent choice tactics (F(4, 129)’s < 1.68, p’s > 0.15). Ap-
17.442, p < 0.001). On the other hand, organic con-
parently, all of these simple choice tactics are equally
sumers were significantly less likely to mention the
effective in terms of minimizing the time and effort in-
price as the reasons for the choice (4% vs. 27%, chi-
volved in choosing an everyday product such as milk.
square = 12.270, p < 0.001). Nine percent said that
Age is the only demographic variable that discrimi-
they had developed a habit of buying organic milk.
nates between individuals using different choice tactics
The proportion using habit tactics did not differ sig-
(F(4, 129) = 6.483, p < 0.001). None of the other demo-
nificantly between conventional and organic shoppers
graphic variables (gender, education, household size,
(chi-square = 0.647, p = 0.42).
children in the household) seems to make any differ-
Organic consumers were significantly more likely
ence (F(4, 129)’s < 1.04, p’s > 0.39). Except one (num-
than conventional to give multiple reasons for the
ber of different brands of milk ever bought), all of the
choice (20% vs. 8%, chi-square = 5.071, p < 0.05). This
registered experience variables (product category expe-
finding suggests that consumers who choose the “green”
rience, brand loyalty, brand experience, and past be-
alternative differ from conventional consumers not only
havior with regard to organic milk) discriminate be-
with regard to the specific choice heuristics employed,
tween the groups, but when the two mentioned last
but also with regard to the number of aspects of the
are entered into the equation, none of the others is sig-
alternatives they consider when making the choice.
nificant (F(4, 129)’s < 2.84, p’s > 0.05). Past behavior
Hence, it seems that consumers choosing the “green”
with regard to organic milk is the strongest discrim-
alternative actually do tend to deliberate more when
inator among these variables (F(4, 129) = 20.765, p
making the choice, as suggested by hypothesis H2, but
< 0.001) and brand experience is second (F(4, 129) =
the amount of deliberation is still very limited. The
5.230, p = 0.001). Both brand preference (F(4, 123)
= 3.944, p < 0.01) and involvement in buying or-
2
This person mentioned “that it is non-organic” as one of the two ganic food (F(4, 123) = 5.094, p = 0.001) discrimi-
reasons for choosing a particular brand. nate significantly between the groups, also when both

192 A “GREEN” EVERYDAY PRODUCT

Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar

Table 3. Univariate Tests for Discriminating Variables.
Variable F(4, 123) Price
Attention to price signs (1 = 31.199 2.73
little, 3 = big)
Age (years) 7.206 29.00
Length of brand experience 5.339 2.01
(years)
Length of category experience 5.473 12.60
(years)
Brand loyalty (1 = always, 5 5.145 2.59
= never)
Brand preference (1 = very 3.944 3.42
strong, 5 = very weak)
Past behavior, organic (1 = 19.241 3.73
always, 5 = never)
Involvement, organic (1 = no 5.094 4.22
involvement, 7 = high
involvement)
are controlled. The final analysis in the first step re-
vealed that, among four marketing communication ve-
hicles coved by the questionnaire (ads, packaging in-
formation, special offer tags, and price tags), only the
attention paid to the last two (i.e., price informa-
tion) discriminates significantly between groups and
when the last one is controlled (F(4, 129) = 36.591,
p < 0.001), none of the others discriminates signifi-
cantly (F(4, 129)’s < 1.12, p’s > 0.05).
A total of nine discriminating variables were
identified in this first step. When controlling for other
variables in the same category, the influence of three
variables was suppressed, while six remained signifi-
cant. The hierarchical order of the discriminating vari-
ables is further emphasized when the six “surviving”
variables are included in the final discriminant analy-
sis. Under this condition, only past behavior with re-
gard to organic milk and attention to price signs are
significant, suppressing the influence of the other four
variables. Suppression does not mean that the sup-
pressed discriminators are necessarily unimportant,
but their influence is indirect and mediated through
one or more of the “surviving” variables (cf., Baron &
Kenny, 1986).
That the two latter variables discriminate between
the choice tactics groups is perhaps too self-evident to
be really informative. Hence, in order to obtain a more
informative and complete picture of the reasons why
consumers use different choice tactics, Table 3 reports
univariate analyses of all nine discriminating variables
while also indicating their hierarchical order.
