Egoistic value and proenvironmental purchasing: Mediating effects of attitude and willingness to pay
Main Article Content
Cite this article:
Jung, J.
(2025). Egoistic value and proenvironmental purchasing: Mediating effects of attitude and willingness to pay.
Social Behavior and Personality: An international journal,
53(6),
e14454.
Abstract
Full Text
References
Tables and Figures
Acknowledgments
Author Contact
This study explored the roles of proenvironmental attitude and willingness to pay as mediators of the relationship between egoistic value and proenvironmental purchasing behavior. I conducted an online survey with 421 Korean adults aged 20–49 years. The results showed that both proenvironmental attitude and willingness to pay mediated the relationship between egoistic value and proenvironmental purchasing behavior. Furthermore, proenvironmental attitude and willingness to pay played a chain mediating role in this relationship. Thus, egoistic value can predict consumers’ proenvironmental purchasing behavior both directly and indirectly through proenvironmental attitude and willingness to pay. The findings of this study provide theoretical insights and offer practical management strategies for promoting consumers’ proenvironmental purchasing behavior.
Proenvironmental purchasing behavior refers to consumers selecting and purchasing environmentally friendly products or services that have less harmful effects on the environment (Chen et al., 2022; K. Lee, 2009). This behavior involves efforts to make positive contributions to the environment by purchasing products that do not harm the environment, reduce carbon emissions, are certified as environmentally friendly, or are produced by environmentally responsible companies (Cleveland et al., 2012). Such proenvironmental purchasing behavior positively contributes to addressing environmental issues by reducing environmental pollution, promoting the sustainable use of resources, and strengthening corporate environmental responsibility (De Marchi et al., 2020; Evans et al., 2020).
Egoistic value is a self-centered concept that reflects individuals’ concerns about their health or the interests of their families (Prakash et al., 2019). Benefits associated with the self (egoistic values), such as improved health and quality of life, motivate individuals to engage in environmentally friendly behaviors (Verma et al., 2019). Previous research has suggested that egoistic value serves as a determinant of attitudes toward environmentally friendly products (Prakash et al., 2019; Rana & Paul, 2017), and individuals with a strong concern for health because of egoistic value tend to exhibit a willingness to pay more for organic or environmentally friendly food products (Birch et al., 2018; Marshall & Bell, 2004; Pieniak et al., 2008; Rahman & Reynolds, 2017). Furthermore, egoistic value has been found to positively influence proenvironmental purchasing behavior (Prakash et al., 2019; Rana & Paul, 2017; Zanoli & Naspetti, 2002).
A proenvironmental attitude is a psychological disposition to assess environmental issues and disclose favorable evaluations of those issues (Milfont, 2009; Milfont & Duckitt, 2010). Yadav (2016) indicated that egoistic value significantly influences attitudes toward environmentally friendly products, while Prakash et al. (2019) found that egoistic value positively influences attitudes toward environmentally friendly packaged products, which, in turn, lead to the purchase of such products. Individuals with proenvironmental attitudes strive to act in ways that do not harm the environment (Steg & Vlek, 2009); thus, proenvironmental attitude has been reported as an important antecedent of proenvironmental purchasing behaviors (Kang et al., 2012; T. H. Lee & Jan, 2015; Nguyen et al., 2016). Therefore, it can be inferred that a proenvironmental attitude may mediate the relationship between egoistic value and proenvironmental purchasing behavior.
Willingness to pay for a product or service indicates consumers’ willingness to accept its price and their intention to pay for it (Krishna, 1991). Consumers tend to pay additional costs to consume organic foods that they perceive as having a positive impact on their health (Fillion & Arazi, 2002). Ojea and Loureiro (2007) found that egoistic value is a key predictor of willingness to pay for environmentally friendly products, while Firdaus (2023) identified willingness to pay as having a positive and significant impact on proenvironmental purchasing behavior. Therefore, it can be inferred that willingness to pay may mediate the relationship between egoistic value and proenvironmental purchasing behavior.
