Prior researchers have suggested that consumers are paying increasing attention to environmental issues, giving rise to a new domain of consumption (Gravelines et al., 2022; Yan et al., 2021). Some studies have shown that strangers’ unsustainable behaviors affect consumers’ purchasing intention toward green products (Coucke et al., 2019; Hurst et al., 2023), while others have found that consumers exhibit positive attitudes toward environmental protection (Edinger‐Schons et al., 2018), but their behaviors are inconsistent with this belief (White et al., 2019). For example, in one experiment, a trained research assistant recorded the electricity meter readings of 290 households twice in a 2-week period. The difference between the two readings for a household was considered the baseline measure, and this was matched with the readings of another household. Two weeks later, the research assistant recorded a third reading and left a message for the matched household. This process was repeated twice in the following month. It was found that when households were informed that their neighbors were not engaging in energy conservation (i.e., they were made aware of unsustainable behavior) they were also inclined to increase their own energy consumption (Schultz et al., 2007). However, this is not always true. Cakanlar et al. (2023) showed that consumers may compensate for their partners’ unsustainable behavior. These authors used the relationship type (high power vs. low power) between consumer and partner as a moderating variable to test how consumers’ green consumption behaviors influenced their partners, and found that when one partner with high power did not recycle at home, the other partner recycled more. This may have occurred because unsustainable behavior gives rise to the responsibility for partners with high relationship power to rebuild their relationship, leading to greater sustainable behavior relative to their baseline tendencies. However, this trend was not exhibited by low-relationship-power partners (Cakanlar et al., 2023).

 

Research has also revealed the effects on individuals’ sustainable behaviors of the perceived identity threat posed by people close to them (Verfuerth et al., 2021). Consumers recognize these identity threats and seek to regain positive feelings when their identities are challenged (McGranahan et al., 2021). This can lead to compensatory consumption, when individuals try to counterbalance the negative impact of witnessing unsustainable behaviors by their close friends or family through their own positive actions (Connelly et al., 2014). In other words, when someone close to them engages in behavior that threatens their identity, they feel the need to compensate by engaging in more sustainable behaviors themselves.

 

According to Cakanlar et al. (2023), consumers who share a low relationship power with their partner will not behave more sustainably. We drew an analogy to describe whether the impact of strangers’ unsustainable behavior on consumers’ sustainable behavior was as nonsignificant as the impact of partners with low relationship power. Our aim was to understand the mechanism by which strangers’ unsustainable behavior influences consumers’ sustainable behavior. When strangers engage in unsustainable behaviors, it may challenge the norms and values with which sustainable consumers identify, leading to a perceived identity threat. Empirical research has shown that perceived threats to one’s social identity can significantly influence behavior and self-concept (Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Jetten et al., 2001). Therefore, we proposed that the perceived identity threat of strangers’ unsustainable behavior would have an impact on consumers’ sustainable behavior. We aimed to fill the above-mentioned research gaps by examining the relationship between the degree of the perceived identity threat from strangers’ unsustainable behaviors and sustainable consumption patterns.

 

Previous research has highlighted how different types of consumer motivation influence responses to external interference (Chang et al., 2023; Higgins, 1998). Hence, we examined whether there was any difference in the interaction effect on sustainable behavior when the perceived identity threat was high (vs. low) for different consumer motivation types. We also focused on understanding how different types of motivation moderate consumers’ psychological inclination toward sustainable behavior.

According to Hogg et al. (1986), social identity is the value and emotional significance individuals attach to their group memberships. This identity is shaped by personal choices and attributes, including behaviors, beliefs, and affiliations, which signal group belonging and help differentiate individuals from others (Reed et al., 2012). Research has shown that identity threats cause existential, psychological, social, and economic anxiety, which, in turn, promote instability and insecurity (Brown & Coupland, 2015). In the context of sustainable consumption, social identity influences how individuals perceive and respond to the behaviors of others, particularly when these behaviors align or conflict with the norms and values of their identified groups.