Not surprisingly, the significant effect of attention
to price tags is due to the fact that those using price
heuristics are paying more attention to that than the
other four groups (Table 3). The other four groups do
not differ significantly from one another on this vari-
able (p’s > 0.13). It is less obvious that the significant
effect of age is due to those using price heuristics being
substantially younger than the other groups. The other
THØGERSEN, JØRGENSEN, AND SANDAGER
Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
15206793, 2012, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/mar.20514 by Egyptian National Sti. Network (Enstinet), Wiley Online Library on [03/12/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Means
Performance/Affect Normative Habit Organic
1.30 1.36 1.32 1.31
44.90 47.18 40.77 46.83
7.18 7.50 7.82 6.72
24.93 28.08 19.09 26.93
2.05 2.08 1.82 1.69
2.48 2.64 2.59 2.38
3.23 3.45 3.18 1.28
4.43 4.15 3.96 5.59
four groups do not differ significantly from one another
with regard to age (p’s > 0.65). The effect of length of
experience at both product category and brand level
follows the same pattern as age, those using price
heuristics having significantly shorter experience at
both levels and none of the other groups differing sig-
nificantly from one another (p’s > 0.41). It seems that,
for a product as common as milk, the age variable is suf-
ficient to capture the length of product class and brand
experience. This suggests that a price heuristics is often
the first heuristic chosen by young and inexperienced
consumers for a product such as milk.
It is also not very surprising that the significant ef-
fect of past behavior regarding buying organic milk is
due to those using organic heuristics having performed
this behavior more consistently in the past than the
other four groups. The other groups do not differ signif-
icantly from one another on this variable (p’s > 0.28).
Past behavior is sometimes assumed to reflect habit, es-
pecially if the behavior is performed frequently and in a
stable context (e.g., Ouellette & Wood, 1998). Because
past behavior in this case is strongly correlated with
involvement in buying organic food (r = 0.60), it may
actually reflect consumer loyalty rather than habit. Be
that as it may, this finding suggests that, as consumers
repeatedly buy organic milk, they learn a useful choice
heuristic, which helps them to make the choice effort-
less and fast and thereby reinforcing this behavior.
Reflecting their strong correlation, the effect of in-
volvement in buying organic food follows the exact same
pattern as that of past behavior regarding organic milk.
Those using organic heuristics are more involved in
buying organic food than the other four groups. The
other groups do not differ significantly from each other
on this variable (p’s > 0.83). The fact that the effect of
involvement disappears when controlling for past be-
havior suggests that the effect of involvement on heuris-
tics learning and use is mediated through past behavior
(Baron & Kenny, 1986). In other words, it seems that
193

consumers start buying organic milk at least partly be-
cause they are highly involved with the issue and with
buying organic food. However, by doing so they learn
a simple choice heuristic that makes the repetition of
their previous choice more effortless and time efficient.
The significant effect of brand preference is due
to those using organic heuristics having significantly
stronger brand preferences than those using price
heuristics (p < 0.05). The other three groups occupy an
intermediate position on this variable. None of the two
mentioned groups differs significantly from the other
three groups and the other three groups do not dif-
fer significantly from each other on this variable (p’s
> 0.28). With regard to brand loyalty, the pattern is
similar, except that for this variable the price heuris-
tics group is significantly different from both the habit
heuristics group (p < 0.05) and the organics group (p
< 0.01). Again, no other group differences were signifi-
cant (p’s > 0.11). Hence, it seems that consumers who
use price heuristics tend to be less brand loyal and or-
ganic consumers tend to be more brand loyal than other
consumers.
In sum, two groups come out of the discriminant
analysis with a more distinct profile than the others:
the price tactics group and the organic tactics group.
The price tactics group is younger and has shorter ex-
perience with the product at both the product class level
and the brand level. Subjects in this group also have the
weakest brand preferences, are the least brand loyal
customers, and have bought organic milk least in the
past.
The fact that those using price heuristics are consid-
erably younger than the other groups may have to do
with young consumers (especially students) often liv-
ing on a tight budget. Young consumers have also had
shorter time to accumulate knowledge and experience
that may be relevant for appreciating the distinguish-
ing characteristics of “green” and premium products.
Another factor that may play a role for the specific
case is that the very young consumers are less likely
to have the responsibility for a household and for chil-
dren, factors that may increase normative influences
as well as quality consciousness in older consumers. It
seems obvious that the younger age groups and those
with shorter product class and brand experience will be
under-represented in the habit tactics group.