Shin et al. (2017) found that proenvironmental attitude positively influenced willingness to pay for organic restaurant menu items, while Zwicker et al. (2023) observed that proenvironmental attitude significantly influenced willingness to pay for biobased products. Therefore, both proenvironmental attitude and willingness to pay may mediate the relationship between egoistic value and proenvironmental purchasing behaviors. Given that proenvironmental attitude significantly predicts willingness to pay, proenvironmental attitude and willingness to pay may serve as sequential mediators of the link between egoistic value and proenvironmental purchasing behavior. However, previous studies have not examined this chain mediating effect. Therefore, I established the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 1: Egoistic value will be positively associated with proenvironmental purchasing behavior.
Hypothesis 2: Egoistic value will indirectly predict proenvironmental purchasing behavior through the mediating role of proenvironmental attitudes.
Hypothesis 3: Egoistic value will indirectly predict proenvironmental purchasing behavior through the mediating role of willingness to pay.
Hypothesis 4: Egoistic value will indirectly predict proenvironmental purchasing behavior through the chain mediators of proenvironmental attitude and willingness to pay.
The research model of this study is shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Research Model
Method
Participants and Procedure
Between April 4 and 11, 2023, I conducted an online survey of Korean consumers aged 20–49 years using a web panel managed by a survey research company in South Korea. Participants were recruited via convenience sampling. The study adhered to the ethical guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki, ensured participants’ rights and well-being, and required informed consent prior to participation.
Of the 421 respondents, 50.83% were men and 49.17% were women. The age distribution was as follows: 36.10% were aged in their 20s, 38.24% were in their 30s, and 25.65% were in their 40s. In terms of monthly income levels, 22.57% earned under KRW 2 million, 45.13% earned KRW 2–4 million, 19.95% earned KRW 4–6 million, and 12.35% earned over KRW 6 million. For context, the average monthly income in Korea is approximately KRW 3.6 million.
Measures
Egoistic Value
The measure of egoistic value was adapted from a study by Tarkiainen and Sundqvist (2005) and comprised three items (e.g., “I always consider the health benefits of a product while making a purchase”). All items were rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Cronbach’s alpha in this study was .90.
Proenvironmental Attitude
Proenvironmental attitude was assessed using four items (e.g., “Humans are severely abusing the environment”) adopted from the New Environmental Paradigm Scale (Dunlap et al., 2000). All items were scored on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). In this study, Cronbach’s alpha was .92.
Willingness to Pay
The measure of willingness to pay was adapted from a study by Laroche et al. (2001), and comprised four statements (e.g., “It is acceptable to pay 10% more for groceries that are produced, processed, and packaged in an environmentally friendly way”). All items were rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Cronbach’s alpha in this study was .95.
Proenvironmental Purchasing Behavior
Proenvironmental purchasing behavior was assessed using a modified green consumption measure developed by Hwang and Lee (2010). The scale comprises five items, such as “I frequently purchase eco-friendly products” and “I buy products with high energy efficiency ratings or products with an eco-label.” All items were rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). In this study, Cronbach’s alpha was .88.
Control Variables
Prior research has indicated that demographic variables such as gender (Patel et al., 2017; Vicente-Molina et al., 2018), age (Casalegno et al., 2022; Patel et al., 2017), and income (Ojea & Loureiro, 2007; Patel et al., 2017) influence proenvironmental purchasing behavior; thus, I validated my research model by incorporating these as covariates.
Data Analysis
Data analysis was conducted using SPSS 26.0. Frequency and descriptive analyses were performed to understand the general characteristics of the study participants and key variables. I conducted a correlation analysis to examine the relationships between the variables. Additionally, to verify the mediating effects of proenvironmental attitudes and willingness to pay on the relationship between egoistic value and proenvironmental purchasing behavior, direct and indirect effects were analyzed using Model 6 of the PROCESS macro (Hayes, 2018).
Results
Table 1 presents the descriptive statistics and correlations among the study variables. There were significant positive correlations between egoistic value, proenvironmental attitude, willingness to pay, and proenvironmental purchasing behavior.
Table 1. Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations of Variables
Note. N = 421.