 

There is variance in individuals’ perception of identity threats (George et al., 2023): People respond to identity threats by either hiding or displaying the threatened identity. They may also respond with compensatory consumption, which can diminish the threat arising from self-discrepancies within an identity (Wicklund & Gollwitzer, 1981). It is important to evaluate identity threats through perception rather than by assuming that they are consistently enacted (Petriglieri, 2011). Thus, we proposed the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 1: There will be a positive relationship between perceived identity threat stemming from strangers’ unsustainable behaviors and consumers’ engagement in sustainable behaviors.

Motivation is widely accepted as a physiological or intrinsic drive that guides human behavior (Burtscher & Meyer, 2014). Research on regulatory focus in consumers has found that motivation is utilized throughout the buying process (Agrawal & Maheswaran, 2005), including when searching for product information (Tuan Pham & Chang, 2010), evaluating products (Leonardelli et al., 2007), and making purchasing decisions (Lim & Hahn, 2020). Specifically, according to Higgins (1998), consumers make choices by evaluating product-related attributes. Hence, consumers with the self-approach motivation type are more sensitive to positive stimuli like those that evoke notions of advancement, achievement, power, and effectiveness. Therefore, they consider attributes that satisfy their objective of obtaining positive outcomes. In contrast, consumers with the self-avoidance motivation type are more sensitive to negative stimuli like those that evoke notions of punishment, responsibility, and protection. Thus, they consider attributes that satisfy the purpose of avoiding negative outcomes (Higgins, 1998).

 

We assumed that consumers with the self-approach motivation type would be more likely to purchase green products because this type of motivation regulates behavior by maximizing the presence or minimizing the absence of positive outcomes (Reicher et al., 2010). Such consumers might also view the adoption of sustainable behavior as a competition when they perceive an identity threat of unsustainable behavior (van Horen et al., 2018). However, consumers with the self-avoidance motivation type are be less likely to purchase green products because they are inclined toward ensuring stability, maintaining the status quo, and refusing to change (Liberman et al., 1999). They tend to be cautious and have a routine way of thinking (Förster & Higgins, 2005). Thus, we formed the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 2: Motivation type will moderate the influence of the perceived identity threat of unsustainable behavior on an individual’s willingness to engage in sustainable behaviors.

Hypothesis 2a: For consumers with the approach motivation type, perceived identity threat from unsustainable behaviors will be positively correlated with willingness to engage in sustainable behaviors.

Hypothesis 2b: For consumers with the avoidance motivation type, perceived identity threat from unsustainable behaviors will not significantly influence willingness to engage in sustainable behaviors.

We received ethics approval for this study, including a waiver for informed consent, from the Ethics Committee at Ningbo University of Finance and Economics. Undergraduate business students are suited for environmental-value-related research experiments (Wilson, 2005), and their values tend to be well-established when they are receiving a university education (Schwartz, 2006). Therefore, we invited 967 undergraduate business students from a university in China to take part in this experiment for course credit. Of these, we excluded 27 because they identified the real purpose of this experiment. After checking for completeness and accuracy within the remaining responses, data from 940 participants were retained, including 516 women (54.89%) and 424 men (45.51%) with a mean age of 22 years (SD = 2.33). Among them, 462 were assigned to the identity-threat scenario and 478 participants were included as a control group.

 

The study comprised two cross-sectional surveys conducted in December 2022 and December 2023. We chose December because in China there is a shopping festival called 12.12, which provided suitable scenarios for our research. All participants were enrolled in an applied statistics course during the fall semester. We presented the questionnaire as a task called the time-delay memory test and had the students complete it as an in-class assignment. In December 2022 we tested 500 participants, with 188 randomly included in the identity-threat scenario and used for hypothesis testing. This proportion was not suitable for data analysis because the smaller sample size within the specific scenario may not adequately represent the overall population, leading to potential bias or reduced statistical power in the analysis. Thus, we conducted another round of data collection with 467 students in an Applied Statistics class in December 2023, of whom 462 were included in the identity-threat scenario and used for hypothesis testing. We employed a 2 × 2 (identity threat vs. neutral) between-subjects design.

