an examination of the influences on ‘green’ mobile phone purchases among young business...

This article was downloaded by: [University of York]On: 17 August 2014, At: 04:58Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Environmental Education ResearchPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ceer20

An examination of the influences on‘green’ mobile phone purchases amongyoung business students: an empiricalanalysisAngela Paladino a & Serena Ng aa Department of Management and Marketing , The University ofMelbourne , Melbourne , AustraliaPublished online: 21 May 2012.

To cite this article: Angela Paladino & Serena Ng (2013) An examination of the influenceson ‘green’ mobile phone purchases among young business students: an empirical analysis,Environmental Education Research, 19:1, 118-145, DOI: 10.1080/13504622.2012.687044

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2012.687044

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ceer20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/13504622.2012.687044

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2012.687044

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

An examination of the influences on ‘green’ mobile phonepurchases among young business students: an empirical analysis

Angela Paladino* and Serena Ng

Department of Management and Marketing, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne,Australia

(Received 26 January 2010; final version received 5 April 2012)

This article examines the determinants of eco-friendly electronic good consump-tion among students at a large Australian university who have been exposed toa marketing campaign, Mobile Muster. Empirical research generally showsyounger consumers to be less concerned about the environment. Similar studiesdemonstrate that peer pressure has a large role to play. Accordingly, using thetheories of reasoned action and planned behavior, this study examines subjectivenorms, attitudes, perceived control, environmental concern, altruism, risk aver-sion, price consciousness, involvement, branding, environmental knowledge, andtheir relationship with purchase intentions. It is the first study to examine theseeffects on the purchase of eco-friendly phones, a product of high personal rele-vance to these consumers. Mediation effects were also assessed. Results showedthat subjective norms (friends/experts) can increase intentions and mediate therelationship between information and intentions. Involvement emerged as asignificant influencer on intentions, presenting new findings for the literature.Moreover, higher levels of objective knowledge increased intentions. Thissupported the significant role of the Mobile Muster scheme in dispersing knowl-edge. These findings are of practical value to educators, allowing them todetermine factors that influence consumer knowledge and norms with the aim ofenabling students to form more ecological relevant purchase intentions.

Keywords: attitude; environmental awareness; behavior

In light of mounting concern for the environment by consumers, government andorganizations, multiple opportunities for the growth of green marketing educationinitiatives emerge. If educators and marketers are able to generate interest amongyoung consumers to purchase green products, this could play a crucial role in pro-viding part of a solution for addressing environmental problems (Bradley, Waliczek,and Zajicek 1999).

As the severity of environmental issues continues to grow alongside the increas-ing popularity of mobile phones, green marketing of eco-friendly mobile phonescould possibly be one way to combat the escalating rate of ecological problems.There is limited analysis that examines the adoptions of environmentally friendlyfast moving consumer goods, such as electronics (Dobel, Paludan, and Jensen2003), thus this study presents some important preliminary insights. Mobile phoneusage was reported as a high in 2007 (77%) and was found to be the second most

*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

Environmental Education Research, 2013Vol. 19, No. 1, 118–145, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2012.687044

� 2013 Taylor & Francis

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 0

4:58

17

Aug

ust 2

014

popular tool for communication (Australian Bureau of Statistics [ABS] 2007).Moreover, a further survey revealed that 89% of youngsters, aged between 13 and19 in two populous cities in Australia possessed mobile phones (The Age 2004).So, it may be plausible that a potential market exists for phones with a reducednegative impact on the environment.

Mobile Muster (official recycling program of the mobile phone industry) is amobile phone recycling scheme that has sought to educate consumers and studentsthrough on-campus initiatives, regarding the environmental costs of mobile phoneuse and disposal. This information-rich scheme sought to increase the awareness forthe environment and wastage associated with the high disposal rate of mobilephones which are often changed on a six monthly basis by this cohort of the popu-lation. For the purposes of this program, an eco-friendly mobile phone is defined asfollows: (a) 10 cents for every $1 one spends through the mobile will be donated tocarbon emission reduction programs, (b) electronic billing and online statementviewing will be used instead of paper bills to save trees, (c) recycled materials willbe used to deliver customer welcome packs and any other necessary information,and (d) free delivery of used mobile phones to Mobile Muster will be offered tocustomers (Green Mobiles 2008a).

Marketing campaigns are often used as educational tools to inform people ofchanges, change perceptions and attitudes, and in many cases subsequent behaviors(Thrasher et al. 2011). This article thus explores the multitude of factors that poten-tially influence purchase intentions of green mobiles, among young Australian con-sumers. Through the application of the theories of reasoned action (TRA) andplanned behavior (TPB), this study examines the characteristics of subjective norms,attitudes, perceived behavioral control, environmental concern, altruism, riskaversion, price consciousness, product involvement, branding and environmentalknowledge, and their relationship with purchase intentions among young consumers.Research indicates that these are significantly associated with purchase behaviors(e.g. Paladino 2005; Smith and Paladino 2010). It is the first study to examine theeffects of these variables on the purchase of eco-friendly mobile phones, a productshown to be of high personal relevance to this cohort of consumers. Researchshows that young people who already engage in the purchase decision for thehousehold are not ‘recognized sufficiently in research’ (e.g. Gotschi et al. 2009). Inaddition, there are limited studies that assess the influence of product involvementas well as the mediation effects of subjective norms, attitudes, and perceived behav-ioral control on green purchase intentions. Even fewer studies examine these effectssimultaneously. Hence, this study seeks to address these gaps.

The TRA and TPB are used as the underlying frameworks for this study, wherebyconsistent with extant research, intentions have been used as a proxy of behavior(Ajzen 1991; Ajzen and Fishbein 1980). This is also attributable to the newness ofgreen mobiles in the market, whereby data of green mobile phone consumption pat-terns are not readily accessible. Therefore, actual purchase behavior cannot be accu-rately gaged as yet. As such, exploratory research will be conducted as it is suitablefor gaining insight into an issue that little is known about (Churchill and Iacobucci2002). This provides valuable insight to marketing educators, allowing them to deter-mine factors that influence consumer knowledge and norms in the classroom with theaim of enabling students to form more ecological relevant purchase intentions.

As such, this article aims to address the following research objectives: (1) whatare the antecedents that motivate young consumers to form intentions to purchase

Environmental Education Research 119

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 0

4:58

17

Aug

ust 2

014

green mobiles? and (2) do subjective norms, attitudes toward green mobiles, and per-ceived behavioral control mediate the influence of these antecedents on consumerpurchase intentions? We do this in the context of the launch of the environmentalphone education campaign that was aimed at the young consumer demographic.

Theoretical background

The TRA highlights links between attitudes, subjective norms, intentions, and con-sumer purchasing behavior. The framework proposes that an individual’s behavioris prompted by their intention to act. Behavioral intentions measure a person’s rela-tive strength of purpose to execute certain behavior (Ajzen and Fishbein 1975).This is influenced by their attitude toward that action and how their subjectivenorm/social influences have impacted their thought patterns (Ajzen and Fishbein1980; Hale, Householder, and Greene 2003; Manstead and Parker 1995). Thisframework has been shown to be invaluable in enabling researchers to predict andunderstand environmental behaviors. As such, it provides a useful basis upon whichto design educational programs for these young consumers (Gotch and Hall 2004).

The TPB asserts that an individual’s voluntary behavior, instead of actual behav-iors and intentions, are predicted by their attitudes and how they view what otherswould think if they materialized that behavior (Ajzen 1991, 2002). Hence, theinclusion of ‘perceived behavioral control’ accounts for circumstances where con-sumers do have intentions of purchasing, but fail due to a lack of control over theirbehavior (Miller 2005).

The TRA/TPB has shown that attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behav-ioral control can influence intentions and behavior (Lutz 1991; Manstead and Parker1995; Miller 2005), as can a suite of psychographic variables. In summary, weexplore various factors identified in past research that can influence purchase inten-tions of green mobiles, amongst young Australian consumers (e.g. Paladino 2005).Intentions have been shown to be more accurately predicted as compared to actualbehaviors (e.g. Gotch and Hall 2004). These factors include: subjective norms, atti-tudes, perceived behavioral control, environmental concern, altruism, risk aversion,price consciousness, product involvement and branding, and environmental knowl-edge. These antecedents were chosen as research supports their relationships withpurchase behaviors. We now discuss each variable in turn.

Mediators

Subjective norms

Subjective norms influence an individual’s intention to act (Lutz 1991). A subjec-tive norm can be measured directly by evaluating a consumer’s perception of thatbehavior and their feelings toward what people important to them might think ofthe action being considered. For the purpose of this study, subjective norms will berepresented by friends and experts (Lutz 1991).

The extant literature reveals that subjective norms do influence purchase inten-tions (Ajzen 1991, 2002; Park 1999). Biswas et al. (2000) found a significant posi-tive relationship between social influences and green behavior (i.e. recyclingactivities). Furthermore, Tan (1999) found that subjective norms, such as productexperts, could decrease consumers’ perceptions of risk, which would then increaseone’s propensity to purchase. Comparable to this study, Cordano and colleagues

120 A. Paladino and S. Ng

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 0

4:58

17

Aug

ust 2

014

(2010) surveyed business students and found that in Chile, students did in fact con-form to peer pressure to engage in pro-environmental behaviors (224).

However, other studies have found that subjective norms have a weak influ-ence on behavioral intentions, as compared to other variables. For instance,Schwepker and Cornwell (1991) found that product effectiveness and practicalconsumer value were more important to consumers, in terms of purchasing greenproducts. Shrum, McCarty and Lowrey (1995) found that consumer’s who expe-rienced high difficulties in identifying products with ecological qualities wereleast likely to purchase. This suggests that it is unlikely that consumers willpurchase a green mobile that does not provide the basic functions of a conven-tional mobile phone, and is hard to access, despite a recommendation fromsocial influences. As such:

H1: The stronger the subjective norms, (a) friends and (b) experts, the greater youngconsumers will intend to purchase green mobiles.

Attitudes

Attitudes have been defined as the result of a consumer’s assessment of particularbehaviors (Ajzen 1991). Attitudes can be conceptualized as positive or negativeoverall evaluations of green behavior, as they are quantified by the sum of con-sumer’s beliefs and valuation of the product (Ajzen 1991; Ajzen and Fishbein1980).