*** p < .001.
Multiple Mediation Analyses
To examine the chain mediating effects of proenvironmental attitude and willingness to pay on the relationship between egoistic value and proenvironmental purchasing behavior, I controlled for gender, age, and income. The analysis was conducted using Model 6 of the SPSS PROCESS macro version 4.2 (Hayes, 2018). The results are presented in Table 2 and Figure 2.
In summary, all pathway coefficients were significant. Specifically, the pathways for egoistic value → proenvironmental attitude → proenvironmental purchasing behavior, and egoistic value → willingness to pay → proenvironmental purchasing behavior were significant, indicating that proenvironmental attitude and willingness to pay simultaneously mediated the link between egoistic value and proenvironmental purchasing behavior. Therefore, Hypotheses 2 and 3 were supported. The sequential pathway for egoistic value → proenvironmental attitude → willingness to pay → proenvironmental purchasing behavior was significant, thereby supporting Hypothesis 4, and implying that egoistic value was serially associated with a higher proenvironmental attitude, higher willingness to pay, and stronger proenvironmental purchasing behavior. Similarly, the residual direct pathway for egoistic value → proenvironmental purchasing behavior was significant, thereby supporting Hypothesis 1. Thus, proenvironmental attitude and willingness to pay mediated the link between egoistic value and proenvironmental purchasing behavior, both in parallel and sequentially.
Table 2. Testing the Pathways of the Multiple Mediation Model
Note. Number of bootstrapped resamples = 5,000. CI = confidence interval; LL = lower limit; UL = upper limit.
** p < .01. *** p < .001.
Figure 2. Multiple Mediation Model
** p < .01. *** p < .001.
Discussion
This study examined the sequential chain mediating role of proenvironmental attitude and willingness to pay in the relationship between egoistic value and proenvironmental purchasing behavior. The results revealed significant positive correlations among egoistic value, proenvironmental attitude, willingness to pay, and proenvironmental purchasing behavior, which is consistent with prior research (Ojea & Loureiro, 2007; Prakash & Pathak, 2017; Prakash et al., 2019; Rahman & Reynolds, 2017; Shin et al., 2017).
The path analysis results of the main variables revealed that egoistic value not only directly influenced proenvironmental purchasing behavior but also exerted an indirect effect through proenvironmental attitude. This aligns with prior research indicating that egoistic value, particularly when related to oneself, influences proenvironmental attitudes (Prakash & Pathak, 2017; Rana & Paul, 2017). Additionally, studies have shown that egoistic value positively influences attitudes toward eco-friendly packaging products and has a positive impact on the purchase of such products (Prakash et al., 2019). In essence, individuals with high values for themselves and their families tend to develop environmentally friendly attitudes and subsequently increase their purchases of eco-friendly products and services by fostering an interest in environmental issues.
Furthermore, I found that willingness to pay partially mediated the relationship between egoistic value and proenvironmental purchasing behavior. Consumers with a high level of concern for their own and their family’s health are willing to accept the prices of eco-friendly products or organic food and express an additional willingness to pay, leading to an increase in proenvironmental purchasing.
Finally, the sequential mediation model, including proenvironmental attitude and willingness to pay, demonstrated a better explanation of the mechanism underlying the influence of egoistic value on proenvironmental purchasing behavior. Consumers with a high level of concern for their own and their family’s health and quality of life tend to form favorable attitudes toward eco-friendly products, leading to an increase in their willingness to pay and subsequent purchasing of eco-friendly products and services.
These results provide important practical insights for eco-friendly brand marketing, organic food restaurants, and similar initiatives. To encourage proenvironmental purchasing behaviors, it is essential to emphasize that eco-friendly products and services provide tangible benefits to consumers and their families. Sellers of eco-friendly products and organic foods can strengthen consumers’ proenvironmental attitudes and increase their willingness to pay by promoting benefits that align with their egoistic value. This can help bridge the consumers’ eco-friendly purchasing power. Consumers prioritize consumption that benefits them personally, and gradually expand their areas of eco-friendly consumption behavior to encompass social and environmental considerations (Bae, 2021).