 

The 940 participants from the two data-collection rounds were told that they would complete a time-delay memory test to verify whether they had a good memory. This approach was employed to maintain a single-blind design and minimize demand characteristics, ensuring that participants were not aware of the true purpose of the study. By not disclosing the actual research aim, we sought to reduce potential biases in their responses related to green consumption decisions. However, all participants were randomly assigned to scenarios depicting either unsustainable behaviors or neutral behaviors (see Appendix).

 

By choosing green products, consumers are engaging in sustainable consumption, which is an important and measurable component of broader sustainable behavior (Ottman, 2011). Thus, we measured participants’ green consumption, which focuses on purchasing products that are environmentally friendly, such as items made from recycled materials or those that have a lower carbon footprint (Peattie, 2010). Griskevicius et al. (2010) effectively used backpacks to highlight the contrast between green and nongreen products because they can be designed to exhibit clear environmental characteristics, such as being made from 100% organic fibers and having instructions for recycling, while still being comparable in other aspects like price and utility. Furthermore, backpacks are a widely used product among university students; thus, we chose backpacks as our focal product to enhance the ecological validity of our findings. Participants were told that they were purchasing a schoolbag during a carnival. Environmental awareness was initially measured as part of the broader aims of the study, although it was not included in the final analysis.

 

As part of the cover story disguising the true research purpose, we asked participants to choose one of four options that best described their assigned scenario. This was designed to reinforce participants’ perception that they were completing a time-delay memory test. After the study was completed, participants were debriefed about the real aim of the study, which was to examine the relationship between perceived identity threat from strangers’ unsustainable behaviors and sustainable consumption patterns. We also provided information about the importance of understanding these dynamics for promoting sustainable behaviors.

To ensure consistency in the manipulation, we carefully back-translated all the English scenarios into Chinese. Although the English descriptions had a minor length difference (neutral behavior: 108 words; unsustainable behavior: 78 words), the Chinese translations were adjusted for balance (neutral behavior: 152 words; unsustainable behavior: 166 words).

 

We presented a scale adapted from Ashforth and Mael (1989) to measure participants’ perceived degree of the identity threat from their assigned scenario. A sample item is “After reading the content above, I feel that there is a negative value attached to my identity as an environmentalist.” The scale contains four items measured on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = not at all, 7 = very much). Cronbach’s alpha was .78, indicating the scale was reliable.

 

Since it is uncommon for only one type of motivation to be present at any given time (Elliot, 2006), we adopted the six-item scale from Roth and Cohen (1986) to measure participants’ motivation type tendencies. A sample item is “I consider achieving significant success to be more important than avoiding mistakes.” Items are rated on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = not at all, 7 = very much). If the difference between the mean reported approach motivation type and the mean reported avoidance motivation type is positive, the participant has an approach motivation type; otherwise, the participant has an avoidance motivation type. Cronbach’s alpha was .87, indicating the scale was reliable.

 

We assessed sustainable behavior using a four-item scale adapted from Griskevicius et al. (2010). A sample item is “There is a high possibility that I will buy this backpack.” Items are measured on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (definitely Schoolbag A) to 7 (definitely Schoolbag B) where Schoolbag A was a conventional bag and Schoolbag B was an ecofriendly or green bag. Cronbach’s alpha was .86, indicating the scale was reliable.

As shown in Table 1, the total amount of explained variance was 71.06%, with the items effectively capturing the research constructs. Cronbach’s alpha values were above .70, representing good internal consistency for each construct, meaning that the model was suitable for factor analysis.