Past research show inconsistent results of attitudes being an accurate predictorof behavioral intentions. Grob (2005) found a weak link between green attitudesand pro-environmental behavior. In addition, Kaiser, Wolfing, and Fuhrer (1999)established that previous studies failed to consider limitations, such as the lack ofself-efficacy, which could have dampened the predictive power of environmentalattitudes to be indicative of ecological behavior. Balachander and Farquhar (1994)proposed that for new products, the lack of product availability/accessibility mayrender positive product attitudes to have less influence on purchase intentions. Asgreen mobiles are new and there is a limited availability of it in the current market,this suggests that the effects of positive environmental attitudes on purchase inten-tions may be overruled by other dominant factors such as product unavailability.For instance, if consumers are unable to obtain the product, they will not have thecapacity to translate their positive attitudes into actual purchase (Shrum, McCarty,and Lowrey 1995).

Conversely, Thapa (2010), Meinhold and Maclus (2005), and Bradley, Waliczek,and Zajicek (1999) found that young consumers who displayed pro-environmentalattitudes were prone to engage in green behaviors. In addition, Kaiser, Wolfing, andFuhrer (1999) based their research on the TPB and concluded that environmentalattitudes were the most powerful indicator of ecological consumption. Mainieriet al. (1997) also concluded that consumers with strong environmental concernswere more likely to have favorable attitudes toward green products and this wouldpositively affect purchase decisions. Thus, it will be examined if positive attitudestoward green mobiles can influence purchase intentions for younger consumers.

H2: An increase in positive attitudes toward green mobiles will increase purchaseintentions of green mobiles amongst young consumers.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 0

4:58

17

Aug

ust 2

014

Perceived behavioral control

Perceived behavioral control or locus of control (LOC) refers to an individual’s per-ception of how easily they can perform a specific behavior (Ajzen 2002; Rotter1966). It accounts for the situational constraints that can positively or negativelyaffect the relationship between behavioral intentions and behaviors (Armitage1999). According to Rotter (1966), LOC comprises of internal and external LOC.

Studies found that consumers with high external LOC are less inclined to for-mulate intentions to engage in purchase behaviors (Hines, Hungerford, and Tomera1987; Rotter 1966). In the case of green products, this suggests that individualswith high external LOC are less likely to believe that their purchases can make sig-nificant environmental changes, as they would render the government or industryresponsible for environmental problems (Paladino 2005). In addition, despite thegrowth in corporate social responsibility initiatives amongst industries, it was foundthat some consumers remained skeptical about purchasing products for socialcauses, due to high external LOC (Sen and Bhattacharya 2001).

Conversely, pro-environmental individuals with high internal LOC were con-vinced that any form of eco-friendly behavior had the capacity to ease environmen-tal problems (Ellen, Wiener, and Walgren 1991; Schwepker and Cornwell 1991). Aconsumer’s internal LOC can be defined as the belief in their ability to make a sig-nificant change (Rotter 1966). In a green context, this refers to the perceived controlthat consumers feel they have to influence environmental changes (Paladino 2005).Past research shows that increase in internal LOC had positive influences on eco-friendly behaviors (Cleveland, Kalamas, and Laroche 2005; Shrum, McCarty, andLowrey 1995). This suggests that high levels of internal LOC can be indicative ofconsumers’ intentions to purchase green products. As such, for the purpose of thisstudy, internal LOC will be used as a proxy for perceived behavioral control.

H3: An increase in perceived behavioral control will increase purchase intentions ofgreen mobiles amongst young consumers.

Antecedents

Environmental concern

Environmental concern can be distinguished as an individual’s expressed proactivedesire to protect the environment (Kim and Damhorst 1998). According to Albrechtet al. (1982), environmental concern is measured by the New Environment Para-digm (NEP) scale. The NEP scale generally examines how people feel about natureby using three measures. These include ‘balance of nature,’ which assesses humaninteraction with nature, ‘limits to growth,’ which examines attitudes toward earth’sgrowth limits, and ‘man over nature,’ which analyzes feelings about man rulingover nature (Albrecht et al. 1982).

The extant literature supports that genuine environmental concerns have a positivedirect impact on green purchase intentions (Keesling and Kaynama 2003; Robertsand Bacon 1997). According to Hopper and Nielsen (1991), consumers with environ-mental concerns were more likely to purchase from socially responsible entities, asthey would derive more satisfaction from their purchase. Consistent with Newell,Goldsmith, and Banzhaf (1998), consumers have been found to shun nonenvironmen-tally goods and only purchase eco-friendly substitutes to express their environmental


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 0

4:58

17

Aug

ust 2

014

concerns. Moreover, Hallin (1995) concluded that environmental concern was a reli-able factor in predicting an individual’s shift toward more environmentally friendlybehavior. However, this study focused on specific behaviors such as recycling; there-fore, its findings were inadequate to account for environmental purchase intentions ina broad sense.

Conversely, empirical studies have demonstrated that high levels of environmen-tal concern have not been influential enough to initiate large shifts to behaviorssuch as paying a price premium for green products (Berger and Corbin 1992; Mont-gomery 1997). This could be attributed to the influence of other factors, such asprice sensitivity, perceptions of inferior product quality, and doubt in green market-ing claims (Straughan and Roberts 1999; Wagner 2007). Nonetheless, it will beassessed if environmental concern is related to purchase intentions of greenmobiles.

H4: An increase in environmental concern will increase purchase intentions of greenmobiles amongst young consumers.

Altruism

Altruism involves putting the interests of others above one’s own interests, for thegreater good of society (Corbett 2005). As such, altruistic attitudes and beliefs areprone to be congruent with high levels of environmental knowledge and concern(Paladino 2005).

Numerous studies reveal a significant association between altruism and environ-mentally friendly behavior. For instance, Clark, Ketchen, and Moore (2003) con-cluded that altruistic attitudes were amongst the top priorities of individuals, whoparticipated in a green electricity program that was meant to promote eco-friendlybehavior. Altruism was also found to be a reliable indicator of environmentallyresponsible behavior, amongst other variables such as self-interest; personal norms,desirable choices, etc. (Corbett 2005). Stern and Dietz (1994) found significantpositive relationships between social-altruistic orientations, genuine environmentalconcern, and green behavior. Similarly, Hopper and Nielsen (1991) concluded thathighly altruistic people were more willing to engage in eco-friendly activities asthey were motivated by personal satisfaction instead of monetary rewards. Thisproposes that highly altruistic consumers may be more inclined to purchaseeco-friendly mobiles as they would gain more fulfillment from their purchase.

Conversely, it has been proposed that it can be difficult to determine if greenpurchase behavior has resulted from specifically altruistic attitudes (Paladino 2005).For instance, a customer in a happy mood may be more willing to be sociallyresponsible. As such, their resultant green purchase would be due to a temporaryemotional high, as opposed to consistent altruistic attitudes (Corbett 2005). More-over, other research has questioned the genuineness of altruism, as it is possible thatsome may help others for self-serving purposes (Batson and Shaw 1991). Neverthe-less, despite the probable temporary nature of an individual’s altruistic behavior, itdoes not eliminate the link between altruism and subsequent ecological behavior.Specifically:

H5: An increase in altruism will increase purchase intentions of green mobilesamongst young consumers.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 0

4:58

17

Aug

ust 2

014

Risk aversion

Risk aversion is concerned with a consumer’s reluctance to purchase products thatare perceived as unfamiliar, in order to reduce uncertainty (Price and Ridgeway1983). Past research shows strong analysis that risk aversion, which is dependenton perceived risk, can significantly alter purchase outcomes (Foxall, Goldsmith, andBrown 1994). A study by Soo (1999) demonstrates that consumers who are riskaverse tend to refrain from engaging in online shopping, due to views of the activ-ity being risky. In addition, according to Anderson, Wachenheim, and Lesch (2006),a consumer’s level of perceived risk was found to negatively affect their desire topurchase eco-friendly products, such as organic food.

As shown by Laurent and Kapfer (1985) and Browne and Kaldenberg (1997),risk-averse consumers are more involved in reducing costs and risks for expensiveand high involvement purchases. As mobiles are relatively costly and typicallyviewed as essential tools for communication (ABS 2007; The Age 2004); this sug-gests that potential consumers of green mobiles may be more compelled to avoidrisk during decision-making. Furthermore, Dodds, Monroe, and Grewal (1991) con-cluded that consumers are more risk averse and less willing to engage in purchasewhen they have little knowledge about the product.

Conversely, other studies have found a weak relationship between risk aversionand behavioral intentions. This is a result of various factors that can highly reduceconsumer’s level of perceived risk toward a product. These risk-reducing variablesinclude brand trust, resource availability, decrease in price, and an increase in prod-uct experience (Foxall, Goldsmith, and Brown 1994; Mitchell 1999). However, dueto the newness of green mobiles in the market, consumers are less familiar with theeffectiveness of product. Thus, it is less likely for the aforementioned risk-reducingfactors to have significant effects on purchase intentions (Foxall, Goldsmith, andBrown 1994). Therefore, it is probable that risk-averse consumers will be hesitantabout purchasing green mobiles. Specifically:

H6: An increase in risk aversion will decrease purchase intentions of green mobilesamongst young consumers.

Price consciousness

Price consciousness refers to the degree of which price is an important determinantin purchase decisions (Monroe 1990). In other words, price conscious consumersdesire to pay the lowest price possible for a good (Alford and Biswas 2002). Paststudies show that price consciousness is significantly related to purchase intentions.Sinha and Batra (1999) found that when perceived price, which is dependent onprice consciousness, is consistent with product quality, perceived risk will bereduced. Furthermore, price conscious consumers were found to have a high ten-dency to evaluate product labels, as adequate information provided could positivelyinfluence purchase decisions (D’Souza, Taghian, and Lamb 2006). This suggeststhat consumers will be less price conscious and more inclined to purchase greenmobiles, when quality and sufficient product information can be provided.