This study has some limitations. First, I relied on participants’ self-reports and used a cross-sectional research design, which excludes the possibility of determining causality. Future researchers could adopt a longitudinal method to confirm the influence mechanism linking egoistic value and proenvironmental purchasing behavior. Second, as the study participants were limited to Korea, it may be difficult to generalize the research findings to other countries and cultures. Therefore, future studies could diversify the study sample to further investigate proenvironmental consumption behaviors.
References
Bae, S.-H. (2021). Purchasing eco-friendly products with good intentions is insufficient: The influence of altruistic/selfish motives on eco-friendly product purchasing behavior [In Korean]. Korean Journal of Marketing, 36(1), 71–97. https://doi.org/10.15830/kjm.2021.36.1.71
Birch, D., Memery, J., & De Silva Kanakaratne, M. (2018). The mindful consumer: Balancing egoistic and altruistic motivations to purchase local food. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 40, 221–228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2017.10.013
Casalegno, C., Candelo, E., & Santoro, G. (2022). Exploring the antecedents of green and sustainable purchase behaviour: A comparison among different generations. Psychology and Marketing, 39(5), 1007–1021. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21637
Chen, L., Wu, Q., & Jiang, L. (2022). Impact of environmental concern on ecological purchasing behavior: The moderating effect of prosociality. Sustainability, 14(5), Article 3004. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14053004
Cleveland, M., Kalamas, M., & Laroche, M. (2012). It’s not easy being green: Exploring green creeds, green deeds, and internal environmental locus of control. Psychology and Marketing, 29(5), 293–305. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20522
De Marchi, E., Pigliafreddo, S., Banterle, A., Parolini, M., & Cavaliere, A. (2020). Plastic packaging goes sustainable: An analysis of consumer preferences for plastic water bottles. Environmental Science and Policy, 114, 305–311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2020.08.014
Dunlap, R. E., Van Liere, K. D., Mertig, A. G., & Jones, R. E. (2000). New trends in measuring environmental attitudes: Measuring endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: A revised NEP scale. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 425–442. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00176
Evans, D. M., Browne, A. L., & Gortemaker, I. A. (2020). Environmental leapfrogging and everyday climate cultures: Sustainable water consumption in the global south. Climatic Change, 163(1), 83–97. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-018-2331-y
Fillion, L., & Arazi, S. (2002). Does organic food taste better? A claim substantiation approach. Nutrition and Food Science, 32(4), 153–157. https://doi.org/10.1108/00346650210436262
Firdaus, F. (2023). Green product purchase decision: The pole of environmental consciousness and willingness to pay. Jurnal Aplikasi Manajemen, 21(4), 1045–1060. http://doi.org/10.21776/ub.jam.2023.021.04.14
Hayes, A. F. (2018). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach (2nd ed.). The Guilford Press.
Hwang, E. A., & Lee, K. A. (2010). Study on green consumption capacity assessment [In Korean]. Korean Consumer Agency.
Kang, K. H., Stein, L., Heo, C. Y., & Lee, S. (2012). Consumers’ willingness to pay for green initiatives of the hotel industry. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 31(2), 564–572. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2011.08.001
Krishna, A. (1991). Effect of dealing patterns on consumer perceptions of deal frequency and willingness to pay. Journal of Marketing Research, 28(4), 441–451. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224379102800406
Laroche, M., Bergeron, J., & Barbaro-Forleo, G. (2001). Targeting consumers who are willing to pay more for environmentally friendly products. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 18(6), 503–520. http://doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000006155
Lee, K. (2009). Gender differences in Hong Kong adolescent consumers’ green purchasing behavior. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 26(2), 87–96. https://doi.org/10.1108/07363760910940456
Lee, T. H., & Jan, F.-H. (2015). The effects of recreation experience, environmental attitude, and biospheric value on the environmentally responsible behavior of nature-based tourists. Environmental Management, 56(1), 193–208. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-015-0488-y
Marshall, D., & Bell, R. (2004). Relating the Food Involvement Scale to demographic variables, food choice and other constructs. Food Quality and Preference, 15(7–8), 871–879. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2004.06.003
Milfont, T. L. (2009). A functional approach to the relations between values and environmental attitudes [Unpublished manuscript]. Centre for Applied Cross-Cultural Research, Victoria University of Wellington.