The organic tactics group stands out with regard to
the organic-related descriptors only. They have a sub-
stantially stronger history of buying organic milk than
the other groups and they are also significantly more
involved in buying organic food than the other groups.
Besides this, they do not differ from the other groups,
except for the price tactics group.
The three remaining groups (performance/affect tac-
tics, normative tactics, and habit tactics) are not signifi-
cantly different from one another on any of the included
variables. Hence, any of these three types of choice tac-
tics, but hardly the organic or the price tactics, may
have been picked in a haphazard way with little or no
prior reflection (cf., Hoyer, 1984).
194
15206793, 2012, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/mar.20514 by Egyptian National Sti. Network (Enstinet), Wiley Online Library on [03/12/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
DISCUSSION
According to this study, organic consumers do not spend
more time and effort than conventional consumers
when they buy milk. The two groups use equally sim-
ple and efficient choice tactics, but they use different
choice heuristics. The study also confirms the previous
finding that consumers use very little time and effort
on decision making in the buying situation when buy-
ing an everyday repeat-purchase product, such as milk,
and it extends this finding to cases where the product
has a “green” attribute.
The “green” attribute links the product to an issue
in which a segment of consumers is highly involved.
Therefore, it seems likely that a “green” attribute will
also increase consumer involvement in the decision
making. This assumption was supported in this study
by a significantly higher score on the involvement scale
among consumers choosing organic than among con-
sumers choosing conventional milk. However, the dif-
ference in stated involvement is not reflected in the
amount of time and effort spent on choosing the prod-
uct in the store.
In the studied case, organic shoppers were able to
make the choice as effortless and time-efficiently as the
conventional shoppers. An important reason is that or-
ganic shoppers had considerable routine in buying this
product and just like conventional shoppers, they em-
ployed goal-directed, simple and efficient choice heuris-
tics, which they had learned through past experience.
Hence, there were no differences between organic and
conventional shoppers on any of the observable choice
characteristics reported in Table 1.
The analysis of the reasons consumer give for their
choices suggests that starting to buy an everyday prod-
uct with a “green” attribute is hardly the haphazard
or random process that is often assumed for common
everyday products (Hoyer, 1984). “Green” consumers
are significantly more likely to cite more than one rea-
son for their choice, which suggests more (but perhaps
not much more) deliberation in their decision-making
process, at least in the past. More importantly, the hi-
erarchical structure of the variables discriminating be-
tween consumers using different choice tactics suggests
that a high enduring involvement with the “green” is-
sue was among the reasons why consumers started to
buy this particular “green” product in the first place.
This interpretation is consistent with other studies of
why individuals start performing a new environment-
friendly behavior (e.g., Dahlstrand & Biel, 1997; Stern,
Dietz, Kalof, & Guagnano, 1995) and with other studies
of “green” shopping behavior (e.g., Stanley, Lasonde, &
Weiss, 1996; Tanner & Wölfing Kast, 2003; Tarkiainen
& Sundqvist, 2009; Vermeir & Verbeke, 2006). How-
ever, “green” consumers are as motivated as everybody
else to minimize time and effort at the point of pur-
chase (Hoyer, 1984; Payne, Bettman, & Johnson, 1990).
Hence, they learn how to identify the “green” product
easily (e.g., by means of an eco-label; see Thøgersen,
2002b; Thøgersen, Haugaard, & Olesen, 2010) as well
A “GREEN” EVERYDAY PRODUCT
Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar

as a simple heuristic that allows them to make a satis-
factory choice with little effort.
Because of this learning process, the relationship
between enduring involvement in the purchase of the
studied “green” product and the amount of delibera-
tion in the choice situation, as reflected in the time
and effort spent on choosing the product in the store, is
actually slightly negative although only significant for
two of the five descriptors in Table 1 (r[time] = −0.16,
r[examined] = −0.17, p’s < 0.05). One may speculate
that these negative correlations reflect that the more
involved consumers are in the issue, the less ambiva-
lence they experience when making this kind of choices
and therefore they rely on the adopted choice heuristic
with greater confidence.