However, consumers generally lack adequate information on green products toeffectively evaluate their quality (Paladino 2005). According to Ferraro, Uchida, andConrad (2005), people tend to perceive eco-friendly products to be more costly thanconventional alternatives. This suggests that if consumers have insufficient informa-


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 0

4:58

17

Aug

ust 2

014

tion about price, they may not know that green mobiles are priced similar to conven-tional mobiles (Green Mobiles 2008b). This misperception may then deter them fromseeking product information (Alford and Biswas 2002). If consumers are unmotivatedto search for information, it is unlikely that price consciousness will influence theirpurchase decisions as green mobiles will not enter their evoked set1 (Wagner 2007).

Nevertheless, other studies have found that environmentally concerned consum-ers tend to be less price conscious with regard to eco-friendly products (Diekmannand Preisendorfer 1998; Vlosky, Ozanne, and Fontenot 1999). Thus, it will beexplored if price consciousness can diminish purchase intentions of green mobiles.

H7: An increase in price consciousness will decrease purchase intentions of greenmobiles amongst young consumers.

Product involvement

Product involvement refers to the amount of effort consumers invest in the deci-sion-making of a purchase and this is determined by how important and personallyrelevant the good is to the individual (Maio and Olsen 1995). Consumers withhigher levels of product involvement tend to engage in extensive search and deci-sion-making, prior to actual purchase (Browne and Kaldenberg 1997). Lessinvolved consumers tend to be more influenced by situational factors duringpurchase decision-making, as they view the good as less important (Xue 2008).

Numerous studies found a significant positive relationship between productinvolvement and behavioral intentions (Browne and Kaldenberg 1997; Lin and Chen2006; Maio and Olsen 1995). Bauer, Sauer, and Becker (2006) found that the major-ity of repeated consumer purchases consisted of products that were of higherpersonal importance. As mobiles are generally viewed as important devices for com-munication (The Age 2004); this suggests that a positive relationship between highproduct involvement and purchase intentions of green mobiles is likely to exist.

However, there is limited research examining the direct effects of productinvolvement on purchase intentions of green products. According to Roberts andBacon (1997) and Paladino (2005), environmental concern can strengthen a con-sumer’s willingness to be involved in decision-making. This suggests that highlevels of environmental concern may enhance the product’s importance to consum-ers and this will instigate their purchase intentions of green products. On this basis,it is predicted that product involvement may have a positive effect on purchaseintentions for green mobiles.

H8: The higher the product involvement, the higher intentions will be to purchasegreen mobiles, amongst young consumers.

Branding

Branding provides valuable functions for the firm and customers, throughcustomer–brand relationships, which generates positive product attitudes (Keller andLehman 2006). The strength of these relationships is largely indicative of theconsumer’s attitude toward the brand. As such, for the purpose of this study, brand-ing shall be assessed by perceived (i) brand parity and (ii) brand trust (Bearden,Netemeyer, and Mobley 1993).


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 0

4:58

17

Aug

ust 2

014

Perceived brand parity

Perceived brand parity refers to the general view held by consumers that there areminimal differences between the major brand alternatives within a product category(Muncy 1996, 411). As such, this proposes that if consumers view mobile brands tohave high parity, they perceive brand alternatives to be comparable (Bearden,Netemeyer, and Mobley 1993).

Research has found that consumers can perceive ecological products to havepoorer quality than conventional substitutes (Straughan and Roberts 1999). Hence,if green electronics (e.g. mobiles) can be viewed as comparable with other brandalternatives, through having similar features/functions and product quality, it is morelikely that they will be a part of the consumer’s evoked set and this may strengthenintentions to purchase (Wagner 2007). Furthermore, competition is intense in themobile phone market (ABS 2007). Thus, the unique ecological characteristics of thegreen mobile may provide it with a competitive edge over other brands and play apositive role in consumer’s decision-making (Pelham 1997).

Conversely, research has found that high perceived brand parity towards greenbrands has not resulted in consequent eco-friendly behavior, as consumers do notbelieve the product has distinctive ecological value (Alwitt and Pitts 1996). Forinstance, as previously discussed, a lack of internal LOC can preclude consumersfrom purchasing eco-friendly products (Ellen, Wiener, and Walgren 1991; Shrum,McCarty, and Lowrey 1995). Thus, even if consumers view that the green product’squality is on par with alternatives, they may still select a conventional substitute asthey doubt their green purchase can resolve any issues (Paladino 2005). This sug-gests that high perceived brand parity alone may be insufficient to convince con-sumers to purchase green electronic products. Hence, perceived brand trust will bediscussed next.

Perceived brand trust

Perceived brand trust refers to the extent that consumers ‘know what to expect fromthe brand’ and perceives it to be dependable and trustworthy (Hess 1995, 21).

In a green context, the extant literature shows that consumers do follow throughwith their purchase intentions, when perceived brand trust is high and much empha-sis is placed on the authencity of the product’s ecological feature (Corbett 2005;Kim and Damhorst 1998). This suggests that if customers can trust the green brandto make sustainable green marketing claims, this could positively affect purchaseintentions, especially if consumers do not perceive green products to be of poorerquality than conventional substitutes (Hartmann, Ibanez, and Sainz 2005).

However, Baker and Ozaki (2008) discovered that many consumers disliked cur-rent green marketing strategies and faced difficulties identifying green cleaningproducts. As a result, there was a lack of incentives to search for green productinformation and conventional alternatives were purchased out of convenience. Thissuggests that although consumers may trust green brands to be reliable, other domi-nating factors may negatively influence their purchase decision.

Nevertheless, it is suggested that both perceived brand parity and brand trustcan have effects on purchase intentions of green mobiles.

H9: An increase in branding, (a) perceived brand parity and (b) perceived brand trustwill increase purchase intentions of green mobiles amongst young consumers.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 0

4:58

17

Aug

ust 2

014

Environmental knowledge

Environmental knowledge is concerned with the individual’s grasp of informationregarding environmental problems and consequences (Ramsey and Rickson 1976).Environmental knowledge is typically represented by (i) objective knowledge, whichrefers to consumer’s knowledge of the general environment; (ii) subjective knowl-edge, which is concerned with green experiences/values specific to the consumer,and (iii) knowledge of action, which refers to the amount of relevant informationconsumers have to make their purchase decision (Jones and Eden 1981).

Past research shows incongruent results regarding the relationship between envi-ronmental knowledge and green purchase intentions. Studies have shown thatalthough there are rising concerns for environmental issues, this has not necessarilyresulted in support for eco-friendly purchases (Australian Government 2006;Ramsey and Rickson 1976). Specifically, Ehrampoush and Moghadam (2005) foundthat a large proportion of undergraduate students had high environmental knowl-edge; however, it was not translated into green practices (e.g. proper disposal ofwaste at home). This is consistent with findings from Tikka, Kuitunen, and Tynys(2000), as consumers had little emotional concern for the environment despite beingconscious of environmental issues. This suggests that consumers with high levels ofenvironmental knowledge may not necessarily engage in green behavior.

Conversely, other research found a significant positive relationship between envi-ronmental consciousness and green purchasing decisions (Chan 1999; Schlegelmilch,Bohlen, and Diamantopoulos 1996). However, this is contingent upon different prod-uct categories (Vlosky, Ozanne, and Fontenot 1999). For instance, consumers aremore likely to believe that common green products (e.g. recycled paper) have moreecological benefits than green mobiles, as consumers are more conscious of how theycan contribute to the environment. The Mobile Muster program sought to increase lev-els of information provided to their target consumers as well as increase levels ofobjective and subjective knowledge. Notably, Dobel, Paludan, and Jensen (2003) con-cluded that an increase in environmental awareness/knowledge could strengthen pur-chase intentions of green electronic goods. Hence, the following will be examined:

H10: An increase in (a) objective environmental knowledge, (b) subjective environ-mental knowledge, and (c) knowledge of environmental action will increase purchaseintentions of green mobiles amongst young consumer.

Mediation effects

Mediators are ‘the generative mechanisms’ through which independent variablescan affect the outcome variable (Baron and Kenny 1986, 1176). The TPB proposesthat subjective norms, attitudes, and perceived behavioral control can have mediat-ing effects on purchase intentions (Ajzen 1991). As such, these mediators willbehave as explanatory variables which can partially or fully account for the relation-ship between independent variables and purchase intentions (Hair et al. 2003).

Past research has shown that subjective norms, attitudes, and perceived behav-ioral control can have mediation effects on purchase intentions of fast movingconsumer goods (Huiand and Bateson 1991; Sinha and Batra 1999; Tan 1999). Dueto limited research of mediation effects within a green context, it will be examinedif subjective norms, attitudes, and perceived behavioral control can mediate the rela-tionship between antecedents and purchase intentions of green mobiles.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 0

4:58

17

Aug

ust 2

014

H11: The effects of: a) Environmental concern, b) Altruism, c) Risk aversion, d) Priceconsciousness, e) Product involvement, f) Branding, g) Environmental knowledge, onpurchase intentions of green mobiles amongst young consumers, will be mediated bysubjective norms (friends).

H12: The effects of: a) Environmental concern, b) Altruism, c) Risk aversion, d) Priceconsciousness, e) Product involvement, f) Branding, g) Environmental knowledge onpurchase intentions of green mobiles amongst young consumers, will be mediated bysubjective norms (experts).

H13: The effects of: a) Environmental concern, b) Altruism, c) Risk aversion, d) Priceconsciousness, e) Product involvement, f) Branding, g) Environmental knowledge, onpurchase intentions of green mobiles amongst young consumers will be mediated byattitudes towards green mobiles.

H14: The effects of: a) Environmental concern, b) Altruism, c) Risk aversion, d) Priceconsciousness, e) Product involvement, f) Branding, g) Environmental knowledge onpurchase intentions of green mobiles amongst young consumers, will be mediated byperceived behavioral control.

Figure 1 depicts the conceptual model that reflects these hypotheses.