Milfont, T. L., & Duckitt, J. (2010). The Environmental Attitudes Inventory: A valid and reliable measure to assess the structure of environmental attitudes. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(1), 80–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2009.09.001
Nguyen, T. N., Lobo, A., & Greenland, S. (2016). Pro-environmental purchase behaviour: The role of consumers’ biospheric values. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 33, 98–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2016.08.010
Ojea, E., & Loureiro, M. L. (2007). Altruistic, egoistic and biospheric values in willingness to pay (WTP) for wildlife. Ecological Economics, 63(4), 807–814. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.02.003
Patel, J., Modi, A., & Paul, J. (2017). Pro-environmental behavior and socio-demographic factors in an emerging market. Asian Journal of Business Ethics, 6(2), 189–214. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13520-016-0071-5
Pieniak, Z., Verbeke, W., Scholderer, J., Brunsø, K., & Ottar Olsen, S. O. (2008). Impact of consumers’ health beliefs, health involvement and risk perception on fish consumption: A study in five European countries. British Food Journal, 110(9), 898–915. https://doi.org/10.1108/00070700810900602
Prakash, G., Choudhary, S., Kumar, A., Garza-Reyes, J. A., Khan, S. A. R., & Panda, T. K. (2019). Do altruistic and egoistic values influence consumers’ attitudes and purchase intentions towards eco-friendly packaged products? An empirical investigation. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 50, 163–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.05.011
Prakash, G., & Pathak, P. (2017). Intention to buy eco-friendly packaged products among young consumers of India: A study on developing nation. Journal of Cleaner Production, 141, 385–393. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.09.116
Rahman, I., & Reynolds, D. (2017). Organic wine: The influence of biospheric, altruistic, and egoistic values on purchase intention, willingness to pay more, and willingness to sacrifice. International Journal of Hospitality Beverage Management, 1(1), 1–48. https://doi.org/10.34051/j/2019.1
Rana, J., & Paul, J. (2017). Consumer behavior and purchase intention for organic food: A review and research agenda. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 38, 157–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2017.06.004
Shin, Y. H., Moon, H., Jung, S. E., & Severt, K. (2017). The effect of environmental values and attitudes on consumer willingness to pay more for organic menus: A value-attitude-behavior approach. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 33, 113–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2017.10.010
Steg, L., & Vlek, C. (2009). Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: An integrative review and research agenda. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29(3), 309–317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2008.10.004
Tarkiainen, A., & Sundqvist, S. (2005). Subjective norms, attitudes and intentions of Finnish consumers in buying organic food. British Food Journal, 107(11), 808–822. https://doi.org/10.1108/00070700510629760
Verma, V. K., Chandra, B., & Kumar, S. (2019). Values and ascribed responsibility to predict consumers’ attitude and concern towards green hotel visit intention. Journal of Business Research, 96, 206–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.11.021
Vicente-Molina, M. A., Fernández-Sainz, A., & Izagirre-Olaizola, J. (2018). Does gender make a difference in pro-environmental behavior? The case of the Basque Country university students. Journal of Cleaner Production, 176, 89–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.079
Yadav, R. (2016). Altruistic or egoistic: Which value promotes organic food consumption among young consumers? A study in the context of a developing nation. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 33, 92–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2016.08.008
Zanoli, R., & Naspetti, S. (2002). Consumer motivations in the purchase of organic food: A means-end approach. British Food Journal, 104(8), 643–653. https://doi.org/10.1108/00070700210425930
Zwicker, M. V., Brick, C., Gruter, G.-J. M., & van Harreveld, F. (2023). Consumer attitudes and willingness to pay for novel bio-based products using hypothetical bottle choice. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 35, 173–183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2022.10.021