Table 2 shows the discriminant validity of the constructs. The squared correlations between the constructs were smaller than the square roots of average variance extracted for each construct. For example, the motivation type tendency value was greater than the correlation coefficients between the perceived degree of threat and the other variables of sustainable behavior and perceived identity threat. Similarly, the reliability values for sustainable behavior were greater than the correlations between this and other variables, confirming the discriminant validity of each construct (Hair, 2009). In addition, all variables were positively correlated with each other; thus, they could be used to test our hypotheses.

First, we used an independent samples t test to examine differences in motivation type tendency, sustainable behavior, and perceived identity threat between the 2022 and 2023 samples. We found no significant differences between the two surveys: motivation type tendency, F(1, 938) = .03, t(938) = 3.01, ns; sustainable behavior, F(1, 938) = 1.5, t(938) = –0.67, ns; perceived identity threat: F(1, 938) = 1.27, t(938) = –0.84, ns. Next, we combined the data from the two surveys and used an independent samples t test to examine the differences in participants’ perceived identity threat between the two scenarios (unsustainable behavior vs. neutral behavior). A significant difference was found, F(1, 938) = 65.63, t(938) = 11.04, p < .05. Specifically, participants exposed to the scenario with unsustainable behavior reported feeling a higher degree of identity threat (M = 4.22, SD = 1.35) than those who were exposed to the scenario with neutral behavior (M = 3.36, SD = 1.03).

To explore participants’ sustainable behavior across the two scenarios (unsustainable behavior vs. neutral behavior), we conducted an independent samples t test to verify their choice tendency. A significant choice difference was found between the two scenarios, F(1, 938) = .025, t(938) = 3.01, p < .05. Specifically, participants exposed to the scenario with unsustainable behaviors were more likely to behave sustainably (M = 5.25, SD = 1.36) compared with those exposed to the neutral-behavior scenario (M = 3.98, SD = 1.36). Next, we used Model 1 of the PROCESS macro model (Hayes, 2013) to examine the moderating effect of motivation type.

 

Table 3 summarizes the results obtained from the regression analysis of consumers’ behavioral tendencies, R² = .42, F(3, 458) = 33.36, p < .001. Supporting Hypothesis 1, the perceived identity threat posed by strangers’ unsustainable behaviors appeared to heighten the likelihood of consumers engaging in sustainable behaviors, b = 0.27, SE = 0.047, t(458) = 5.70, p < .001. Moreover, the results in Table 3 show that motivation type played a significantly positive moderating role in the process whereby perceived identity threat influenced consumers’ sustainable behavior, b = 0.15, SE = 0.033, t(458) = 4.48, p < .001, thus supporting Hypothesis 2.

Table 4 summarizes the moderating role of each motivation type. The results supported our prediction that approach-motivation-oriented consumers would be more likely to behave sustainably when exposed to strangers’ unsustainable behavior, thus supporting Hypothesis 2a, SE = 0.47, p < .001, 95% confidence interval (CI) [0.34, 0.60]. However, avoidance-motivation-oriented consumers were less likely to behave sustainably when exposed to strangers’ unsustainable behavior, thus not supporting Hypothesis 2b, SE = 0.06, ns, 95% CI [–0.06, 0.19]. These results show contrasting behaviors in approach- and avoidance-motivation-oriented consumers after exposure to strangers’ unsustainable behavior.

Figure 1 displays the different effects of perceived identity threat from strangers’ unsustainable behavior on consumers’ sustainable behavior across the motivation types.

We have expanded on previous findings by showing the effect on consumers’ sustainable behaviors of the perceived identity threat posed by strangers. First, consumers were more likely to behave sustainably when they perceived their identity was threatened by strangers’ unsustainable behavior: The higher the perceived identity threat, the more likely they were to engage in sustainable behaviors. This observation aligns with existing studies that have found identity threats can serve as powerful motivators for behaviors (Connelly et al., 2014; Verfuerth et al., 2021). For instance, Wicklund and Gollwitzer (1981) demonstrated that when individuals feel their social identity is challenged, particularly by behaviors that contradict their values, they are driven to reinforce their identity through compensatory actions.