These conclusions are based on a study of a sin-
gle product in a single historical–geographical context
and their generality across products and context should
be further investigated. Another obvious limitation of
this study is that the data set did not make it possi-
ble to discriminate between three of the choice tactics
groups. However, for the purpose of this paper, which
is to investigate the impact on consumers’ choice tac-
tics of adding a “green” attribute to a common everyday
product, this is not a very serious limitation, as long as
it is possible to discriminate in a meaningful way be-
tween the consumers that are influenced by the “green”
attribute and those that are not. The data obviously
allow such meaningful discrimination.
In sum, this study extends previous research on
consumer decision making with regard to common ev-
eryday products into the area of “green” consumer be-
havior. According to our data, consumers do not use
more time or effort when choosing a “green” than a
conventional everyday product. Consumers are also as
likely to use a simple heuristic for choosing a “green”
product as a conventional product. Consumer involve-
ment in the “green” issue matters, but its influence on
choices is mediated through the learning of a choice
heuristic based on the “green” product attribute as the
performance criterion. By employing this choice heuris-
tic, consumers make decisions about “green” everyday
products as effortless and efficiently as they do about
conventional products.
Also, the study strongly suggests that the decision
leading to the first-time choice of new “green” products
probably involves more extensive deliberation, than the
repeated choices studied here. Future studies should
investigate this, which is not easy. Studying the in-
troduction of a new product in a design similar to the
one employed here would be costly and time consuming
due to the time it takes for consumers to adopt a new
product (see Thøgersen, Haugaard, & Olesen, 2010).
Another possibility would be a laboratory design where
participants would be requested to make choices among
“green” and conventional alternatives and where the
prior knowledge of and experience with the “green” al-
ternative is varied (cf., Payne, Bettman, & Johnson,
1990). This would allow a quicker and probably also
cheaper data collection, but at the expense of ecological
THØGERSEN, JØRGENSEN, AND SANDAGER
Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
15206793, 2012, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/mar.20514 by Egyptian National Sti. Network (Enstinet), Wiley Online Library on [03/12/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
validity. We leave it to future research to balance these
two concerns.
REFERENCES
Alden, D. L., Hoyer, W. D., & Wechasara, G. (1989). Choice
strategies and involvement – a cross-cultural analysis. Ad-
vances in Consumer Research, 16, 119–126.
Bang, H.-K., Ellinger, A. E., Hadjimarcou, J., & Traichal, P. A.
(2000). Consumer concern, knowledge, belief, and attitude
toward renewable energy: An application of the reasoned
action theory. Psychology & Marketing, 17, 449–468.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator
variable distinction in social psychological research: Con-
ceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.
Barr, S. (2006). Environmental action in the home: Investigat-
ing the “value-action” gap. Geography, 91, 43–54.
Beharrell, B., & Denison, T. J. (1995). Involvement in a routine
food shopping context. British Food Journal, 97, 24–29.
Biisgård, P. (2006). Rift om økomælken (High demand for the
organic milk). Mejeri, 3, 11 November.
Bloemer, J., & Ruyter, K. d. (2001). The impact of attitude
strength on the acceptance of green services. Journal of
Retailing and Consumer Services, 9, 45–52.
Bruner, G. C., Hensel, P. J., & James, K. E. (2005). Market-
ing scales handbook. A compilation of multi-item measures
for consumer behaviour and advertising, Vol. 4, Chicago,
IL: Thomson South-Western. American Marketing Associ-
ation.
Chan, K. (2000). Environmental considerations in purchase
decisions of Hong Kong consumers. Environmental Prac-
tice, 2, 15–22.
Chan, R. Y. K. (2001). Determinants of Chinese consumers’
green purchase behavior. Psychology & Marketing, 18,
389–413.
Chen, S., & Chaiken, S. (1999). The heuristic-systematic model
in its broader context. In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.),
Dual-process theories in social psychology (pp. 73–96). New
York, NY: Guilford Press.
Clark, C. F., Kotchen, M. J., & Moore, M. R. (2003). Inter-
nal and external influences on pro-environmental behav-
ior: Participation in a green electricity program. Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 23, 237–246.
d’Astous, A., Bensouda, I., & Guindon, J. (1989). A re-
examination of consumer decision-making for a repeat pur-
chase product – Variations in product importance and
purchase frequency. Advances in Consumer Research, 16,
433–438.
Dahlstrand, U., & Biel, A. (1997). Pro-environmental habits:
Propensity levels in behavioral change. Journal of Applied
Social Psychology, 27, 588–602.
de Ferran, F., & Grunert, K. G. (2007). French fair trade coffee
buyers´ purchasing motives: An exploratory study using
means-end chains analysis. Food Quality and Preference,
18, 218–229.