ObjectiveKnowledge**

Altruism

Subjective^Norms (Friends)

Attitudestowards green

mobiles

Intentions to buyGreen mobiles

EnvironmentalConcern

Price consciousness

Drivers Mediators Intentions

Perceivedbrand Parity*

Perceived behavioralcontrol

Risk Aversion

Involvement

Perceivedbrand Trust*

Subjective Norms^(Experts)

SubjectiveKnowledge**

Knowledgeof Action**

*Perceived brand parity andPerceived brand trust are used toassess Branding

** Objective, subjective andknowledge of action representEnvironmental Knowledge

^Subjective Norms is comprised offriends and experts

H11a…H14j

H1a…H3

H4…H10c

Figure 1. Conceptual model.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 0

4:58

17

Aug

ust 2

014

Methodology

Data were collected through the administration of a four-page (51 item) surveyquestionnaire. In order to satisfy research objectives, a survey sample that washighly representative of young consumers was chosen. Accordingly, 250 surveyswere distributed to a random sample of business students within a large Austra-lian university. A total of 175 eligible surveys were collected yielding aresponse rate of 70%. Given the high response rate, nonresponse bias was notan issue.

All respondents were aged between 18 and 25 years old. Within the final sample,approximately 37% were male or 65 respondents. Within households, there was anaverage of approximately 3.7 people in residence, with the average income rangingfrom $45,001 to 60,000, per residence. An analysis of the postal code data revealedthat the majority of respondents have lived in Australia for most of their life.

Measures

A five point Likert scale was used to measure responses, where 1 = strongly dis-agree and 5 = strongly agree (3 = neither agree nor disagree). Established scales wereused to assess the constructs and relationships examined in the study. As such,Table 1 defines the constructs used, the scale origin and provides details of keydescriptive statistics.

Statistical analysis

Data screening was performed to remove outliers and insure that all values werewithin accurate ranges to conduct regression analysis. Mean substitution was thenconducted to replace minimal missing data in accordance with accepted practice(Hair et al. 2003). All variables were initially examined together to assess the possi-bility of common method variance. As no single factor appeared to account formost of the variance and numerous factors resulted from the data-set, commonmethod bias did not pose as a problem (Podsakoff and Organ 1986).

Exploratory factor analysis was conducted to establish the validity of scales,whereby oblique rotations were performed to simplify original constructs into afew variables (Hair et al. 2003). Discriminant and convergent validity requirementswere satisfied for all constructs, with all items exceeding the 0.40 threshold. Thereliability of scales was analyzed to identify consistent scores that resulted fromthe repeated application of survey items (Hair et al. 2003). Reliability analysis wasdetermined by Cronbach’s alpha (α), whereby scores approaching or exceeding 0.8signified acceptable reliability (Hair et al. 2003). However, the remaining itemswith low alphas were not further reduced to one-item measures, as validity andreliability could not be established (Hair et al. 2006). As the exploratory nature ofthis study is typically characterized by its’ flexibility with regard to research meth-ods, items with alphas below 0.7 can be accepted (Churchill and Iacobucci 2002,95; Hair et al. 2003). Finally, correlation analysis was performed using the Pear-son correlation coefficient to examine the direction and strength of the relation-ships between variables (Hair et al. 2003). The applicable levels of power (at least0.80) were also achieved to provide us with further confidence in our results (Hairet al. 2006).


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 0

4:58

17

Aug

ust 2

014

The data-set was analyzed for multicollinearity. According to the Pearson’s cor-relation matrix in Table 2, no correlations above 0.8 were found thus there was noindication of multi-collinearity (Hair et al. 2003). The majority of antecedents (9

Table 1. Definition of constructs.

Constructs Definition

Intentions to buy greenmobiles

The likelihood of consumers purchasing green mobiles; Scaleadapted from Ajzen (1991). 2 Items. M = 6.05; SD= 1.32; andα = 0.51

Subjective norms (friendsand experts)

Social influences that affect an individual’s intention to act (Lutz1991). Scale taken from Ajzen (1991).(i) Friends, 2 Items. M= 7.53; SD= 2.59; and α= 0.83(ii) Experts, 2 Items. M= 6.75; SD= 1.69; and α= 0.65

Attitudes toward greenmobiles

The result of consumer’s assessment of particular behaviors;scale from Ajzen (1991). 4 Items. M = 52.48; SD= 13.92; andα = 0.68

Perceived behavioralcontrol

Consumer’s belief of their ability to make a change with theirpurchase (Schwepker and Cornwell 1991). Modification of scalefrom Rotter (1966). 2 Items. M= 6.86; SD= 1.44; and α = 0.61

Environmental concern An individual’s expressed proactive desire to protect theenvironment (Kim and Damhorst 1998). Measured by two scalesfrom the NEP, taken from Albrecht et al. (1982).‘Limits to growth,’ 3 Items. M = 9.78; SD= 2.04; and α = 0.56‘Man over nature,’ 2 Items. M= 7.28; SD= 1.49; and α= 0.55

Altruism Involves putting the interests of others above one’s own interests(Corbett 2005). Scale taken from Rushton, Chrisjohn, andFekken (1981). 5 Items. M= 16.92; SD= 3,23; and α= 0.63

Risk aversion Concerned with the reluctance to purchase unfamiliar products;Modification of scale by Price and Ridgeway (1983). 2 Items.M = 9.89; SD= 2.42; and α = 0.81

Price consciousness Degree to which price is an important determinant for purchasedecisions (Monroe 1990). Scale by Dickerson and Gentry(1983).3 Items. M= 9.78; SD= 2.58; and α = 0.68

Product involvement The amount of effort consumers invest in decision-making ofpurchase (Maio and Olsen 1995). Modification of scale byLaurent and Kapfer (1985). 3 Items. M= 9.10; SD= 2.20; andα = 0.68

Branding Consists of (i) perceived brand parity: general view held byconsumer that there are minimal differences between the majorbrand alternatives in a product category. Scale from Muncy(1996). 4 Items. M= 9.93; SD= 3.45; and α = 0.79 and (ii)perceived brand trust: the extent that consumers ‘know what toexpect from the brand’ and perceives it to be dependable andtrustworthy. Scale from Hess (1995). 2 Items. M = 6.70;SD= 1.64; and α = 0.65

Environmental knowledge Individuals’ grasp of information regarding environmentalproblems and consequences (Ramsey and Rickson 1976). Thescale was developed for this study.Objective environmental knowledge,2 Items. M= 7.61; SD= 1.79; and α = 0.76Subjective environmental knowledge,9 Items. M= 28.93; SD= 6.11; and α= 0.87Knowledge of environmental action,4 Items. M= 12.18; SD= 2.74; and α = 0.61


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 0

4:58

17

Aug

ust 2

014

Table2.

Pearson

correlationmatrix(one-tailtest).

12

34

56

78

910

1112

1314

1516

1.Brand

parity

12.

Brand

trust

�0.04

13.

Internal

LOC

�0.051

0.130⁄

14.

Price

consciousness

0.006

0.169⁄

0.142⁄

15.

Riskaversion2

0.080

0.064

0.044

0.064

16.

Altruism

�0.056

0.020

0.115^

0.153⁄

�0.086

17.

Environmentalconcern2

0.066

0.086

0.23

⁄⁄�0

.007

�0.025

�0.088

18.

Environmentalconcern3

�0.072

0.098^

0.066

0.049

0.143⁄

0.094

�0.092

19.

Subjectiveknow

ledge

(�0.213)

⁄⁄0.070

0.090

0.027

�0.061

0.239⁄

⁄0.053

0.063

110.

Knowledgeof

actio

n�0

.084

0.166⁄

0.081

0.114^

0.079

0.250⁄

⁄(�

0.137)

⁄0.210⁄

⁄0.395⁄

⁄1

11.

Attitudes

0.113^

0.055

0.115^

0.12

^0.245⁄

⁄0.066

0.099

0.203⁄

⁄0.089

0.104^

112.

Subjectivenorm

s(friends)

(0.176)⁄⁄

0.097^

�0.540

�0.039

0.138⁄

�0.033

0.193⁄

⁄�0

.006

0.098^

0.189⁄

⁄0.151⁄

113.

Subjectivenorm

s(experts)

�0.073

0.149⁄

0.064

0.193⁄

⁄0.128⁄

0.195⁄

⁄0.235⁄

⁄0.196⁄

⁄0.147⁄

0.123^

0.301⁄

⁄0.34

8⁄⁄

114.

Product

involvem

ent

(�0.134)

⁄�0

.004

0.058

�0.089

0.066

�0.007

0.173⁄

0.085

0.091

�0.007

0.146⁄

0.31

6⁄⁄

0.28

6⁄⁄

115.

Purchaseintentions

�0.011

�0.032

0.081

�0.088

0.122^

0.052

0.137⁄

0.076

0.178⁄

⁄0.097^

0.231⁄

⁄�0

.07

0.300⁄

⁄0.38

5⁄⁄

116.

Inform

ation

�0.028

0.105^

0.040

0.037

0.035

0.022

0.014

0.054

0.04

(�0.166)

⁄0.168⁄

0.15

7⁄0.117^

�0.038

0.164⁄

1

⁄⁄Significant

atp60.01

.⁄ Significant

atp60.05

.^ Significant

atp60.10

.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 0

4:58

17

Aug

ust 2

014

out of 15) were found to be positively correlated with intentions to purchase greenmobiles. However, risk aversion was hypothesized to have a negative relationship,thus this only lent partial support to hypotheses 1(a) and (b), 2, 4, 8, and 10(a), (b),and (c). Product involvement was found to have the strongest correlation with pur-chase intentions. With regard to mediating variables, the majority of antecedentswere found to be significantly correlated to subjective norms (friends) (7 out of 11),subjective norms (experts) (10 out of 11), and attitudes (8 out of 11). However,only 4 out of 11 antecedents were found to be significantly correlated to the mediat-ing variable, perceived behavioral control.

Multiple regression analysis was employed to assess the effect of each anteced-ent and mediator on the dependent variable (Hair et al. 2003). For the purpose ofthis study, when a coefficient is significant at p6 0.1, it is used only for descriptivepurposes and can only provide partial support for the hypotheses (Hair et al. 2006).

Results

Stage 1 analysis

Analysis 1 examines the influence of mediating variables on purchase intentions.From the regression results in Table 3 and 16% of the variance (R²) in intentions topurchase green mobiles is explained by mediating variables. Subjective norms(friends) were positively related to purchase intentions of green mobiles (β= 0.240and p6 0.01), thus providing support for H1a. Subjective norms (experts) were pos-itively related to purchase intentions (β= 0.171 and p6 0.05), supporting H1b. Atti-tudes toward ‘green mobiles’ were positively related to purchase intentions(β= 0.136, p6 0.10), thus providing partial support for H2. These results were con-sistent with correlations.