 

Second, we confirmed the moderating effect of motivation type: When consumers perceived an identity threat posed by strangers’ unsustainable behaviors, their approach motivation led to a higher level of sustainable behavior. This diverges from the results of previous researchers (Cakanlar et al., 2023; Verfuerth et al., 2021), which we believe is because displays of unsustainable behavior, even from people who do not share a relationship with the consumer, can prompt the consumer to behave sustainably. This might explain previous research findings showing that approach-motivation-oriented consumers exhibit a strong intention to engage in green consumption (Reicher et al., 2010). For avoidance-motivation-oriented consumers, the perceived identity threat from strangers’ unsustainable behaviors has a similar impact on their sustainable behaviors. This might be because avoidance-motivation-oriented consumers are more inclined to maintain the status quo and less likely to change their routine or current situation (Halvorson & Higgins, 2013).

We found that consumers were more likely to behave sustainably when exposed to strangers’ unsustainable behaviors. This has important implications for both companies and policymakers, potentially contributing to their development of new campaigns. For instance, policymakers can develop appropriate strategies to evoke perceived identity threats to the environment among consumers, thereby enhancing consumers’ intention to behave sustainably.

 

Furthermore, we found that approach and avoidant types of motivation played different moderating roles in the effect of perceived identity threat on sustainable behavior. Companies can thus develop different marketing strategies that focus on emphasizing the benefits of green products for approach-motivation-oriented consumers and reduce perceived risks by providing performance assurance or return policies for avoidance-motivation-oriented consumers.

Our research has several limitations. First, we found that when consumers perceived their identity as being threatened by strangers’ unsustainable behavior, they were more likely to maintain their original identity, thereby prompting them to participate in sustainable behaviors to compensate for the perceived threat to their identity. In addition, perceived identity threat may conflict with their personal values related to environmental sustainability (Wang & Lin, 2017). However, the impact of perceived identity threat on consumers’ sustainable behavior might differ across various contexts. For instance, social norms, cultural differences, or situational factors could also play significant roles. Future studies could explore these additional factors to better understand the diverse effects of perceived identity threat on sustainable behavior. A further limitation of our study is the difference in word count between the descriptions of scenarios with neutral behaviors and those with unsustainable behaviors. Although we made an effort to balance the descriptions during translation, slight differences in length may have influenced participants’ perceptions and responses. Future studies could aim to create more equivalent scenario descriptions to ensure consistency in the information presented to participants. Another limitation is the difference in the descriptive content between the scenarios used for neutral and unsustainable behaviors. In particular, the neutral scenario included detailed descriptions of the ambiance and the overall festive atmosphere, which may have introduced unintended variables influencing participants’ perceptions and responses. In contrast, the unsustainable-behavior scenario focused more directly on the behaviors without such contextual details. This discrepancy may have affected the comparability of the two scenarios. Future studies could aim to create more equivalent scenario descriptions to ensure consistency in the information presented to participants and avoid potential biases introduced by differing levels of detail. In addition, consumers are a large and diverse group and using students’ choice of backpacks as a measure of green consumption behavior has certain limitations. Future studies could explore other market environments to expand the range of products and study participants.

During the 12.12 shopping carnival, the large shopping centers in the city center were crowded with people. Consumers carried bags full of single-use plastic packaging, with the contents inside also wrapped in multiple layers of plastic. The shopping center’s trash bins were overflowing with these discarded packaging materials. As the festival progressed, despite the efforts of municipal sanitation workers to clean up, plastic waste continued to accumulate. Various plastic bags drifted along the streets, carried by the crowd.

 

During the 12.12 shopping festival, the large shopping centers in the city center were bustling with activity. Consumers carried carefully selected items, intended as gifts for family and friends or as personal holiday treats. The stores offered a wide array of products, ranging from the latest electronic gadgets to handmade crafts, catering to all tastes. Consumers enjoyed the festive shopping atmosphere. The ambiance of the shopping centers was warm and cheerful, with beautifully decorated shop windows and twinkling lights everywhere. Despite the heavy foot traffic, order within the shopping centers was maintained, with shoppers purchasing goods in an orderly fashion, contributing to a pleasant shopping experience.