Bae, S.-H. (2021). Purchasing eco-friendly products with good intentions is insufficient: The influence of altruistic/selfish motives on eco-friendly product purchasing behavior [In Korean]. Korean Journal of Marketing, 36(1), 71–97. https://doi.org/10.15830/kjm.2021.36.1.71
Birch, D., Memery, J., & De Silva Kanakaratne, M. (2018). The mindful consumer: Balancing egoistic and altruistic motivations to purchase local food. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 40, 221–228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2017.10.013
Casalegno, C., Candelo, E., & Santoro, G. (2022). Exploring the antecedents of green and sustainable purchase behaviour: A comparison among different generations. Psychology and Marketing, 39(5), 1007–1021. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21637
Chen, L., Wu, Q., & Jiang, L. (2022). Impact of environmental concern on ecological purchasing behavior: The moderating effect of prosociality. Sustainability, 14(5), Article 3004. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14053004
Cleveland, M., Kalamas, M., & Laroche, M. (2012). It’s not easy being green: Exploring green creeds, green deeds, and internal environmental locus of control. Psychology and Marketing, 29(5), 293–305. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20522
De Marchi, E., Pigliafreddo, S., Banterle, A., Parolini, M., & Cavaliere, A. (2020). Plastic packaging goes sustainable: An analysis of consumer preferences for plastic water bottles. Environmental Science and Policy, 114, 305–311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2020.08.014
Dunlap, R. E., Van Liere, K. D., Mertig, A. G., & Jones, R. E. (2000). New trends in measuring environmental attitudes: Measuring endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: A revised NEP scale. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 425–442. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00176
Evans, D. M., Browne, A. L., & Gortemaker, I. A. (2020). Environmental leapfrogging and everyday climate cultures: Sustainable water consumption in the global south. Climatic Change, 163(1), 83–97. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-018-2331-y
Fillion, L., & Arazi, S. (2002). Does organic food taste better? A claim substantiation approach. Nutrition and Food Science, 32(4), 153–157. https://doi.org/10.1108/00346650210436262
Firdaus, F. (2023). Green product purchase decision: The pole of environmental consciousness and willingness to pay. Jurnal Aplikasi Manajemen, 21(4), 1045–1060. http://doi.org/10.21776/ub.jam.2023.021.04.14
Hayes, A. F. (2018). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach (2nd ed.). The Guilford Press.
Hwang, E. A., & Lee, K. A. (2010). Study on green consumption capacity assessment [In Korean]. Korean Consumer Agency.
Kang, K. H., Stein, L., Heo, C. Y., & Lee, S. (2012). Consumers’ willingness to pay for green initiatives of the hotel industry. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 31(2), 564–572. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2011.08.001
Krishna, A. (1991). Effect of dealing patterns on consumer perceptions of deal frequency and willingness to pay. Journal of Marketing Research, 28(4), 441–451. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224379102800406
Laroche, M., Bergeron, J., & Barbaro-Forleo, G. (2001). Targeting consumers who are willing to pay more for environmentally friendly products. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 18(6), 503–520. http://doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000006155
Lee, K. (2009). Gender differences in Hong Kong adolescent consumers’ green purchasing behavior. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 26(2), 87–96. https://doi.org/10.1108/07363760910940456
Lee, T. H., & Jan, F.-H. (2015). The effects of recreation experience, environmental attitude, and biospheric value on the environmentally responsible behavior of nature-based tourists. Environmental Management, 56(1), 193–208. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-015-0488-y
Marshall, D., & Bell, R. (2004). Relating the Food Involvement Scale to demographic variables, food choice and other constructs. Food Quality and Preference, 15(7–8), 871–879. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2004.06.003
Milfont, T. L. (2009). A functional approach to the relations between values and environmental attitudes [Unpublished manuscript]. Centre for Applied Cross-Cultural Research, Victoria University of Wellington.