Stage 2 analysis

Analysis 2 is concerned with the direct effects of independent variables on inten-tions to purchase green mobiles. From the regression results in Table 3, the combi-nation of independent variables explains 24% of the variance in intentions topurchase green mobiles. In comparison to Stage 1 analysis, more of the variance isexplained. This suggests that the independent variables show more explanatorypower of intentions to purchase green mobiles, than the mediating variables. Prod-uct involvement (β= 0.362 and p6 0.01) and the information variable (β= 0.198and p6 0.01) were positively related to purchase intentions. This provided supportfor H8 and H10a. These results were consistent with correlations.

Stage 3 analysis

Analysis 3 is concerned with ‘post hoc tests,’ which examine the influences of inde-pendent variables on the valid mediating variables. Post hoc tests refer to the analy-sis of dependent variables which are conducted subsequent to examining the patternof the data (Hair et al. 2006). As a result of insufficient literature to support thedevelopment of hypotheses, post hoc tests were conducted to provide a basis formediation tests in Stage 4 regressions.

From the regression results in Table 3, the combination of independent variablesexplains 24% of the variance in intentions to subjective norms (friends). Product


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 0

4:58

17

Aug

ust 2

014

Table 3. Regression results.

Analysis 1 outputDependent variableIntentions to purchase green mobiles R²= 0.164

Independent variable Hypotheses β t Sig. (p)Subjective norms (friends) H1a 0.240 3.192 0.002⁄⁄Subjective norms (experts) H1b 0.171 2.203 0.029⁄Attitudes toward green mobiles H2 0.136 1.833 0.069^

Perceived behavioral control H3 0.067 0.949 0.344

Analysis 2 outputDependent variableIntentions to purchase green mobiles R²= 0.237Independent variable

Limits to growth H4 0.890 1.245 0.215Man over nature H4 0.011 0.160 0.873Altruism H5 0.028 0.386 0.700Risk aversion H6 0.096 1.365 0.174Price consciousness H7 �0.076 �1.069 0.286Product involvement H8 0.362 5.076 0.000⁄⁄Perceived brand parity H9a 0.062 0.870 0.386Perceived brand trust H9b �0.078 �1.091 0.277Information H10a 0.198 2.789 0.006⁄⁄Subjective environmental knowledge H10b 0.108 1.369 0.173Knowledge of environmental action H10c 0.112 1.373 0.172

Analysis 3 outputDependent variableSubjective norms (friends) R²= 0.236

Independent variable β t Sig. (p)Limits to growth 0.138 1.915 0.057^

Man over nature �0.064 �.0898 0.371Altruism �0.051 �0.700 0.485Risk aversion 0.092 1.295 0.197Price consciousness �0.420 �0.595 0.553Product involvement 0.315 4.409 0.000⁄⁄Perceived brand parity 0.224 3.139 0.002⁄⁄Perceived brand trust 0.067 0.936 0.351Information 0.023 �0.328 0.743Subjective environmental knowledge 0.042 0.534 0.594Knowledge of environmental action 0.220 2.695 0.008⁄⁄

Analysis 3 outputDependent variableSubjective norms (experts) R²= 0.257

Independent variableLimits to growth 0.225 3.167 0.002⁄⁄Man over nature 0.132 1.869 0.063^

Altruism 0.161 2.237 0.027⁄Risk aversion 0.095 1.363 0.175Price consciousness 0.158 2.265 0.025⁄Product involvement 0.243 3.451 0.001⁄⁄Perceived brand parity �0.029 �0.411 0.681

(Continued)


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 0

4:58

17

Aug

ust 2

014

involvement (β= 0.315 and p6 0.01), perceived brand parity (β= 0.224 andp6 0.01), and knowledge of environmental action (β= 0.220 and p6 0.01) werepositively related to subjective norms (friends). The NEP construct, ‘limits togrowth’ was positively related to subjective norms (friends) (β= 0.138 andp6 0.10). These results were consistent with correlations.

From the regression results in Table 3, the combination of independent variablesexplains 26% of the variance in subjective norms (experts). ‘Limits to growth’(β= 0.225 and p6 0.01) and product involvement (β= 0.243 and p6 0.01) werepositively related to subjective norms (experts). Altruism (β= 0.161 and p6 0.05)and price consciousness (β= 0.158 and p6 0.05) were positively related to subjec-tive norms (experts). The NEP construct, ‘man over nature’ was positively relatedto subjective norms (experts) (β= 0.132 and p6 0.10). These results were consistentwith correlations.

From the regression results in Table 3, the combination of independent variablesexplains 18% of the variance in attitudes toward green mobiles. Risk aversion waspositively related to attitudes (β= 0.196 and p6 0.01). ‘Man over nature’ (β= 0.149and p6 0.05) and information (β= 0.168 and p6 0.05) were positively related toattitudes. Product involvement (β= 0.133 and p6 0.10) and perceived brand parity(β= 0.144 and p6 0.10) were positively related to attitudes. These results were con-sistent with correlations.

Mediation effects

Stage 4 analysis

Stage 4 is concerned with determining which independent variables were success-fully mediated by each valid mediator. As established in Stage 1 analysis, onlysubjective norms (friends), subjective norms (experts), and attitudes were positively

Table 3. (Continued).

β t Sig. (p)

Perceived brand trust 0.580 0.822 0.412Information 0.104 1.476 0.142Subjective environmental knowledge 0.032 0.408 0.684Knowledge of environmental action 0.055 0.679 0.498

Analysis 3 outputDependent variableAttitudes toward green mobiles R²= 0.177

Independent variableLimits to growth 0.950 1.279 0.203Man over nature 0.149 2.004 0.047⁄Altruism 0.037 0.483 0.630Risk aversion 0.196 2.670 0.008⁄⁄Price consciousness 0.094 1.281 0.202Product involvement 0.133 1.795 0.075^

Perceived brand parity 0.144 1.943 0.054^

Perceived brand trust �0.025 �0.330 0.740Information 0.168 2.279 0.024⁄Subjective environmental knowledge 0.060 0.735 0.463Knowledge of environmental action 0.071 0.842 0.401⁄⁄p6 0.01; ⁄p6 0.05; ^p6 0.10.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 0

4:58

17

Aug

ust 2

014

related to purchase intentions of green mobiles. Thus, these mediators will beassessed.

Table 4 reflects the mediation effects of subjective norms (friends) on indepen-dent variables. Product involvement (β= 4.053 and p6 0.01) and information(β= 2.899 and p6 0.01) were positively related to purchase intentions. Productinvolvement remained significant and unchanged (0.000). Therefore, mediation didnot exist and H11e was not supported. Information remained significant, but wasrelatively unchanged. The p-value for information went from 0.006 to 0.004. Thus,mediation did not exist, providing no support for H11h.

Table 5 reflects the mediation effects of subjective norms (experts) on indepen-dent variables. Product involvement was positively related to purchase intentions(β= 0.319 and p6 0.01). The information variable was positively related to pur-

Table 4. Mediation analysis 1.

Dependent variable

Intentions to purchase ‘green’ mobilesMediator: subjective norms (friends)

Independent variable Hypotheses β t Sig. (p)

Limits to growth H11a 0.878 0.878 0.381Man over nature H11a 0.339 0.339 0.735Altruism H11b 0.530 0.530 0.597Risk aversion H11c 1.126 1.126 0.262Price consciousness H11d �0.968 �0.968 0.334Product involvement H11e 4.053 4.053 0.000⁄⁄Perceived brand parity H11f 0.257 0.257 0.798Perceived brand trust H11g �1.290 �1.290 0.199Information H11h 2.899 2.899 0.004⁄⁄Subjective environmental knowledge H11i 1.284 1.284 0.201Knowledge of environmental action H11j 0.844 0.844 0.400

⁄⁄p6 0.01; ⁄p6 0.05; ^p6 0.10.


Dependent variable

Intentions to purchase green mobilesMediator: subjective norms (experts)


Limits to growth H12a 0.049 0.675 0.501Man over nature H12a �0.012 �0.170 0.865Altruism H12b �0.001 �0.009 0.993Risk aversion H12c 0.079 1.132 0.259Price consciousness H12d �0.104 �1.465 0.145Product involvement H12e 0.319 4.367 0.000⁄⁄Perceived brand parity H12f 0.067 0.954 0.341Perceived brand trust H12g �0.088 �1.250 0.213Information H12h 0.180 2.544 0.012⁄Subjective environmental knowledge H12i 0.102 1.313 0.191Knowledge of environmental action H12j 0.102 1.267 0.207

⁄⁄p6 0.01; ⁄p6 0.05; ^p6 0.10.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 0

4:58

17

Aug

ust 2

014

chase intentions (β= 0.180 and p6 0.05). Product involvement remained significantand unchanged (0.000). Information remained significant but was reduced in magni-tude, with a reduction of significance. Thus, partial mediation emerged, providingsome support for H12h.

Table 6 reflects the mediation effects of attitudes toward green mobiles on inde-pendent variables. Product involvement was positively related to attitudes (β= 0.347and p6 0.01). The information variable was positively related to attitudes (β= 0.179and p6 0.05). Product involvement remained significant and unchanged (0.000)with the introduction of the mediator variable. Thus, mediation did not exist andH12e was not supported. However, similar to the norms (experts) variable, informa-tion remained significant was reduced in magnitude, with a reduction of signifi-cance. Therefore mediation and H13h were partially supported, pointing to theimportance of the provision of information to consumers.

Discussion

The first research question was concerned with assessing which factors could drivepurchase intentions of green mobiles. Results confirmed that there were significantrelationships between subjective norms (friends and experts) and purchase intentionsfor green mobiles (H1a and b). Both H1a (β= 0.240 and p6 0.01) and H1b (β= 0.171and p6 0.05) were supported. This suggests that amongst young consumers, strongersubjective norms, in the form of friends and experts, can increase intentions to pur-chase green mobiles. This is consistent with the TRA, TPB, and past literature.