Agrawal, N., & Maheswaran, D. (2005). The effects of self-construal and commitment on persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(4), 841–849. https://doi.org/10.1086/426620

 

Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and organization. The Academy of Management Review, 14(1), 20–39. https://doi.org/10.2307/258189

 

Brown, A. D., & Coupland, C. (2015). Identity threats, identity work and elite professionals. Organization Studies, 36(10), 1315–1336. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840615593594

 

Burtscher, M. J., & Meyer, B. (2014). Promoting good decisions: How regulatory focus affects group information processing and decision-making. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 17(5), 663–681.

 

Cakanlar, A., Nikolova, H., & Nenkov, G. Y. (2023). I will be green for us: When consumers compensate for their partners’ unsustainable behavior. Journal of Marketing Research, 60(1), 110–129.

 

Chang, Y.-W., Hsu, P.-Y., Chen, J., Shiau, W.-L., & Xu, N. (2023). Utilitarian and/or hedonic shopping – Consumer motivation to purchase in smart stores. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 123(3), 821–842.

 

Connelly, B. L., Tihanyi, L., Crook, T. R., & Gangloff, K. A. (2014). Tournament theory: Thirty years of contests and competitions. Journal of Management, 40(1), 16–47. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206313498902

 

Coucke, N., Vermeir, I., Slabbinck, H., & Van Kerckhove, A. (2019). Show me more! The influence of visibility on sustainable food choices. Foods, 8(6), Article 186. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods8060186

 

Edinger‐Schons, L. M., Sipilä, J., Sen, S., Mende, G., & Wieseke, J. (2018). Are two reasons better than one? The role of appeal type in consumer responses to sustainable products. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 28(4), 644–664. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcpy.1032

 

Elliot, A. J. (2006). The hierarchical model of approach-avoidance motivation. Motivation and Emotion, 30(2), 111–116. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-006-9028-7

 

Förster, J., & Higgins, E. T. (2005). How global versus local perception fits regulatory focus. Psychological Science, 16(8), 631–636. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2005.01586.x

 

George, M. M., Strauss, K., Mell, J. N., & Vough, H. C. (2023). When “who I am” is under threat: Measures of threat to identity value, meanings, and enactment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 108(12), 1952–1978.

 

Gravelines, Ž., Banytė, J., Dovalienė, A., & Gadeikienė, A. (2022). The role of green self-identity and self-congruity in sustainable food consumption behaviour. Organizations and Markets in Emerging Economies, 13(2), 336–356.

 

Griskevicius, V., Tybur, J. M., & Van den Bergh, B. (2010). Going green to be seen: Status, reputation, and conspicuous conservation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(3), 392–404. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017346

 

Hair, J. (2009). Multivariate data analysis. Faculty and Research Publications, 2009, Article 2525.

 

Halvorson, H. G., & Higgins, E. T. (2013). Do you play to win—Or to not lose? Harvard Business Review, 91(3), 117–120.

 

Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach (2nd ed.). The Guilford Press.

 

Higgins, E. T. (1998). Promotion and prevention: Regulatory focus as a motivational principle. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 30, 1–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60381-0

 

Hogg, M. A., Turner, J. C., Nascimento-Schulze C., & Spriggs, D. (1986). Social categorization, intergroup behaviour and self-esteem: Two experiments. International Journal of Social Psychology, 1(1), 23–37.