Dholakia, U. M. (2001). A motivational process model of prod-
uct involvement and consumer risk perception. European
Journal of Marketing, 35, 1340–1360.
Dickson, P. R., & Sawyer, A. G. (1990). The price knowledge
and search of supermarket shoppers. Journal of Marketing,
54, 42–53.
Dunlap, R. E. (2002). An enduring concern. Public Perspective,
13, 10–14.
195

Fazio, R. H., & Towles-Schwen, T. (1999). The MODE model
of attitude-behavior processes. In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope
(Eds.), Dual-process theories in social psychology (pp. 97–
116). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Foxall, G. R., & Pallister, J. G. (1998). Measuring purchase
decision involvement for financial services: Comparison of
the Zaichkowsky and Mittal scales. International Journal
of Bank Marketing, 16, 180–194.
Ginsberg, J. M., & Bloom, P. N. (2004). Choosing the right
green marketing strategy. Sloan Management Review, 46,
79–84.
Gregory, G. D., & Di Leo, M. (2003). Repeated behavior and
environmental psychology: The role of personal involve-
ment and habit formation in explaining water consump-
tion. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33, 1261–1296.
Hoyer, W. D. (1984). An examination of consumer decision
making for a common repeat purchase. Journal of Con-
sumer Research, 11, 822–829.
Hoyer, W. D., & MacInnis, D. J. (2006). Consumer behavior,
4th ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Kleiser, S. B., & Wagner, J. A. (1999). Understanding the pi-
oneering advantage from the decision maker’s perspective:
The case of product involvement and the status quo bias. In
E. J. Arnould & L. M. Scott (Eds.), Advances in consumer
research, Vol. 26 (pp. 593–597), Provo, UT: Association for
Consumer Research.
Kokkinaki, F., & Lunt, P. (1999). The effect of advertising mes-
sage involvement on brand attitude accessibility. Journal
of Economic Psychology, 20, 41–51.
Kotler, P. (1997). Marketing management. Analysis, plan-
ning, implementation, and control. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Landolfi, L. (1997). The personal care products industry and
public relations. In C. L. Caywood (Ed.), The handbook of
strategic public relations and integrated communications
(pp. 347–360). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Professional.
Lee, H., Herr, P. M., Kardes, F. R., & Kim, C. (1999). Motivated
search: Effects of choice accountability, issue involvement,
and prior knowledge on information acquisition and use.
Journal of Business Research, 45, 75–88.
Macdonald, E. K., & Sharp, B. M. (2000). Brand awareness
effects on consumer decision making for a common, repeat
purchase product: A replication. Journal of Business Re-
search, 48, 5–15.
Manzo, L. C., & Weinstein, N. D. (1987). Behavioral commit-
ment to environmental protection. A study of active and
nonactive members of the Sierra Club. Environment and
Behavior, 19, 673–694.
Meyer, A. (2001). What´s in it for the customers? Successfully
marketing green clothes. Business Strategy and the Envi-
ronment, 10, 317–330.
Mittal, B. (1995). A comparative analysis of four scales of con-
sumer involvement. Psychology & Marketing, 12, 663–683.
Mobley, A. S., Painter, T. S., Untch, E. M., & Unnava, H. R.
(1995). Consumer evaluation of recycled products. Psychol-
ogy & Marketing, 12, 165–176.
Ouellette, J. A., & Wood, W. (1998). Habit and intention in
everyday life: The multiple processes by which past behav-
ior predicts future behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 124,
54–74.
Padel, S., & Foster, C. (2005). Exploring the gap between at-
titudes and behaviour. Understanding why consumers buy
or do not buy organic food. British Food Journal, 107, 606–
625.
Payne, J. W., Bettman, J. R., & Johnson, E. J. (1990). The
adaptive decision maker: Effort and accuracy in choice. In
196
15206793, 2012, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/mar.20514 by Egyptian National Sti. Network (Enstinet), Wiley Online Library on [03/12/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
R. M. Hogarth (Ed.), Insights in decision making: A tribute
to Hillel J. Einhorn (pp. 129–153). Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Goldman, R. (1981). Personal in-
volvement as a determinant of argument-based persuasion.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 847–855.