H2 was concerned with attitudes toward green mobiles. It was partially sup-ported (β= 0.136 and p6 0.10). The partial association is supported by pastresearch, whereby other factors such as product availability and accessibility mayrender environmental attitudes as a less dominating determinant of purchase inten-tions of new green products (Balachander and Farquhar 1994). This result demon-strates that this may be the case for green mobiles due to it’s newness in themarket, as consumers are unable to form strong attitudes when they are unfamiliarwith the product (Smith and Paladino 2010). This indicates that educational and


Dependent variable

Intentions to purchase green mobilesMediator: attitudes toward green mobiles


Limits to growth H13a 0.079 1.093 0.276Man over nature H13a �.005 �0.076 0.940Altruism H13b 0.024 0.330 0.742Risk aversion H13c 0.074 1.031 0.304Price consciousness H13d �0.086 �1.219 0.225Product involvement H13e 0.347 4.836 0.000⁄⁄Perceived brand parity H13f 0.046 0.636 0.526Perceived brand trust H13g �0.075 �1.056 0.293Information H13h 0.179 2.491 0.014⁄Subjective environmental knowledge H13i 0.101 1.285 0.201Knowledge of environmental action H13j 0.104 1.276 0.204


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 0

4:58

17

Aug

ust 2

014

information programs are pertinent to expose consumers to new ideas presented bythe Mobile Muster program and be influenced by repeated exposure to it over time.

Perceived behavioral control did not affect purchase intentions (H3). This out-come was not congruent with past findings, as individuals with high internal LOCwere found to be more inclined to acquire green products as they believed their pur-chase could make significant changes to the environment (Cleveland, Kalamas, andLaroche 2005). This is inconsistent with the TPB. Again, this may be due to thefact that the product is new and consumers lack knowledge toward the product’sability to contribute to the environment. Thus, it would be difficult for them toestablish their level of perceived behavioral control.

H4 examined the influence of environmental concern on purchase intentions andit was not supported. This is inconsistent with Hallin (1995), as environmental con-cern was found to be a reliable proxy of an individuals’ shift toward more environ-mentally friendly behavior. This discrepancy may be attributed to the fact thatrespondents lacked product knowledge or had little perceived behavioral control,despite their ecological concerns. It could also be a result of the product nature ofgreen mobiles. Being a product that is generally of high personal relevance, thiscould have instigated respondents to value functionality above all else (Schwepkerand Cornwell 1991). Again, this points to the increased importance of the continuityof the Mobile Muster educational program and accessibility of customer servicepoints to assist young consumers in resolving any queries or issues that they haveregarding this new initiative.

The effects of altruism on purchase intentions were investigated in H5 and itwas not supported. This result was incongruent with research that shows positivesignificant relationships between social-altruistic orientations and green behavior(Stern and Dietz 1994). This may be due to the young respondents in this study,who have been shown to be less likely to be concerned with placing the interests ofothers or the environment above their own (e.g. Greenlight Report 2010; Makki,Fouad, and Saouma 2003). For those who did have intentions to engage in altruisticbehavior, being university students, they may also have had restricted financialresources to materialize their altruistic attitudes through purchase.

H6 was concerned with the negative influence of risk aversion on purchaseintentions and it was not supported. This result was not consistent with Anderson,Wachenheim, and Lesch (2006) who found that consumer’s level of perceived riskcan negatively affect their desire to purchase eco-friendly products. This may bebecause respondents do not view green mobiles as a riskier option than conven-tional substitutes as they perceive both alternatives to perform similar basic func-tions of being an instrument for communication. This provides an opportunity totailor the Mobile Muster program to target these perceptions.

Price consciousness did not affect purchase intentions negatively (H7). Thisresult was inconsistent with Ferraro, Uchida, and Conrad (2005), who found thatconsumers were less likely to purchase green products, when they perceived themto be more costly than conventional alternatives. Again, this may be due to the lackof product knowledge, which prevented respondents from engaging in informationsearch. As such, green mobiles did not enter their evoked set and price was ren-dered irrelevant (Wagner 2007).

H8 examined the influence of product involvement on purchase intentions and itwas supported (β= 0.362 and p6 0.01). This suggests that amongst young consum-ers, high product involvement will increase intentions to purchase green mobiles


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 0

4:58

17

Aug

ust 2

014

and is consistent with Bauer, Sauer, and Becker (2006). These results are significantas there is limited literature which examines the relationship between productinvolvement and purchase intentions of green products.

H9a and b investigated the effects of perceived brand parity and brand trust, onpurchase intentions. Both hypotheses were not supported. This was inconsistentwith past studies that suggested high perceived brand parity and brand trust wouldgenerate positive attitudes that could strengthen purchase intentions (Bearden,Netemeyer, and Mobley 1993). This result could be due the weak initial relation-ship found between attitudes and purchase intentions of green mobiles, as estab-lished in H2. These variables were however closely aligned to the role of norms(friends), which one would expect with young people when making a purchase.Their dependence on peers becomes more pronounced especially when the productis of high importance to them.

H10a, b, and c were concerned with the impact of environmental knowledge onpurchase intentions. H10a was supported (β= 0.198 and p6 0.01), suggesting thathigher levels of objective environmental knowledge amongst young consumers canincrease intentions to purchase green mobiles and is consistent with the literature(e.g. Cotte and Trudel 2009). This supported the importance of the Mobile Musterscheme that dispersed high levels of knowledge through its various promotional ini-tiatives to the business students. However, H10b and c were not supported. Thesefindings are not consistent with research that found a significant positive relation-ship between environmental consciousness and green purchasing decisions (Chan1999; Schlegelmilch, Bohlen, and Diamantopoulos 1996). This may again be due tothe young consumers surveyed, who may not have the resources or interest toengage in this purchase (Tikka, Kuitunen, and Tynys 2000).

Mediating effects

The second research objective was to examine the mediation effects of subjectivenorms, attitudes towards green mobiles, and perceived behavioral control on theinfluence of independent variables on purchase intentions.

As H1a, H1b, and H2 were supported, only subjective norms (friends andexperts) and attitudes were assessed as mediators. Results showed that two media-tion effects emerged. Norms (experts) and attitudes were both found to mediate therelationship between information and intentions to purchase a green mobile phone.This provides some support for the TRA (Ajzen 1991) and past findings that foundthese mediating variables to influence behavioral intentions (Huiand and Bateson1991; Tan 1999; Wagner 2007). These results also place emphasis on the importantrole of information provision to young consumers of a relatively new product cate-gory. This provides further support for the utility of the Mobile Muster program.

While we expected to see more mediation effects, this may be due to the limitedactual purchase of green mobiles. As such, respondents may not have had sufficientprior knowledge or experience to make informed decisions about their purchaseintentions as they were unaware of how the product could contribute to the environ-ment (Dobel, Paludan, and Jensen 2003).

Conclusions

This study contributes to the expanding body of work that supports the TRA as areliable predictive framework (e.g. Gotch and Hall 2004). The general support of


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 0

4:58

17

Aug

ust 2

014

individual hypotheses in this study reveals that the TRA can be a useful theory forexamining the motivating factors behind the purchase of eco-friendly electronicproducts. In light of increasing environmental issues, this study investigates influ-ences that can affect purchase intentions of an ecological electronic product withthe aid of an appropriate educational initiative. The association between productinvolvement and behavioral intentions in a green context was also assessed. Theseresults are significant as there is limited analysis of these relationships in the extantliterature.

Subjective norms (friends and experts) were found to positively influence pur-chase intentions. By understanding that social influences can pressure consumers topurchase, marketers should strive to formulate promotional strategies that are engag-ing and credible to gain acceptance amongst young people (e.g. viral marketing onpopular cyber communities, such as ‘facebook’). The results reinforce the need foreducational initiatives as conduits of information to young consumers. This is alsorelated to experiential learning (Paladino 2008), student participation in the programenables them to acquire more information as they become increasingly engaged inthe program. Information was an important direct determinant of attitudes, inten-tions, and also mediated in its influence by experts and attitudes. Thus, it is a criti-cal variable to manage. Not only this, but the program also had a significantinfluence on the knowledge of actions variable, assisting young consumers in trans-lating their thoughts into actions (i.e. they would know how to obtain a recycledphone or know how to recycle their phone as a direct result of being exposed tothe Mobile Muster program).

Of the antecedents, product involvement was found to positively impact pur-chase intentions. Both variables were significantly correlated. This suggests thatmarketers need to provide cues that will gain attention and arouse consumer’s curi-osity about green mobiles, so as to prompt information search. This provides a lar-ger role for an educational initiative in the form of an information campaign. Forinstance, marketers can incorporate the impact of environmental issues on society intheir marketing campaigns so as to highlight how green mobiles can be of personalrelevance to these young consumers. Thus, consumers may feel more compelled tosearch for information. In turn, they will be more familiar with the product and thiscan positively influence purchase intentions.

Objective environmental knowledge was found to strengthen purchase inten-tions. Being a component of environmental knowledge, this indicates that educatorsneed to further educate future managers regarding issues of environmental impor-tance and change current thinking (Cordano et al. 2010; Cotte and Trudel 2009;Shrum, McCarty, and Lowrey 1995). This further suggests that it is important toeducate consumers through sustainable green marketing strategies (Hartmann,Ibanez, and Sainz 2005). When consumers are conscious of how a green productfunctions and how it aids the environment, they are more likely to trust the greenbrand; thus purchase intentions can be strengthened (Corbett 2005). As espoused byCordano and colleagues, ‘teaching environmental topics should result in increasedsensitivity to these issues’ (233). The extant literature has found that such initiativeslead to the formation of greater levels of environmental concern and as well asintentions to engage in environmentally friendly behaviors (e.g. Cordano et al.2010; Gotch and Hall 2004).

However, as noted by Heimlich and Ardoin (2008), it is often difficult tostipulate which environmental skills to teach when aiming to change behaviors.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 0

4:58

17

Aug

ust 2

014

Chib and colleagues (2009) address this by suggesting that small steps should betaken. Specifically, to inculcate change, any education, message program or otherstimuli much incorporate specific information that is of relevance to the consumercoupled with action steps of how consumers can enact change over time. This wasalso found by Smith and Paladino (2010). Even the exposure to such messages cancontribute toward encouraging learning about environmental issues and conservationamong young people (Chib et al. 2009). Overall, it is clear that educational initia-tives, transmitted in this case through a campaign, play a large role in influencingknowledge and increasing student engagement and peer influence. We have demon-strated that this can effectively influence attitudes and resultant behaviors for youngpeople.