 

Hurst, K. F., Sintov, N. D., & Donnelly, G. E. (2023). Increasing sustainable behavior through conversation. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 86, Article 101948. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2022.101948

 

Jetten, J., Branscombe, N. R., Schmitt, M. T., & Spears, R. (2001). Rebels with a cause: Group identification as a response to perceived discrimination from the mainstream. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(9), 1204–1213. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167201279012

 

Leonardelli, G. J., Lakin, J. L., & Arkin, R. M. (2007). A regulatory focus model of self-evaluation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43(6), 1002–1009. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2006.10.021

 

Liberman, N., Idson, L. C., Camacho, C. J., & Higgins, E. T. (1999). Promotion and prevention choices between stability and change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(6), 1135–1145.

 

Lim, J., & Hahn, M. (2020). Regulatory focus and decision rules: Are prevention-focused consumers regret minimizers? Journal of Business Research, 120, 343–350. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.11.066

 

McGranahan, G., Songsore, J., & Kjellén, M. (2021). Sustainability, poverty and urban environmental transitions. In D. Satterthwaite (Ed.), The Earthscan reader in sustainable cities (pp. 107–133). Routledge.

 

Ottman, J. (2011). The new rules of green marketing: Strategies, tools, and inspiration for sustainable branding. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351278683

 

Peattie, K. (2010). Green consumption: Behavior and norms. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 35, 195–228. https://www.annualreviews.org/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-environ-032609-094328

 

Petriglieri, J. L. (2011). Under threat: Responses to and the consequences of threats to individuals’ identities. Academy of Management Review, 36(4), 641–662. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2009.0087

 

Reed, A., II., Forehand, M. R., Puntoni, S., & Warlop, L. (2012). Identity-based consumer behavior. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 29(4), 310–321. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2012.08.002

 

Reicher, S., Spears, R., & Haslam, S. A. (2010). The social identity approach in social psychology. In M. Wetherrell & C. T. Mohanty (Eds.), Sage identities handbook (pp. 45–62). SAGE Publications.

 

Roth, S., & Cohen, L. J. (1986). Approach, avoidance, and coping with stress. American Psychologist, 41(7), 813–819. https://doi.org/10.1037//0003-066x.41.7.813

 

Schultz, P. W., Nolan, J. M., Cialdini, R. B., Goldstein, N. J., & Griskevicius, V. (2007). The constructive, destructive, and reconstructive power of social norms. Psychological Science, 18(5), 429–434.

 

Schwartz, S. H. (2006). Basic human values: An overview.

 

Tuan Pham, M., & Chang, H. H. (2010). Regulatory focus, regulatory fit, and the search and consideration of choice alternatives. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(4), 626–640. https://doi.org/10.1086/655668

 

van Horen, F., van der Wal, A., & Grinstein, A. (2018). Green, greener, greenest: Can competition increase sustainable behavior? Journal of Environmental Psychology, 59, 16–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2018.08.007

 

Verfuerth, C., Gregory-Smith, D., Oates, C. J., Jones, C. R., & Alevizou, P. (2021). Reducing meat consumption at work and at home: Facilitators and barriers that influence contextual spillover. Journal of Marketing Management, 37(7–8), 671–702. https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2021.1888773

 

Wang, E. S.-T., & Lin, H.-C. (2017). Sustainable development: The effects of social normative beliefs on environmental behaviour. Sustainable Development, 25(6), 595–609. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.1680

 

White, K., Habib, R., & Hardisty, D. J. (2019). How to SHIFT consumer behaviors to be more sustainable: A literature review and guiding framework. Journal of Marketing, 83(3), 22–49. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022242919825649

 

Wicklund, R. A., & Gollwitzer, P. M. (1981). Symbolic self-completion, attempted influence, and self-deprecation. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 2(2), 89–114. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15324834basp0202_2

 

Wilson, M. S. (2005). A social-value analysis of postmaterialism. The Journal of Social Psychology, 145(2), 209–224. https://doi.org/10.3200/SOCP.145.2.209-224

 

Yan, L., Keh, H. T., & Chen, J. (2021). Assimilating and differentiating: The curvilinear effect of social class on green consumption. Journal of Consumer Research, 47(6), 914–936. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucaa041