Centre for Environment
Oh the challenges we face: Some
insights into why consumers won’t
do more, don’t like being told what
to do and keep promising things
they don’t deliver. ,
Dr Iain Black, Senior Lecturer,
Discipline of Marketing
Overview
 Overall problem
 Understanding the difficulty is getting consumers to adopt more
sustainable forms of consumption
 Theoretical Perspective
– Theory of Planned Behaviour
 Problems 1: Why consumers won’t do more
– Study one: Identity boundaries
 Problem 2: How consumers react when you say no to them
– Study 2: Self Identity and Involuntary loss
 Problem 3: Why consumers say one thing and do another
– Study 3. Hyperbolic discounting vs Temporary Construal Theory.
Theoretical Perspective
 Attitude-Behaviour disconnect is not new
 Theory of Planned Behaviour
Problems 1:
Why consumers won’t do more
Becoming a more sustainable
consumer
Identity boundaries:
Changing without changing
too much.
Research Aim and Objectives

Research Aim:
–

To understand how global self concept is managed when a identity and
set of behaviour are adopted
Objectives:
•
•
•
•
•
To understand what has motivates people to adopt more
environmentally sustainable consumption practices in their
every day lives
To understand the barriers placed around the adoption of this
new lifestyle
To illicit identity narratives of how their identity and self has
changed as a more sustainable lifestyle has been adopted.
To understand how has this adoption has been managed by
other elements of identity and self
To understand how behaviours and values that are
incompatible with current identities are managed
–
Changed, modified rejected, adopted
Conceptual Framework
 Definition of possessions
–
–
–
‘Extended self’ (Belk, 1988)
Tangible and intangible
Characteristics: control, symbolic meaning, emotional attachment
 Managing self
–
Stability and transition
•
–
Kleine et al. (1995)
Past, present and future self
•
Markus and Nurius (1986); Morgan (1993)
1. Maintenance of self
•
Ahuvia (2005); Gentry et al. (1995); Levinson (1978); Prentice (1987)
2. Changes in self: separation, liminality, incorporation
•
Van Gennep (1960)
Overview of Study
 Phenomenological perspective taken
 Sampling
– Purposive, iterative “theoretical”.
 Data collection
– In-depth interviews
– Initial data collection:
• Sydney 2007
• 18 men and women 30-45 years old
• Attending basic conservation workshops and starting to adopt sustainable
lifestyles
• ACF GreenHome workshops
• Data coded and analyzed
– 2nd Phase:
• Toronto 2008
• 6 women years old
• Moved to sustainable lifestyle 3-5 years ago, behaviors are entrenched but
critically having to adapt to new standards.
 Data analysis
– Grounded theory techniques
Findings
New
behaviour or
standard
Adopt
Modify
Postpone
Resistance
Dismiss
Reject
Conclusion
 Change possessions and chane use of these
possessions without changing self concept
 Managing changes to maintain a coherent
global self concept
 Continuous change rather than discontinuous
change
 Respondents now incorporate may fairly
radical conservation behaviors within
definition of core identities as a mothers,
wives, homemaker etc.
Problem 2: How consumers react
when you say “no” to them
Study 2: Self Identity and Involuntary
loss
Who are you trying to fool? Consumers reactions
to involuntary loss of possession.
Voluntary disposition
• Lastovicka and Fernandez (2005)
• Disposition via garage sales showed that valance
is important in whether disposal rituals are
performed and detail types (Iconic Transfer, The
Transition-Place Ritual, Ritual Cleansing)
• Higie, Price and Fitzmaurice 1993
• Moving home
• Price, Arnold and Curais, (2000)
• Giving away by older consumer
• Pavia (1993) and Kates (2001)
• Disposition by PLWA
Involuntary loss and self
• This literature has taken as its focus a
range of sudden or dramatic causes.
• Loss due disasters such as fires or earthquakes
(Delorme, Zinkhan & Hagan, 2004, Belk, 1988,
Ikeuchi, Fujihara & Dohi, 1999)
• Loss due to major traumatic life events such as:
• Unemployment (McAlexander, 1991),
• Divorce (Roberts, 1991),
• Imprisonment (Brownlie & Horne, 1999)
• Terminal illness (Kates, 2001).
• Call made by a number of authors for research in this area
i.e
• Arnould and Thomson (2005)
• Belk, Sherry, and Wallendorf's (1988). Investment rituals.
Research question and
context
 This research explores how consumers manage the
situation and their self image when they are denied
access (albeit temporarily) to symbolically important,
meaningful possessions. It seeks to understand
identity negotiation in situations where the loss is
temporary and involuntary in nature.
 The context explored is premium class air travel and
the associated frequent flyer programmes
– Losses investigated
• When an organisation will not pay for goods or services to
which the employee has become attached and
• Where the vendor withdraws the service due to insufficient
loyalty.
Methodology