Milfont, T. L., & Duckitt, J. (2010). The Environmental Attitudes Inventory: A valid and reliable measure to assess the structure of environmental attitudes. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(1), 80–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2009.09.001
Nguyen, T. N., Lobo, A., & Greenland, S. (2016). Pro-environmental purchase behaviour: The role of consumers’ biospheric values. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 33, 98–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2016.08.010
Ojea, E., & Loureiro, M. L. (2007). Altruistic, egoistic and biospheric values in willingness to pay (WTP) for wildlife. Ecological Economics, 63(4), 807–814. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.02.003
Patel, J., Modi, A., & Paul, J. (2017). Pro-environmental behavior and socio-demographic factors in an emerging market. Asian Journal of Business Ethics, 6(2), 189–214. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13520-016-0071-5
Pieniak, Z., Verbeke, W., Scholderer, J., Brunsø, K., & Ottar Olsen, S. O. (2008). Impact of consumers’ health beliefs, health involvement and risk perception on fish consumption: A study in five European countries. British Food Journal, 110(9), 898–915. https://doi.org/10.1108/00070700810900602
Prakash, G., Choudhary, S., Kumar, A., Garza-Reyes, J. A., Khan, S. A. R., & Panda, T. K. (2019). Do altruistic and egoistic values influence consumers’ attitudes and purchase intentions towards eco-friendly packaged products? An empirical investigation. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 50, 163–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.05.011
Prakash, G., & Pathak, P. (2017). Intention to buy eco-friendly packaged products among young consumers of India: A study on developing nation. Journal of Cleaner Production, 141, 385–393. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.09.116
Rahman, I., & Reynolds, D. (2017). Organic wine: The influence of biospheric, altruistic, and egoistic values on purchase intention, willingness to pay more, and willingness to sacrifice. International Journal of Hospitality Beverage Management, 1(1), 1–48. https://doi.org/10.34051/j/2019.1
Rana, J., & Paul, J. (2017). Consumer behavior and purchase intention for organic food: A review and research agenda. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 38, 157–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2017.06.004
Shin, Y. H., Moon, H., Jung, S. E., & Severt, K. (2017). The effect of environmental values and attitudes on consumer willingness to pay more for organic menus: A value-attitude-behavior approach. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 33, 113–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2017.10.010
Steg, L., & Vlek, C. (2009). Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: An integrative review and research agenda. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29(3), 309–317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2008.10.004
Tarkiainen, A., & Sundqvist, S. (2005). Subjective norms, attitudes and intentions of Finnish consumers in buying organic food. British Food Journal, 107(11), 808–822. https://doi.org/10.1108/00070700510629760
Verma, V. K., Chandra, B., & Kumar, S. (2019). Values and ascribed responsibility to predict consumers’ attitude and concern towards green hotel visit intention. Journal of Business Research, 96, 206–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.11.021
Vicente-Molina, M. A., Fernández-Sainz, A., & Izagirre-Olaizola, J. (2018). Does gender make a difference in pro-environmental behavior? The case of the Basque Country university students. Journal of Cleaner Production, 176, 89–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.079
Yadav, R. (2016). Altruistic or egoistic: Which value promotes organic food consumption among young consumers? A study in the context of a developing nation. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 33, 92–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2016.08.008
Zanoli, R., & Naspetti, S. (2002). Consumer motivations in the purchase of organic food: A means-end approach. British Food Journal, 104(8), 643–653. https://doi.org/10.1108/00070700210425930
Zwicker, M. V., Brick, C., Gruter, G.-J. M., & van Harreveld, F. (2023). Consumer attitudes and willingness to pay for novel bio-based products using hypothetical bottle choice. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 35, 173–183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2022.10.021
Figure 1. Research Model
Table 1. Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations of Variables
Note. N = 421.
*** p < .001.
Table 2. Testing the Pathways of the Multiple Mediation Model
Note. Number of bootstrapped resamples = 5,000. CI = confidence interval; LL = lower limit; UL = upper limit.
** p < .01. *** p < .001.
Figure 2. Multiple Mediation Model
** p < .01. *** p < .001.
The data that support this study are not publicly available.
Joowon Jung, Department of Home Economic Education, Dongguk University, 30, Pildong-ro 1-gil, Jung-gu, Seoul 04620, Republic of Korea. Email: [email protected]
Article Details
© 2025 Scientific Journal Publishers Limited. All Rights Reserved.