Pieters, R. G. M. (1988). Attitude-behavior relationships. In
W. F. v. Raaij, G. M. v. Veldhoven & K. E. Wärneryd
(Eds.), Handbook of economic psychology (pp. 144–204).
Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publisher.
Prakash, A. (2002). Green marketing, public policy and man-
agerial strategies. Business Strategy and the Environment,
11, 285–297.
Richins, M. L., Bloch, P. H., & McQuarrie, E. F. (1992). How
enduring and situational involvement combine to create
involvement responses. Journal of Consumer Psychology,
1, 143–154.
Rowlands, I. H., Parker, P., & Scott, D. (2002). Consumer per-
ceptions of “green power”. Journal of Consumer Marketing,
19, 112–129.
Schifferstein, H. N. J., & Oude Ophuis, P. A. M. (1998).
Health-related determinants of organic food consumption
in the Netherlands. Food Quality and Preference, 9, 119–
133.
Schlegelmilch, B. B., Bohlen, G. M., & Diamantopoulos, A.
(1996). The link between green purchasing decisions and
measures of environmental consciousness. European Jour-
nal of Marketing, 30, 35–55.
Stanley, L. R., Lasonde, K. M., & Weiss, J. (1996). The re-
lationship between environmental issue involvement and
environmentally-conscious behavior: An exploratory study.
In K. P. Corfman & J. G. Lynch Jr. (Eds.), Advances in con-
sumer research, Vol. 23 (pp. 183–188), Provo, UT: Associa-
tion for Consumer Research.
Stern, P. C., Dietz, T., Kalof, L., & Guagnano, G. (1995). Val-
ues, beliefs, and proenvironmental action: Attitude forma-
tion toward emergent attitude objects. Journal of Applied
Social Psychology, 25, 1611–1636.
Tanner, C., & Wölfing Kast, S. (2003). Promoting sustainable
consumption: Determinants of green purchases of Swiss
consumers. Psychology & Marketing, 20, 883–902.
Tarkiainen, A., & Sundqvist, S. (2009). Product involvement
in organic food consumption: Does ideology meet practice?
Psychology & Marketing, 26, 844–863.
Thøgersen, J. (2002a). Direct experience and the strength of
the personal norm-behaviour relationship. Psychology &
Marketing, 19, 881–893.
Thøgersen, J. (2002b). Promoting green consumer behavior
with eco-labels. In T. Dietz & P. Stern (Eds.), New tools for
environmental protection: Education, information, and vol-
untary measures (pp. 83–104). Washington, DC: National
Academy Press.
Thøgersen, J., Haugaard, P., & Olesen, A. (2010). Understand-
ing consumer responses to ecolabels. European Journal of
Marketing, 44, 1787–1810.
Thøgersen, J., & Zhou, Y. (2012, In press). Chinese con-
sumers adoption of a “green” innovation – The case of
organic food. Journal of Marketing Management. DOI:
10.1080/0267257x.2012.658834
Vermeir, I., & Verbeke, W. (2006). Sustainable food consump-
tion: Exploring the consumer “attitude – behavioral in-
tention’’ gap. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental
Ethics, 19, 169–194.
Vining, J., & Ebreo, A. (1990). What makes a recycler? A com-
parison of recyclers and nonrecyclers. Environment and Be-
havior, 22, 55–73.
A “GREEN” EVERYDAY PRODUCT
Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar

Wagner, E. R., & Hansen, E. N. (2002). Methodology for eval-
uating green advertising of forest products in the United
States: A content analysis. Forest Products Journal, 52,
17–23.
Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1985). Measuring the involvement con-
struct. Journal of Consumer Research, 12, 341–352.
Zanoli, R., & Naspetti, S. (2002). Consumer motivations in the
purchase of organic food. A means-end approach. British
Food Journal, 104, 643–653.
THØGERSEN, JØRGENSEN, AND SANDAGER
Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
15206793, 2012, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/mar.20514 by Egyptian National Sti. Network (Enstinet), Wiley Online Library on [03/12/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Zikmund, W. G. (2000). Business research methods, 6th ed.
Orlando, FL: The Dryden Press.
Correspondence regarding this article should be sent to: John
Thøgersen, Aarhus University, School of Business and So-
cial Sciences, Department of Business Administration, Hasle-
gaardsvej 10, DK-8210 Aarhus, Denmark (jbt@asb.dk).
197