Interpretivist framework guiding research
Multi method
–
Observation and Depth interviews (online/face to face)
–
–
2 Stages
Stage 1: Participant observation involved three phases of
travel and was sponsored by IBM. In total 110,000 miles
were flown in a 10 month period.
50 flights were taken,
–
•
•
–
25 in economy and
25 in premium cabins.
Example of route taken
–
–
–
SYD-LAX-SFO-NYC-LHR-MIL-LHR-SIN-SYD
Business class
Stage 2: Individual Depth interviews
•
•
26 IBM frequent flyers
6 Frequent flyers who have been downgraded in their FF
programme
Meaningful, Status filled possessions


Premium class travel and high tier frequent flyer status confers status upon
individuals, supports their career aspirations and differentiates them in a
disconnected, anonymous world.
Status is conferred not only when they were travelling but also when not
travelling
“and I get in the lift and I laugh and it is kind of nice but
people have got their blue tag proudly displayed on their
bag. (Mixed class traveller)


“Business” travel brings respect from colleagues, friends and families.
– Specifically in the work sphere
Reasons?
– high cost of premium class travel
– reasons for travelling “must” be to attend to important matters.
“What economy (class) tells me is that the company don’t value me
or my time. I can be away negotiating hundred million dollar deals
but I have to fly back economy, it’s embarrassing, and I hate doing
it.” (Mixed class traveller)

Motivation to maintain special treatment
Maintaining possession using Illusion and
Delusion
 Range of behaviours which show how
travellers deal with the loss (or fear of its loss)
of the service.
– Stages of Mourning and Rebuilding (Delorme, Zinkhan &
Hagen (2004),
 Illusion and delusion are used to maintain the
pretence of possession in light of its loss.
– Why not conduct mourning process?
• Transient nature of the loss and the anonymity of the
consumption
• Therefore temporarily keeping up appearances until they
are able to re-posses it.
Findings
Behavior and
Objective
Timeframe
Threatened
Happening
Happening/Happened
Objective
Avert the loss
Maintain public
meaning
Reconcile temporary state
with desired state
Actions
o
Achieving the goal
by different means
Refuse to travel
based on socially
acceptable
arguments
o
o
o