Some limitations were present in this study. Firstly, the influence of moderatingeffects between independent variables on purchase intentions was not explored as itwas beyond the scope of this study to investigate them. The effects of subcategorycompetition were also not considered as there was insufficient data to gage actualpurchase behavior. The study was conducted amongst young consumers within anAustralian context, this allows for future research to engage in comparisons betweenconsumer intentions to purchase green products in different age groups andcountries. Sample data were only taken from one university setting. It is possiblethat the attitudes and behaviors towards green purchases of this group of partici-pants are not fully reflective of all young consumers across other universities acrossthe country or an alternative developed western nation. Consequently, an opportu-nity exists to analyze a wider sample of the population or a different combinationof demographic and psychographic variables to determine the generalizability ofthese findings. The limitations of this study provide direction for future researchthat explores the relationship between environmentally friendly products andconsumer behavior.

Note1. A set of brands that a consumer regards highly and will consider during decision mak-

ing (Dodds, Monroe, and Grewal 1991).

Notes on contributorsAngela Paladino is an associate professor of Marketing at the University of Melbourne,Australia. Angela’s research interests span experiential learning, teaching innovations,environmental marketing and innovation performance. Her research has been published injournals such as the Journal of Product Innovation Management, Management InternationalReview, Journal of Marketing Education, Marketing Education Review and Energy Policy.She has also written several text books for students in consumer behaviour and principles ofmarketing.

Serena Ng was a research associate at the University of Melbourne, Australia. Her researchinterests lie in experiential learning and green marketing.

References

Ajzen, I. 1991. The theory of planned behavior. Organization Behavior and the HumanDecision Process 50: 179–211.

Ajzen, I. 2002. Perceived behavioral control, self-efficacy, locus of control, and the theoryof planned behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 32, no. 4: 665–83.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 0

4:58

17

Aug

ust 2

014

Ajzen, I., and M. Fishbein. 1975. Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introductionto theory and research. Don Mills: Addison-Wesley.

Ajzen, I., and M. Fishbein. 1980. Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior.Englewoods-Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Albrecht, D., G. Bultena, E. Hoiberg, and P. Nowak. 1982. The new environmental para-digm scale. Journal of Environmental Education 13, no. 3: 40–3.

Alford, B.L., and A. Biswas. 2002. The effects of discount level, price consciousness andsale proneness on consumers’ price perception and behavioral intention. Journal of Busi-ness Research 55, no. 9: 775–83.

Alwitt, F.L., and E.R. Pitts. 1996. Predicting purchase intentions for an environmentally sen-sitive product. Journal of Consumer Psychology 5, no. 1: 49–64.

Anderson, J.C., C.J. Wachenheim, and W.C. Lesch. 2006. Perceptions of genetically modi-fied and organic foods and processes. AgBioForum 9, no. 3: 180–94.

Armitage, J.C. 1999. The theory of planned behavior: Assessment of predictive validity andperceived control. British Journal of Social Psychology 38: 35–54.

Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). 2007. General social survey: Summary results, Aus-tralia, 2006. http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/[email protected]/Lookup/C6BF68E57D3A308C-CA256E21007686F8 (accessed March 21, 2008).

Australian Government. 2006. What do Australians think about protecting the environment?http://www.environment.gov.au/soe/2006/publications/emerging/peoples-views/index.html(accessed March 21, 2008).

Baker, J.P., and R. Ozaki. 2008. Pro-environmental products: Marketing influence on con-sumer purchase decision. Journal of Consumer Marketing 25, no. 5: 281–93.

Balachander, S., and H.P. Farquhar. 1994. Gaining more by stocking less: A competitiveanalysis of product availability. Marketing Science 13, no. 1: 3–22.

Baron, R.M., and D.A. Kenny. 1986. The moderator–mediator variable distinction in socialpsychological research: Conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology 51, no. 6: 1173–82.

Batson, C.D., and L.L. Shaw. 1991. Evidence for altruism: Toward a pluralism of prosocialmotives. Psychological Inquiry 2, no. 2: 107–22.

Bauer, H.H., N.E. Sauer, and C. Becker. 2006. Investigating the relationship between prod-uct involvement and consumer decision-making styles. Journal of Consumer Behavior 5,no. 4: 342–54.

Bearden, W.O., R.G. Netemeyer, and M.F. Mobley. 1993. Handbook of marketing scales:Multi-item measures for marketing and consumer behavior research. Newbury Park, CA:Sage.

Berger, I.E., and R.M. Corbin. 1992. Perceived consumer effectiveness and faith in others asmoderators of environmentally responsible behaviors. Journal of Public Policy & Mar-keting 11, no. 2: 79–89.

Biswas, A., W.J. Licata, D. McKee, C. Pullig, and C. Daughtridge. 2000. The recyclingcycle: An empirical examination of consumer waste recycling and recycling shoppingbehaviors. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing 19, no. 1: 93–105.

Bradley, C.J., T.M. Waliczek, and J.M. Zajicek. 1999. Relationship between environmentalknowledge and environmental attitude of high school students. Journal of EnvironmentalEducation 30, no. 3: 17–35.

Browne, B.A., and D.O. Kaldenberg. 1997. Conceptualizing self-monitoring: Links to mate-rialism and product involvement. Journal of Consumer Marketing 14, no. 1: 3–44.

Chan, R.Y.K. 1999. Environmental attitudes and behavior of consumers in China: Surveyfindings and implications. Journal of International Consumer Marketing 11, no. 4:25–52.

Chib, A., C. Han Joo, C. Kumar, L.G. Choon, and A. Komathi. 2009. [Miuns] plastic: Influ-encing pro-environmental attitudes among Singaporean youth. Environmental EducationResearch 15, no. 6: 679–96.

Churchill, G.A., Jr., and D. Iacobucci. 2002. Marketing research methodological foundations.8th ed. Orlando, FL: Harcourt College.

Clark, F.C., J.M. Ketchen, and R.M. Moore. 2003. Internal and external influences on pro-environmental behavior: Participation in a green electricity program. Journal of Environ-mental Psychology 23, no. 3: 237–46.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 0

4:58

17

Aug

ust 2

014

http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/[email protected]/Lookup/C6BF68E57D3A308CCA256E21007686F8

http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/[email protected]/Lookup/C6BF68E57D3A308CCA256E21007686F8

http://www.environment.gov.au/soe/2006/publications/emerging/peoples-views/index.html

Cleveland, M., M. Kalamas, and M. Laroche. 2005. Shades of green: Linking environmentallocus of control and pro-environmental behaviors. Journal of Consumer Marketing 22,no. 4: 198–212.

Corbett, B.J. 2005. Altruism, self-interest, and the reasonable person model of environmen-tally responsible behavior. Science Communication 26, no. 4: 368–89.

Cordano, M., S. Welcomer, R. Scherer, L. Pradenas, and V. Parada. 2010. Understandingcultural differences in the antecedents of pro-environmental behavior: A comparativeanalysis of business students in the United States and Chile. The Journal of Environmen-tal Education 41, no. 4: 224–38.

Cotte, J., and R. Trudel. 2009. Socially conscious consumerism (systematic review preparedfor the network for business sustainability). London: Richard Ivey School of Business.

Dickerson, M.D., and J.W. Gentry. 1983. Characteristics of adopters and non-adopters ofhome computers. Journal of Consumer Research 10: 225–35.

Diekmann, A., and P. Preisendorfer. 1998. Environmental consciousness and environmentalbehavior in low-cost and in high-cost situations. An empirical examination of the low-cost hypothesis. Journal for Sociology 27, no. 6: 438–51.

Dobel, S., E. Paludan, and F. Jensen. 2003. An analysis of consumers’ and retailers’ effortsto promote less polluting electronic products. Environmental Project 837: 1–80.

Dodds, W.D., K.B. Monroe, and D. Grewal. 1991. Effects of price, brand and store informa-tion on buyers’ product evaluations. Journal of Marketing Research 28: 307–19.

D’Souza, C., M. Taghian, and P. Lamb. 2006. An empirical study on the influence of envi-ronmental labels on consumers. Corporate Communications: An International Journal11, no. 2: 162–73.

Ehrampoush, M.H., and B. Moghadam. 2005. Survey of knowledge, attitude and practice ofyazd university of medical sciences students about solid wastes disposal and recycling.Iranian Journal of Environmental Health Science & Engineering 2, no. 2: 26–30.

Ellen, P.S., J.L. Wiener, and C.C. Walgren. 1991. The role of perceived consumer effective-ness in motivating environmentally conscious behaviors. Journal of Public Policy &Marketing 10, no. 2: 102–17.

Ferraro, P.J., T. Uchida, and J.M. Conrad. 2005. Price premiums for eco-friendly commodi-ties: Are ‘green’ markets the best way to protect endangered ecosystems? Environmentaland Resource Economics 32, no. 3: 419–38.

Foxall, G.R., R.E. Goldsmith, and S. Brown. 1994. Consumer psychology for marketing.2nd ed. London: Cengage Learning.

Gotch, C., and Troy Hall. 2004. Understanding nature-related behaviors among childrenthrough a theory of reasoned action approach. Environmental Education Research 10,no. 2: 157–77.

Gotschi, E., S. Vogel, T. Lindenthal, and M. Larcher. 2009. The role of knowledge, socialnorms and attitudes toward organic products and shopping behavior: Survey results fromhigh school students in Vienna. The Journal of Environmental Education 41, no. 2:88–100.

Green Mobiles. 2008a. About green mobiles. http://www.greenmobiles.com.au/about-green-mobiles/index.php (accessed March 11, 2008).

Green Mobiles. 2008b. GreenCap mobile phone cap plans. http://www.greenmobiles.com.au/(accessed March 11, 2008).

Grob, A. 2005. A structural model of environmental attitudes and behaviors. Journal ofEnvironmental Psychology 15, no. 3: 209–20.

Hair, J., B. Babin, A. Money, and P. Samouel. 2003. Essentials of business research meth-ods. New Jersey, NJ: Wiley.

Hair, J.F., Jr., W.C. Black, B. Babin, R. Anderson, and R. Tatham. 2006. Multivariate dataanalysis. 6th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Hale, J.L., B.J. Householder, and K.L. Greene. 2003. The theory of reasoned action: Devel-opments in theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Hallin, P.O. 1995. Environmental concern and environmental behavior in Foley, a smalltown in Minnesota. Journal of Environment and Behavior 27, no. 4: 558–78.

Hartmann, P., V.A. Ibanez, and F.J.F. Sainz. 2005. Green branding effects on attitude: Func-tional versus emotional positioning strategies. Marketing Intelligence & Planning 23, no.1: 9–29.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 0

4:58

17

Aug

ust 2

014

http://www.greenmobiles.com.au/about-green-mobiles/index.php

http://www.greenmobiles.com.au/about-green-mobiles/index.php

http://www.greenmobiles.com.au/

Heimlich, J.E., and N.M. Ardoin. 2008. Understanding behavior to understand behaviorchange: A literature review. Environmental Education Research 14, no. 3: 215–37.

Hess, J.S. 1995. Construction and assessment of a scale to measure consumer trust. AMAEducator’s Proceedings 6: 20–6.

Hines, J.M., H.R. Hungerford, and A.N. Tomera. 1987. Analysis and synthesis of researchon responsible environment behavior: A meta-analysis. Journal of Environmental Educa-tion 18, no. 2: 1–8.

Hopper, J.R., and J. Nielsen. 1991. Recycling as altruistic behavior. Environment and Behav-ior 23, no. 2: 195–220.

Huiand, M.K., and J.E.G. Bateson. 1991. Perceived control and the effects of crowding andconsumer choice on the service experience. Journal of Consumer Research 18, no. 2:158–74.

Jones, S., and C. Eden. 1981. Modelling in marketing: Explicating subjective knowledge.European Journal of Marketing 15, no. 7: 3–11.

Kaiser, G.F., S. Wolfing, and U. Fuhrer. 1999. Environmental attitude and ecological behav-ior. Journal of Environmental Psychology 19, no. 1: 1–19.

Keesling, G., and S.A. Kaynama. 2003. An exploratory investigation of the ecologically con-scious consumers’ efforts to control water contamination: Lawn care and the use ofnitrogen fertilizers and pesticides. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice 11, no. 1:52–61.

Keller, L.K., and R.D. Lehman. 2006. Brands and branding: Research findings and futurepriorities. Marketing Science 25, no. 6: 740–59.

Kim, H.S., and M.L. Damhorst. 1998. Environmental concern and apparel consumption.Clothing and Textiles Research Journal 16, no. 3: 126–33.

Laurent, G., and J. Kapfer. 1985. Measuring consumer involvement profiles. Journal of Mar-keting Research 22, (February): 41–53.

Lin, L.Y., and C.S. Chen. 2006. The influence of the country-of-origin image, productknowledge and product involvement on consumer purchase decisions: An empiricalstudy of insurance and catering services in Taiwan. Journal of Consumer Marketing 23,no. 4/5: 248–65.

Lutz, J.R. 1991. The role of attitude theory in marketing. In Perspectives in consumerbehavior , 4th ed., ed. Harold H. Kassarjian and Thomas S. Robertson, 131–56. UpperSaddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Mainieri, T., E.G. Barnett, T.R. Valdero, J.B. Unipan, and S. Oskamp. 1997. Green buying:The influence of environmental concern on consumer behavior. Journal of Social Psy-chology 137, no. 2: 189–204.

Maio, G.R., and J.M. Olsen. 1995. Involvement and persuasion: Evidence for different typesof involvement. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science 27, no. 1: 64–78.

Makki, M.H., A. Fouad, and B. Saouma. 2003. Lebanese secondary school students’ envi-ronmental knowledge and attitudes. Environmental Education Research 9, no. 1: 21–33.

Manstead, A.S.R., and D. Parker. 1995. Evaluating and extending the theory of plannedbehavior. In European review of social psychology, Vol. 6, ed. W. Stroebe and M. Hew-stone, 69–95. Chichester: Wiley.

Meinhold, J.L., and J.A. Malkus. 2005. Adolescent environmental behaviors: Can knowl-edge, attitudes, and self-efficacy make a difference? Environment and Behavior 37, no.4: 511–32.

Miller, K. 2005. Communications theories: Perspectives, processes, and contexts. New York,NY: McGraw-Hill.

Mitchell, V.W. 1999. Consumer perceived risk: Conceptualizations and models. EuropeanJournal of Marketing 33, no. 1: 163–95.

Monroe, B.K. 1990. Pricing. Making profitable decisions. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.Montgomery, D.M. 1997. Ecoefficiency in consumer products. Philosophical Transactions:

Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 355, no. 1728: 1405–14.Muncy, J.A. 1996. Measuring perceived brand parity. Advances in Consumer Research 23:

411–7.Newell, S.J., R.E. Goldsmith, and E.J. Banzhaf. 1998. The effects of misleading environ-

mental claims on consumer perceptions of advertising. Journal of Marketing Theory andPractice 6, no. 2: 48–60.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 0

4:58

17

Aug

ust 2

014

Paladino, A. 2005. Understanding the green consumer: An empirical analysis. Journal ofCustomer Behavior 4: 69–102.

Paladino, A. 2008. Creating an interactive and responsive teaching environment to inspirelearning. Journal of Marketing Education 30, no. 3: 185–88.

Park, H.S. 1999. The theory of reasoned action and self-construal in predicting intention ofstudying among Korean college students. Communication Research Reports 13: 267–79.

Pelham, A.M. 1997. Market orientation and performance: The moderating effects of productand customer differentiation. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing 12, no. 5:276–96.

Podsakoff, P., and D. Organ. 1986. Self reports in organizational research: Problems andprospects. Journal of Management 12, no. 4: 531–44.

Price, L.L., and N.M. Ridgway. 1983. Development of a scale to measure innovativeness. InAdvances of consumer research, Vol. 10, ed. R.P. Bagozzi and A.M. Tybout, 679–84.Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research.

Ramsey, C.E., and R.E. Rickson. 1976. Environmental knowledge and attitudes. Journal ofEnvironmental Education 8, no. 1: 10–8.

Roberts, J.A., and D.R. Bacon. 1997. Exploring the subtle relationships between environ-mental concern and ecologically conscious Understanding the Green Consumer 101 con-sumer behavior. Journal of Business Research 40: 79–89.

Rotter, J.B. 1966. Generalized expectancies for internal versus external locus of control rein-forcement. Psychological Monographs 80, no. 1: Whole No. 609.

Rushton, J.P., R.D. Chrisjohn, and G.C. Fekken. 1981. The altruistic personality and the selfreport altruism scale. Personality and Individual Differences 2: 292–302.

Schlegelmilch, B.B., G.M. Bohlen, and A. Diamantopoulos. 1996. The link between greenpurchasing decisions and measures of environmental consciousness. European Journal ofMarketing 30, no. 5: 35–55.

Schwepker, C.H., and T.B. Cornwell. 1991. An examination of ecologically concerned con-sumers and their intention to purchase ecologically packaged products. Journal of PublicPolicy and Marketing 10, no. 2: 77–101.

Sen, S., and C.B. Bhattacharya. 2001. Does doing good always lead to doing better? Con-sumer reactions to corporate social responsibility. Journal of Marketing Research 38, no.2: 225–43.

Shrum, L.J., J.A. McCarty, and T.M. Lowrey. 1995. Buyer characteristics of the green con-sumer and their implications for advertising strategy. Journal of Advertising 24, no. 2:71–90.

Sinha, I., and R. Batra. 1999. The effect of consumer price consciousness on private labelpurchase. International Journal of Research in Marketing 16, no. 3: 237–51.

Smith, S., and A. Paladino. 2010. Eating clean & green? Investigating consumer motivationstowards the purchase of organic food Australasian. Journal of Marketing 18, no. 2:93–104.

Soo, J.T. 1999. Strategies for reducing consumers risk aversion in internet shopping. Journalof Consumer Marketing 16, no. 2: 116–80.

Stern, P.C., and T. Dietz. 1994. The value basis of environmental concern. Journal of SocialIssues 50, no. 3: 65–84.

Straughan, R.D., and J.A. Roberts. 1999. Environmental segmentation alternatives: A look atgreen consumer behavior in the new millennium. Journal of Consumer Marketing 16,no. 6: 558–75.

Sustainability Victoria. 2010. Greenlight Report. Melbourne: Sustainability Victoria.Tan, S.J. 1999. Strategies for reducing consumers’ risk aversion in Internet shopping. Jour-

nal of Consumer Marketing 16, no. 2: 163–80.Thapa, B. 2010. The mediation effect of outdoor recreation participation on environmental

attitude-behavior correspondence. The Journal of Environmental Education 41, no. 3:133–50.

The Age. 2004. FairFax digital, technology resources: 89% of teens have mobiles: Survey.http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/09/28/1096137210796.html (accessed April 1,2008).


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 0

4:58

17

Aug

ust 2

014

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/09/28/1096137210796.html

Thrasher, J.F., L. Huang, R. Perez-Hernandez, J. Niederdeppe, E. Arillo-Santillan, and J.Alday. 2011. Evaluation of a social marketing campaign to support Mexico City’s com-prehensive smoke-free law. American Journal of Public Health 101, no. 2: 328–35.

Tikka, P.M., M. Kuitunen, and S.M. Tynys. 2000. Effects of educational background on stu-dents’ attitudes, activity levels and knowledge concerning the environment. Journal ofEnvironmental Education 31, no. 3: 12–9.

Vlosky, R.P., L.K. Ozanne, and R.J. Fontenot. 1999. A conceptual model of US consumerwillingness to pay for environmentally certified wood products. Journal of ConsumerMarketing 16, no. 2: 122–36.

Wagner, S.A. 2007. Understanding green consumer behavior: A qualitative cognitiveapproach. London: Routledge.

Xue, F. 2008. The moderating effects of product involvement on situational brand choice.Journal of Consumer Marketing 25, no. 20: 85–94.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 0

4:58

17

Aug

ust 2

014

an examination of the influences on ‘green’ mobile phone purchases among young business...

Documents