Public meaning
Private meaning
Hedonic value
Public meaning
Private meaning
Hedonic value
Hedonic value (loss being
reduced not avoided)
Avoided
Avoided
o
Primary losses
being avoided
o
o
o
–
Secondary losses
being avoided
Identity
negotiation
Avoided
Acting the part
Looking the part
o
Acts of reconciliation
Transferring the loss
Self denial
Reconfiguring private
meaning
Moving happily
Acting the part
 Maintaining a referent group and reward benefits.
 Examples from Observational phase:
– On a number of occasions it was observed that flyers who
subsequently travelled in the economy section would use business
class check in queues despite the queue for economy being
shorter
– In another behaviour seen in both Sydney international airport and
in London, economy travellers with high tier status would use the
frequent flyers lounges for very short periods of time and walk
considerable distances to do so.
 May also have been aimed at airline staff
– Benefits of members extended to them, real or perceived.
Looking the Part
QFF Plat (OW Emerald,) QC Life, 97.75% to Lifetime
Silver, NW Plat WPerks, SQ KrisFlyer, UA. SPG
Gold, HHonors Gold, Hyatt GP, Avis Pref, Hertz No 1,
et al
 However
– He will not regain QFF platinum status
– Closer examination memberships claimed on the signature line also show
that not all is as it seems and it creates an illusion of ownership and status
beyond that which is authentically possessed.
– Duplications
• (QFF Plat is equivalent to OW Emerald),
– Apparently high tier status is in fact the entry level
• (Hyatt GP (gold partner), Avis Pref-Avis (Preferred Customer ),
– Some are given away to certain credit cards (HHonors gold)
– Some are free to join and require no activity to maintain (SQ krisflyer, Hertz
no one, UA).
Findings
Behavior and
Objective
Timeframe
Threatened
Happening
Happening/Happened
Objective
Avert the loss
Maintain public
meaning
Reconcile temporary state
with desired state
Actions
oAchieving the goal by
different means
oRefuse to travel based
on socially acceptable
arguments
oActing the part
oLooking the part
oActs of reconciliation
Transferring the loss
Self denial
Reconfiguring private
meaning
oMoving happily
Primary losses
being avoided
oPublic meaning
oPrivate meaning
oHedonic value
Public meaning
Private meaning
Hedonic value
Hedonic value (loss being
reduced not avoided)
Avoided
Avoided
–
Secondary losses
being avoided
Identity
negotiation
Avoided
Conclusions




Uneconomic, irrational and desperate behaviours can be understood
when we consider that it the Self that is being affected and protected
Reducing the impact and regaining control are common themes in the
behaviours seen
Research provides a range of behaviours and tactics used to cope with
the transition from “old” to “new” self due to involuntary loss.
This is achieved by, where possible AVOIDING the transition
–
–

In so doing provides details to the work by Delorme et al 2004 which illustrated the
steps taken
Also provides mirror of Lastovicka and Fernandez (2005) work on voluntary loss
behaviours
Previous work into involuntary loss and self-concept has highlighted the
process that consumers go through in order to realign their extended
self to reflect their new found situation.
–
I add to this literature by showing how people can compensate for the loss via creating
the illusion that the consumer is still in possession, (if only in part).
Discussion
 So how does this help us understand
consumers and sustainability:
– Loss or restrictions are coming or already here
• Credit crunch
 Many of the attempts to avoid loss were
based on consumption, (mileage runs,
greater use of facilities)
– Therefore must be careful that by managing loss we do not
stimulate consumption elsewhere!
– How
• Provide periphery symbols of possession (owners clubs, loyalty
schemes)
• Actions to disengage possession from identity
– Moved beyond it, moved pass it
Problem 3: Why consumers say one
thing and do another
Cost and Rewards
Overview
 Consumers who sincerely profess to be concerned
about the environment nevertheless fail to
purchase “green” products such as energy efficient
light globes and home appliances for the simple
reason that these products have higher prices than
less environmentally responsible alternatives.
 This research tests two competing explanations for
this phenomenon – hyperbolic discounting and
temporal construal.
 Differences between these two explanations have
important implications for the kinds of marketing
strategies likely to induce consumers to purchase
“green” products.
Contrasting HDT with TCT



Hyperbolic Discounting Theory (HDT) emphasises the timing of outcomes
(i.e., immediate vs. delayed rewards and punishments) and makes no
distinction between lower-order and higher-order outcomes.
Temporal Construal Theory (TCT) emphasises the timing of decisions (i.e.,
decide now or later) and posits a discounting of lower-order outcomes and an
appreciation of higher-order outcomes over time.
Key Experimental Factors
–
–
–

Decision timing (now versus later)
Outcome timing (immediate versus delayed)
Outcome level (lower- versus higher-order)
Potentially Interesting Contexts
–
–
–
–
Credit card purchases of items when funds are lacking
Adoption of relatively expensive but energy efficient products
Financial planning for future retirement
Preparing for a major individual assessment
HDT vs. TCT
 Hyperbolic discounting (HD) posits that the future is
discounted at a decreasing rate, minimizing the influence of
future positive and negative outcomes on purchase
decisions.
 Temporal construal (TC) asserts that future purchase
decisions are evaluated in terms of abstract principles and
global assessments of desirability, whereas immediate
purchases are influenced by concrete outcomes and ease
of implementation.
 The two theories make different predictions regarding the
effects of expressing the benefits of using “green”
products in terms of (a) rebates for future energy savings,
(b) lower bills, (c) less energy used, and (d) less
greenhouse gas emissions.
HD, TCT and Energy Saving
Products
 HD implies that consumers do not purchase energy
saving products because the often higher price is an
immediate loss whereas financial and non-financial
benefits occur much further in the future.
 TCT implies that consumers do not purchase energy
saving products because the often higher price
influences lower-order construals involving the ease of
implementation, whereas the financial, and especially,
non-financial benefits, influence higher-order construals
involving the desirability of the outcome.
Immediate and Distant Future Consequences of
Energy Saving Purchases
 Hhd: The effects of the price difference and the
energy savings will be smaller for distant versus
immediate future decisions, but the decrease will
be more pronounced for the price difference
compared to the energy savings.
 Htct: The effect of the price difference will be
smaller for distant versus immediate future
decisions, but the effect of the energy savings
will be larger for distant versus immediate future
decisions.
Temporal Construal Theory
(TCT)
Distant Future
Immediate Future
Lower-Order Construals








Concrete
Complex
Ease of implementation
Contextualised
Secondary or peripheral
Subordinate
Goal irrelevant
Data-driven
Higher-Order Construals








Abstract
Simple
Desirability of outcome
Decontextualised
Primary or central
Superordinate
Goal relevant
Theory-driven
Method
 We will conduct a laboratory experiment that requires
respondents to choose between two alternatives in the same
product category. One alternative is more environmentally
responsible than the other.
 The experiment will manipulate the following factors:
 Experimental factors:
–
–
–
–
–
Product category (batteries, light bulbs, refrigerators, washing machines).
Environmental status (green versus regular).
Price differential between the green and regular product.
Size of the future gain.
Timing of the decision (tomorrow versus one year from now).
 Price will be manipulated at two levels, with the higher price
always associated with the environmentally responsible product.
 The future gain will be manipulated at 2 different levels, with the
gain always associated with the environmentally responsible
product.
 Sample:
– Students between the ages of 18 and 24
Immediate and Distant Future Consequences
of Energy Saving Purchases
 “Imagine that (it’s one year from now and) you
are planning a shopping trip (for tomorrow), and
you have two ‘blown out’ light bulbs at home that
need to be replaced. Which of the following
options would you be more likely to purchase?”
Environmentally Friendly
Option
 Pack of 4 long life light bulbs
 Costs ($7.50, $15.00)
 Use (6, 14) times less
electricity than the
incandescent bulbs
Inexpensive Option
 Pack of 4 incandescent light
bulbs
 Costs $2.50
 Use (6, 14) times more
electricity as the long life bulbs
Conclusions
 When considering why the main stream
of consumers have been slow to adopt
environmentally friendly products. I find
Oscams razor a useful heuristic to work
by:
– They are more expensive
– They don’t work as well.
 A intriguing problem is why we say with
great earnest that we intend to buy EF
products or behave in a more
sustainable way but we don’t
Overview
 Problems 1: Why consumers won’t do more
– Doing too much infringes their Identity boundaries, it risks
asking them to become someone they are uncomfortable
coming
 Problem 2: How consumers react when you
say no to them
– Making consumers do something they don’t want to do can
lead to greater levels of consumption
 Problem 3: Why consumers say one thing
and do another
– Framing the gain and loss is critical if you want to sell the
environmentally friendly (but more expensive version) and
the key may be framing economic rahter than higher order
benefits
Recommendations
 Change the standards for core
identities to incorporate more
radical conservation behaviours
rather than try to turn people into
eco warriors, treehuggers,
environmentalists…
Thank you
Questions?
Comments?