Abstract
Green consumption is critical for achieving sustainable development goals. Many studies have focused on explaining why customers choose green consumption, but rarely have scholars considered the significant impacts of the psychological costs. This study conducted an online survey of 677 sampled individuals in China. A structural equation model (SEM) was adopted to explore how three types of psychological costs (i.e., stress, stigma, and autonomy) moderate the indirect relationships of perceived hedonic value and perceived utilitarian value with green consumption (i.e., green purchasing, recycling, and refusing to use disposable products) through the willingness to pay a green premium (WPGP). The results show that perceived values can promote green consumption behaviours by increasing WPGP. In addition, the indirect benefit of perceived hedonic value was shown to be stronger than that of perceived utilitarian value. However, the direct association of perceived hedonic value with green consumption was shown to be weaker (compared to perceived utilitarian value) when the influence of WPGP was excluded. Moreover, the indirect associations of perceived hedonic value with green consumption were stronger among individuals with high stress than those with low stress. In contrast, the indirect associations of perceived utilitarian value on green consumption were weaker for people with high stigma than those with low stigma. However, no evidence was found to show that autonomy can moderate the indirect relationships. These findings emphasize the different mechanisms of perceived hedonic value and perceived utilitarian value on green consumption, as well as the moderating role of psychological costs in understanding the relationship between perceived value and green consumption. Accordingly, this study suggests that policymakers should highlight the hedonic value rather than the utilitarian when encouraging a green lifestyle that involves a green premium. This is particularly true of situations with a high level of customers’ psychological costs. However, if there is no way to further increase people’s WPGP, then promoting the utilitarian value should be used to promote green consumption.
Similar content being viewed by others
Introduction
Green consumption is a critical path to reducing the adverse impact of human beings on the environment (Li et al. 2016). Several United Nations sustainable development goals (SDGs) encourage the practice of green consumption. Particularly, SDG 12 – “responsible consumption and production” – explicitly states that a transformation in “production methods and consumption modes is necessary for economic growth and sustainable development”. At its core, SDG 12 promotes the efficient use of resources and energy and encourages the adoption of greener and more sustainable consumption patterns. This can be achieved through means such as waste reduction, pollution mitigation, and enhanced recycling.
However, the reality is that forming the habit of green consumption has not yet become a consensus lifestyle choice amongst global consumers. For instance, since 2019, the Policy Research Centre for Environment and Economy (PRCEE) of the Ministry of Ecology and Environment of China has been tracking and evaluating the status of citizens’ ecological behaviours on an annual basis. The survey report shows that, although green consumption behaviours among the Chinese public have been improving year-by-year, only about half of the people surveyed reported having experiences with green consumption. This finding clearly indicates that there is still significant room for improvement (PRCEE 2020, 2022). Therefore, a hot topic for scholars has been the exploration of strategies that could be used to encourage customers to adopt green behaviours (e.g., Trujillo et al. 2021; Xu and Lin 2021). Previous studies on green consumption have mainly focused solely on green purchasing. This study also examines green purchasing but goes further, looking at methods such as recycling and refusing to use disposable products. The aim is to broaden the understanding of why people choose environmentally-friendly products and services in their daily lives.
The mindsponge theory framework provides a valuable perspective for analysing how information about green consumption impacts an individual’s mind and thus influences their green consumption behaviours (Nguyen and Jones 2022; Vuong 2023). The theory maintains that individuals reshape their psychological cognition through the absorption and filtration of external information, which in turn impacts and alters their behaviour. This makes mindsponge theory widely applicable in social science research (Nguyen et al. 2022). As a key component of mindsponge theory – information processing – incorporates a cost-benefit analysis, the principle of diminishing marginal utility will also serve as a theoretical foundation for this study. Accordingly, an exploration will be made regarding how the benefits (i.e., perceived values) and costs (psychological costs) of green consumption interactively influence WPGP and thereby influence green consumption behaviours. The specific research questions are shown below.
Perceived values and WPGP have long been regarded as important antecedent variables for green consumption (e.g., Dangelico et al. 2022; de Medeiros et al. 2016). However, knowledge gaps remain in existing research. Firstly, most studies have only examined the direct influence of the two abovementioned concepts on green consumption, leaving a detailed understanding of their complex relationship elusive (e.g., Ahmad et al. 2023; Yadav and Pathak 2017; Zhang et al. 2018). Moreover, the impacts of perceived values and WPGP on green consumption have remained uncertain in previous studies. Put simply, the effect was not consistently positive (e.g., Dangelico et al. 2021; Suphasomboon and Vassanadumrongdee 2022). Accordingly, the first research question of this study is: How do perceived values correlate with green consumption through WPGP?
Secondly, the differing impacts of perceived hedonic value (the emotional aspect) and perceived utilitarian value (the functional aspect) on green consumption through WPGP have seldom been examined. This gap apparently means that practitioners are uncertain about which aspect of green consumption should be emphasized to promote more environmentally-friendly behaviours. In other words, compared to encouraging behaviours without premiums, encouraging consumption behaviours with green premiums may necessitate highlighting different values. Therefore, the second research question is: Does a significant difference exist between the relationships of perceived hedonic value and perceived utilitarian value on green consumption?
In addition, many current policies that encourage green consumption are based on developing social norms. Unfortunately, such strategies may have psychological costs for customers, which in turn may deter future green behaviours. Prior studies have devoted significant attention to exploring the critical explanatory factors for green consumption, based on the theory of planned behaviour (e.g., Varah et al. 2021; Yadav and Pathak 2017). This study adopts a new, alternative perspective that focuses on the impacts of psychological costs to explore alternative strategies. Specifically, this study does not just iterate the narrative of green consumption as a societal boon. Rather, this study goes a step further and posits the possibility of associated psychological costs, such as stress, stigma, and a perceived loss of autonomy (Johnstone and Tan 2015; Thomsen et al. 2020). Research has shown that individuals have a propensity to avoid loss rather than pursue equivalent gains (Liu et al. 2023; Tversky and Kahneman 1974). Therefore, psychological costs could affect the balance of cost-benefit and then significantly reshape the perceived values-WPGP nexus and, by extension, influence green consumption behaviours. By incorporating psychological costs into the established behavioural model of green consumption – linking perceived values and willingness to pay a green premium (WPGP) – this study strives to shed light on the underexplored dimensions of green consumption literature. The third research question thus arises: How do psychological costs influence the mechanism by which perceived values correlate with green consumption through WPGP?
By adopting mindsponge theory and the principle of diminishing marginal utility (Li et al. 2022; Nguyen and Jones 2022; Vuong 2023), this research aims to answer the aforementioned three questions and inform policymaking. This is because fostering green consumption is not only an environmental imperative but is also a crucial policy challenge. Prior evidence has suggested that promoting green consumer behaviours requires a nuanced approach that takes into account psychological barriers and various values. On this basis, this study informs policy interventions that aim to foster a more sustainable consumption culture. This goal is aligned with broader governmental ambitions, such as China’s green development agenda, which underscores the role of sustainable consumer practices in realizing the nation’s ecological and developmental objectives (National Development and Reform Commission, China 2022).
In sum, this study utilizes empirical data from China, a country that is vigorously promoting green consumption, to construct a moderated mediation model. This aim is to explore the mechanism by which consumers’ perceived values are associated with their green consumption behaviours. The findings promise to add a valuable dimension to the debate concerning WPGP’s influence on green consumption, as well as the role of two kinds of perceived values in this equation. Most importantly, the nuanced understanding of psychological costs is poised to enrich green consumption literature and spur heightened focus on the relationship between green consumption’s potentially negative impacts and prospective green behaviours. This approach also recognizes that consumption habits are influenced by numerous things, such as the nature of consumption, individuals’ mindsets, and current events in society. By understanding how all these factors work together, one can conceptualize better ways to encourage people to engage in green consumption. Encouraging this kind of culture entails getting everyone involved in taking care of the environment and not just leaving that task up to a few people. This change could compel people to think more about how their choices affect the environment and influence them to make more responsible choices. These insights are expected to be generalizable and should guide policymakers in devising comprehensive, psychologically informed strategies that encourage sustainable consumer practices at the macro level.
Literature review
Green consumption
Various similar terms are used when referring to consumption that has a positive impact on the environment. This study takes “green consumption” to describe people choosing environmentally-friendly goods and services (Luan et al. 2023; Zhang et al. 2022). Green consumption is about more than just purchasing green products (Wu et al. 2023). In this study, green consumption also relates to recycling and refusing to use disposable products. Specifically, green purchasing refers to paying for products and services that minimize harm to the environment during both production and use (Han 2020). Recycling, which means reusing products and wastes, is another effective way to achieve sustainable development (Wang et al. 2023). Finally, reducing the use of disposable products, such as disposable tableware and bags, is also a green lifestyle choice that is correlated with consumption (Tamburini et al. 2021).
The relevant literature that explains why people adopt green consumption can be roughly divided into three categories. The first category focuses on individuals’ demographic characteristics, traits, cognitions, and attitudes (e.g., Ahmad et al. 2023; de Medeiros et al. 2016). The second category explores how characteristics of products or services affect green consumption (e.g., Dai et al. 2022; Mehraj and Qureshi 2022; Siraj et al. 2022). The final stream relates to the effects of macro environments (such as public policy) on green consumption (e.g., Trujillo et al. 2021; Xu and Lin 2021). Understanding why people choose sustainable options is essential to designing effective products and policies. This study takes a consumer-focused approach and examines how perceived values, WPGP, and psychological costs impact green consumption behaviours.
The relationship between perceived values and green consumption
Perceived values are crucial antecedents of green consumption. Previous studies have afforded considerable attention to this concept, but there have been no consistent results on the definition of perceived value (Gallarza et al. 2011). Nevertheless, scholars have agreed that perceived value is a much more comprehensive concept than “value for money” (Dangelico et al. 2022). In reality, scholars usually treat perceived value as a multi-dimension variable (Sheth et al. 1991; Xu et al. 2022); there are also various typologies of perceived values. For instance, Sheth et al. (1991) developed a consumption value theory including five dimensions. The study further assumed that each kind of value independently contributes to individuals’ consumption. Schwartz (1992) distinguished 10 types of values which the study claimed work as the guiding principles in people’s lives. To more profoundly analyse the role of perceived values in green consumption, this study abandons the broad and inclusive classification of perceived values and instead adopts a commonly agreed two-dimensional structure consisting of utilitarian value and hedonic value (Babin et al. 1994; Ryu et al. 2010).
Utilitarian value is a cognitive dimension that integrates economic value with functional value. This is the primary goal of consumption behaviour (Ryu et al. 2010; Wei et al. 2023). According to existing literature, functional value, quality value, economic value, value for money, and price value are often interchanged and have overlaps of connotation (Dangelico et al. 2022; Sheth et al. 1991; Xu et al. 2022). Thus this study uses the term “utilitarian value” to help offset any confusion. In addition, hedonic value is an affective dimension and is similar to emotional value. Hedonic/emotional value refers to the “perceived utility derived from an alternative capacity to arouse feelings or affective states” (Sheth et al. 1991). Nevertheless, hedonic value is more specific than emotional value, in that hedonic value focuses on comprehensive assessments of subjective entertainment and pleasure (Babin et al. 1994). Next, brief review is given of the relationship between perceived values and green consumption.
Although studies may differ in the specific meanings of perceived value, they have basically shown a positive relationship between perceived value and green consumption. For example, Alam et al. (2023) found that perceived value can influence consumers’ intention to buy eco-labelled food. De Medeiros et al. (2016) provided experimental evidence that perceived value increases people’s willingness to purchase green products. Similarly, Dangelico et al. (2021) and Dangelico et al. (2022) indicated that perceived value can positively affect green purchase intention and significantly promote the frequency of green product purchases. Perceived value can also significantly increase recycling intention (Wang et al. 2023) and positively influence the intention to repurchase green agricultural products (Xu et al. 2022). Nevertheless, Suphasomboon and Vassanadumrongdee (2022) found no evidence that supports the causality between emotional value and green purchase intention. Accordingly, some puzzles regarding this issue remain unresolved. To clarify the relationship between perceived value and green consumption, this study introduces WPGP as the mediator and psychological cost as the moderator, thereby delving into the mechanism by which perceived value influences green consumption.
The mediating role of willingness to pay a green premium (WPGP)
Green consumption often requires people to pay higher costs than they would for traditional consumption. Such costs include both money and time (Mehraj and Qureshi 2022; Zhang et al. 2018). Specifically, green products are usually more expensive than conventional goods. People may also need to spend extra time washing reusable tableware than they would using disposable options. Similarly, recycling may require more effort than simply throwing away used items. Therefore, people engaging in green consumption must bear the associated premiums. That is, the WPGP is a critical factor influencing green consumption behaviour (Bulsara and Trivedi 2023; Li et al. 2016). Some scholars have even equated WPGP with the intention to engage in green consumption; they have tried to explain how to promote green consumption by focusing on exploring the factors that influence WPGP (Wei et al. 2023).
However, studies to date have reached contradictory results with regard to WPGP’s association with green consumption. Some results have actually refuted this seemingly obvious relationship. For example, Dangelico et al. (2021) and Yadav and Pathak (2017) both indicated that WPGP cannot adequately explain green consumption. Some consumers only pick a green option when they do not need to pay higher costs (Yang et al. 2022). For these consumers, the most important thing may be to maximize personal benefits. Therefore, WPGP is not a necessary condition for green consumption, nor can WPGP represent green consumption itself. Therefore, there is significant value in further examining the effect of WPGP on green consumption, thereby contributing to the existing literature and current practices.
In addition, perceived value is a positive predictor of WPGP. According to mindsponge theory, individuals receive information about green consumption from the external environment. They then decide whether to accept this information through a cost-benefit analysis filter, updating their mindset and value judgments (Vuong 2023). When individuals perceive that the benefits of green consumption (perceived value) outweigh the costs (green premium), they may embrace the concept of green consumption, thereby enhancing their WPGP. A significant amount of empirical evidence also shows that consumers would be willing to pay extra for green products and services if they believe this is a valuable choice. For example, Zheng et al. (2022) found that green perceived values positively affect the WPGP for green agricultural products. Lee et al. (2019) also confirmed that consumers’ perceived values positively affect their intentions to pay a premium price. Based on the above statement, this study hypothesizes that WPGP mediates the effects of perceived value on green consumption.
H1: Consumers’ perceived values (including utilitarian and hedonic values) can increase their willingness to pay a green premium and then promote their green consumption.
However, different types of perceived values may have diverse effects on WPGP and green consumption. According to Dangelico et al. (2021), no significant relationship was found between the functional value of green products and WPGP. However, the study found that value for money positively predicted WPGP. Therefore, exploring the effects of different values can help to build more comprehensive knowledge of the relationship between green consumption, WPGP and perceived value (Hwang and Yeo 2022). Specifically, when green consumption involves a green premium, this may contravene the cost-effectiveness aspect of consumers’ perceived utilitarian value. This, in turn, will diminish the role of perceived utilitarian value in promoting green consumption. In other words, WPGP may be driven more by the enjoyment provided rather than any economic benefit (given the presence of a premium). This suggests that perceived hedonic value may better facilitate WPGP, thus encouraging more green consumption behaviours. Conversely, when the influence of WPGP on green consumption is excluded, perceived utilitarian value can have a greater promotional effect. This is because consumers do not incur additional costs and can align their actions with societal expectations (i.e., to behave green). Therefore, perceived utilitarian value does not primarily influence green consumption through WPGP, but rather promotes green behaviours through a direct impact. The corresponding hypotheses are:
H2: The indirect associations of perceived hedonic value with green consumption through WPGP may be more impactful than the indirect associations of perceived utilitarian value with green consumption through WPGP.
H3: After excluding the influence of WPGP, the direct associations of perceived hedonic value with green consumption may be weaker than the direct associations of perceived utilitarian value with green consumption.
The moderating role of psychological costs
In addition to economic costs, green consumption also requires consumers to pay psychological costs, such as cognitive resources and emotional value costs (Gilovich et al. 2015). In other words, encouraging green consumption may have negative impacts on people’s psychological states. Most existing studies have claimed that green consumption can benefit the environment and help achieve sustainable development goals (e.g., Zhang et al. 2022). However, scholars have mostly ignored the other side of the coin, which is critical for explaining green consumption. Therefore, to fill this gap in research, this study considers psychological costs in the behaviour model of green consumption.
Psychological costs can include stress, stigma, and autonomy (Thomsen et al. 2020). Specifically, green consumption has become a social norm in modern society. Today, people are expected to choose environmentally-friendly products and services (Culiberg and Elgaaied-Gambier 2016). However, buying green often means incurring extra costs; a green lifestyle is more expensive than a conventional one (Zhang et al. 2018). Paying a green premium may make consumers feel stressful, especially people with low incomes (Johnstone and Tan 2015). In addition, social norms sometimes force people to do the “right” thing, even if they do not like doing so (Liu et al. 2023). This invisible pressure can make people tense, causing them to feel like they have lost control of themselves. Moreover, people may experience a strong sense of shame if they engage in behaviour that does not conform to social norms (such as using disposable products). Therefore, this study proposes that these psychological costs can influence customers’ WPGP.
H4: Psychological costs may influence consumers’ WPGP.
H4a: Stress can decrease consumers’ WPGP.
H4b: Stigma can increase consumers’ WPGP.
H4c: Autonomy can increase consumers’ WPGP.
Psychological costs may also influence the relationship between perceived value and WPGP. People are more sensitive to loss than an equivalent gain (Liu et al. 2023; Tversky and Kahneman 1974), and therefore, people may prioritize behaviours that reduce psychological costs rather than accrue benefits. According to mindsponge theory, loss aversion is classified as a stable core mindset, and psychological cost and perceived value are new external factors related to green consumption (Vuong 2023). Individuals will weigh the relationship between psychological cost and the benefits brought about by (perceived) value. Through a cost-benefit analysis filter, individuals may judge whether green consumption contradicts their mindset of avoiding losses and thus will choose to either accept or reject the green premium (Nguyen and Jones 2022). In other words, perceived value and psychological costs interact with each other in influencing WPGP. However, since each type of psychological cost has its own specificity, the specific mechanism of action may vary.
First, stress may enhance the effects of perceived values on WPGP. Strong loss aversion (Kahneman and Tversky 1979; Tversky and Kahneman 1974) will tend to cause people to avoid green consumption. Specifically, avoiding green consumption will relieve these people’s inner pressure when green consumption behaviour makes them feel uncomfortable. Under the mindsponge framework, the cost-benefit filter of an individual plays a role in the processing of information regarding green consumption (Nguyen and Jones 2022). Individuals may only increase their WPGP when the benefits (perceived value) exceed the costs (stress). This process follows the principle of diminishing marginal utility (Li et al. 2022). For instance, in scenarios where stress is high and perceived value is low (i.e., the costs exceed the benefits), the individual’s WPGP will theoretically stand at a low level. If the perceived value increases by ‘n’ units, causing the benefits to outweigh the costs, the individual’s WPGP may rapidly increase. Conversely, when stress is inherently low (i.e., the costs are less than the benefits), individuals may already have a high level of WPGP. Thus, even if the perceived value increases from low to high (also by ‘n’ units), the change in WPGP may not be very pronounced. In other words, stress increases the cost of green consumption, and thus, customers may pay closer attention to their values in pursuit of utility maximization. Similarly, losing autonomy also leads to negative emotions and increases the cost of green consumption, potentially causing customers to focus more on the values. Therefore, perceived value can have a stronger effect on WPGP for people with low autonomy than those with high autonomy.
In addition, stigma may have distinct effects on the relationship between perceived value and WPGP. The interactive effects of stress, autonomy, and perceived value on WPGP result from a comprehensive consideration of costs and benefits. The impact of stigma and perceived value on WPGP is related to the interaction between two types of benefits. Specifically, follow the logic of the mindsponge approach, which holds that individuals tend to act in a way that aligns with their current mindset (Nguyen and Jones 2022; Vuong 2023). Therefore, if customers believe that refusing to engage in green consumption carries a social stigma, they may take actions (i.e., green consumption) to reduce the psychological discomfort. Therefore, unlike stress and autonomy, stigma represents the cost of refusing green consumption, rather than the cost of accepting green consumption. In other words, both a reduction in stigma and an increase in perceived value are potential benefits of and reasons for engaging in green consumption.
According to the principle of diminishing marginal utility, when stigma is high, engaging in green consumption already provides significant utility (i.e., reducing the discomfort of cognitive dissonance). Thus, further increasing other benefits (perceived values) by ‘n’ units may not have a pronounced effect (Li et al. 2022; Zhang 2022). Conversely, when stigma is low, individuals may require more benefits to justify an increase in WPGP. At this point, an increase of ‘n’ units in perceived value may create a more noticeable improvement in WPGP. In other words, when people do not perceive a stigma for engaging in conventional consumption, they may prefer to maximize benefits according to the perceived value. Therefore, this study hypothesizes that psychological costs may moderate the relationship between perceived value and WPGP. In turn, this may further influence the indirect effects of perceived value on green consumption.
H5: Psychological costs may moderate the relationship between perceived value and WPGP and then influence the indirect associations of perceived value with green consumption.
H5a: The indirect associations of perceived value with green consumption through WPGP are stronger for people with high levels of stress than those with low levels of stress.
H5b: The indirect associations of perceived value with green consumption through WPGP are stronger for people with low levels of perceived stigma than those with high levels of perceived stigma.
H5c: The indirect associations of perceived value with green consumption through WPGP are stronger for people with low levels of autonomy than those with high levels of autonomy.
Combining the above hypotheses, Fig. 1 shows the summarized hypothetical moderated mediation model.
The hypothetical model of this study.
Methods
Data collection and procedure
The data used in this study were collected on one of the most commonly used online survey platforms in mainland China, Credemo (www.credemo.com). From March 23rd to April 2nd, 2023, a total of 677 participants completed this study’s e-questionnaire, and all participants received 5 RMB for their participation. After giving informed consent, participants were presented with a brief text explaining what this study defines as green consumption. Then, they were asked to fill several scales appearing in random order, which took approximately 5–10 min.
The descriptive statistics of the sample characteristics are presented in Table 1. The participants in this study were younger, received more education, and had higher incomes than the general population. Also, more females than males took part. Although the sample had limitations in term of representativeness, groups with various employment types were still considered. This study feels this sampling approach is preferable to simply sampling college students. Moreover, age, sex, educational level, annual income, and work are used as covariates in the hypothetical model.
Analysis strategy
The data were analysed in R version 4.3.0. In this study, as the variables under investigation are latent constructs that are not directly observable, a structural equation model (SEM) was employed to test the proposed hypotheses. The aim was to minimize the impact of measurement error on the results. Initially, descriptive statistics were conducted to characterize the sample. Subsequently, the “lavaan” package in R was utilized to perform confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) on the nine main variables, thus establishing the measurement model. Factor scores for each variable and their correlations were computed accordingly. Following this, composite reliability (CR) and average variance extracted (AVE) were calculated, based on the factor loadings and residual variances of each measurement item. This was done to assess reliability and construct validity. Additionally, each latent variable’s Cronbach’s α coefficient (CA) was computed.
Furthermore, utilizing the SEM function in the “lavaan” package and the factor scores of each variable generated from CFA, the hypothesized moderated mediating path model (see Fig. 1) was examined. Control variables such as sex, age, education level, monthly income, and work have been included to account for these variables’ potential associations with both the mediating and dependent variables. Specifically, 5000 times bootstrap was applied to estimate the (conditional) mediation effects. Bootstrap resampling generates multiple samples from the original data, allowing for the calculation of bias-corrected confidence intervals for the indirect effects. The method is robust in handling the non-normality of data (such as values of mediation effects) and also provides more accurate estimates of indirect effects. This method therefore has greater statistical power to reduce the possibility of Type I errors (Preacher and Hayes 2008). Finally, the results were provided by the functions of “lavaan_summary” in the “bruceR” package, and 95% confidence intervals were reported in the sections that followed when considering indirect effects.
Measurements
The specific measurement items for the main variables are shown in Supplementary Table A1 (see Supplementary Appendix A). To ensure that the multi-dimensions variables have similar constructs in a Chinese context, this study conducted CFA for green consumption behaviour, WPGP, perceived value, and psychological costs. The specific CFA results are presented in Fig. 2. In short, the factor loadings of all items were above 0.5, and the structural model fitted well (χ2 = 460.874, df = 216, CFI = 0.961, GFI = 0.944, RMSEA = 0.041, SRMR = 0.044). These findings indicate that the structure of these variables is reasonable (Hair et al. 2019).
The results of CFA on structural model. Note: The double-headed arrows on the left side of the figure represent the covariances between latent variables, where solid lines indicate significant correlations (p < .05) and dashed lines indicate non-significant correlations (p < .05). Please see specific bivariate correlation coefficients in Table 2.
In addition, Table 2 shows the Cronbach’s α, CR, and AVE of each latent variable. First, except for the variable “autonomy”, the CA and CR of all other variables were greater than 0.7, meaning an excellent level. Also, the CR and CA of “autonomy” were still above 0.6, which is an acceptable level. Therefore, the measurement tools in this study demonstrate good reliability. In addition, the AVE indicates the convergent validity of constructs. Although the traditional belief is that the AVE value needs to be greater than 0.5 (Fornell and Larcker 1981), the threshold requires the average standardized factor loadings of the variable to be greater than 0.7. This is an exceptionally difficult goal to achieve in social science studies. Accordingly, scholars have provided a more lenient range of AVE value (larger than 0.36). Some have suggested combining the values of CR and AVE to determine the convergent validity of the relevant variable (Lam 2012; Purnomo 2017). Since most of this study’s variables’ AVE values were greater than 0.5, and because all variables had a good level of CR (see Table 2), the constructs in this study reached acceptable convergent validities. Thirdly, the AVE comparison approach proposed by Fornell and Larcker (1981) holds that optimal discrimination between constructs is achieved when the square root of each latent variable’s AVE exceeds the correlation coefficient between that latent variable and others. Therefore, the variables in this study had ideal discriminant validities. In summary, the CFA results indicated that the measurements have good reliability and validity, and the collected data were credible for further analysis.
To avoid the threat of common method bias, this study conducted Harman’s single-factor test. The results showed that more than one factor with an eigenvalue exceeding 1 emerged. Also, the first factor only accounted for 27.6% of the total variance (below 50% of the criteria). Accordingly, the results of this study are not influenced by common method bias.
Results
Please see specific correlation analysis information in Table 2. The following sections firstly report the direct associations of perceived value with green consumption, after excluding the impact of WPGP. After that, the indirect relationships between perceived values and three green consumption behaviours through WPGP are shown. Then, this study presents how these indirect relationships were different in various conditions of psychological costs. A summary of the hypothetical tests is also provided in the final part.
The direct associations of perceived value with green consumption behaviours
Figure 3 shows the analysis results of the mechanism of perceived value on green consumption (χ2 = 130.870, df = 27, p = 0.000, CFI = 0.920, GFI = 0.946, RMSEA = 0.075, SRMR = 0.026). This study finds that perceived hedonic value and perceived utilitarian value exert distinct direct associations with green consumption behaviours. In the study, perceived utilitarian value was found to significantly foster the purchase of green goods and the recycling of items, while simultaneously deterring the use of disposable products. Conversely, perceived hedonic value was only found to significantly and positively predict the purchase of green goods. More specifically, the negative impact of perceived utilitarian value on the use of disposable products was markedly stronger than that of perceived hedonic value (ΔPHV-PUV = 0.352, 95% CI [0.201, 0.493]). Likewise, the positive direct association of perceived utilitarian value with recycling items was larger than that of perceived hedonic value (ΔPHV-PUV = −0.172, 95% CI [−0.304, −0.045]). However, the difference in direct associations between perceived hedonic and utilitarian value with purchasing green goods was found to be insignificant (ΔPHV-PUV = −0.077, 95% CI [−0.219, 0.059]). These results partly confirm Hypothesis 3.
The results of hypothetical paths model.Note: INT1 = Perceived hedonic values × Stress; INT2 = Perceived hedonic values × Stigma; INT3 = Perceived hedonic values × Autonomy. INT4 = Perceived utilitarian values × Stress; INT5 = Perceived utilitarian values × Stigma; INT6 = Perceived utilitarian values × Autonomy.
The mediating role of willingness to pay a green premium (WPGP)
Table 3 presents the specific indirect relationship of perceived value with the three green consumption behaviours. When the influence of psychological costs was not considered, WPGP acted as a significant mediator between perceived value and green consumption behaviours. These findings confirm Hypothesis 1. Specifically, both perceived hedonic value and perceived utilitarian value decreased the use of disposable products by increasing people’s WPGP; the indirect associations had only a slightly significant difference (ΔPHV-PUV = −0.019, 95% CI [−0.050, −0.001]). In addition, perceived hedonic value encouraged consumers to purchase green goods through promoting their WPGP. The indirect association was also stronger than that of perceived utilitarian value on the purchase of green goods due to WPGP (ΔPHV-PUV = 0.033, 95% CI [0.003, 0.068]). Finally, two kinds of perceived values promoted people to recycle items through WPGP; the indirect association of perceived hedonic value was also significantly larger than the indirect association of perceived utilitarian value (ΔPHV-PUV = 0.032, 95% CI [0.003, 0.067]). Therefore, Hypothesis 2 is also verified.
The moderating role of psychological costs
According to Fig. 3, stress significantly decreased consumer’s WPGP, while stigma effectively increased consumer’s WPGP. These findings confirm Hypothesis 4a and Hypothesis 4b. However, the association of autonomy with WPGP was insignificant, and thus, Hypothesis 4c is rejected.
To further explore the mechanism of perceived value on green consumption behaviours, this study examines the moderating role of psychological costs on perceived values and WPGP. The results show the existence of a significant positive association of the interaction term perceived hedonic value × stress (INT1) with WPGP (Fig. 3, standardized coefficient = 0.112, p = 0.043). This finding indicates that stress significantly and positively moderated the relationship between perceived hedonic value and WPGP. Accordingly, Hypothesis 5a was partly confirmed. In contrast, the interaction term perceived utilitarian value × stigma (INT5) had a significant negative correlation with WPGP (Fig. 3, standardized coefficient = −0.137, p = 0.000). This means that stigma negatively moderated the relationship between perceived utilitarian value and WPGP, thus partly verifying Hypothesis 5b. However, the INT 2 (perceived hedonic value × stigma) and INT4 (perceived utilitarian value × stress) did not have a significant association with WPGP. Thus, there was no evidence to show that stigma can moderate the relationship between perceived hedonic value and WPGP or that stress can moderate the relationship between perceived utilitarian value and WPGP. Finally, no moderating role of autonomy was found (please see Fig. 3 for specific information), and therefore, Hypothesis 5c is rejected. Thus, no further analysis was conducted on autonomy. However, further simple slope tests were conducted to analyse the significant moderation relationships (see Figs. 4 and 5). The results again confirm the moderating roles of stress and stigma.
The simple slope test of the moderating role of stress on the relationship between perceived hedonic value and willingness to pay a green premium.
The simple slope test of the moderating role of stigma on the relationship between perceived utilitarian value and willingness to pay a green premium.
This study also calculated the conditional indirect associations of: 1) perceived hedonic value with the three green consumption behaviours at different levels of stress and 2) the conditional indirect associations of perceived utilitarian value with the three green consumption behaviours at different levels of stigma (see Table 4). The objective was to detect the moderated mediating associations. The results verify that the indirect associations of perceived hedonic value with green consumption behaviours through WPGP depend on the level of stress. Meanwhile, the indirect associations of perceived utilitarian value with green consumption behaviours through WPGP depend on the level of stigma. Specifically, high levels of stress can enhance the positive association of perceived hedonic value with WPGP, which boosts the influence of perceived hedonic value on the use of disposable products, the purchase of green products, and the recycling of used items. In addition, high levels of stigma can impede the impact of perceived utilitarian value on WPGP, thereby reducing the explanatory power of perceived utilitarian value to the three green consumption behaviours through WPGP.
Finally, this study examines whether the indirect associations of perceived hedonic value with green consumption behaviours through WPGP were significantly different from those of perceived utilitarian value on green consumption behaviours through WPGP at various levels of psychological costs. Table 5 shows specific information with regard to the differences. At the 95% confidence interval, the indirect associations of perceived hedonic value with the three green consumption behaviours were all stronger than the indirect associations of perceived utilitarian value when the stress level was high. However, this was not the case when the stress was low. Similarly, the difference between these two indirect associations was considerable at high levels of stigma but was insignificant at low levels. By contrast, low autonomy made the indirect associations of perceived hedonic value with green consumption behaviours to be larger than those of perceived utilitarian value. However, when the degree of autonomy was high, there was no remarkable difference between the indirect associations of perceived hedonic value and perceived utilitarian value.
According to the above analysis, most of this study’s hypotheses are supported (see Table 6), and these findings are discussed further in the next section.
Discussion
This study explores the mechanism of perceived value (including hedonic value and utilitarian value) on green consumption behaviours and introduces WPGP as the mediator, while psychological costs (i.e., stress, stigma and autonomy) are introduced as moderators. The findings show that customers’ perceived values increase their green consumption behaviours through their WPGP. Also, in this study, the indirect association of perceived hedonic value was stronger than that of perceived utilitarian value. Moreover, the direct impacts of perceived utilitarian value on the use of disposable products and the recycling of used items were much weaker than the direct impacts of perceived utilitarian value after excluding the influence of WPGP. In addition, stress enhances the indirect associations of perceived hedonic value with green consumption by strengthening the positive relationship between perceived hedonic value and WPGP. Alternatively, stigma hinders the influence of perceived utilitarian value on WPGP, consequently reducing the indirect association of perceived utilitarian value with green consumption. However, no moderating role of autonomy was found in this study. Additionally, stress was found to directly reduce WPGP, while stigma increased people’s WPGP.
The empirical evidence from this study confirms that perceived value is a critical explanatory factor for green consumption. Also, the influences of perceived hedonic value and perceived utilitarian value on green consumption were distinct. These results are consistent with previous research and show that people’s perceived value with regard to green consumption can effectively motivate them to take action (Alam et al. 2023; Dangelico et al. 2022; Dangelico et al. 2021). The findings also indicate that customers may assess both the utilitarian value and hedonic value of green consumption. When excluding the influence of WPGP, perceived utilitarian value can promote additional recycling and discourage the use of disposable products better than perceived hedonic value. However, the advantage of perceived utilitarian value disappears in the context of purchasing green products.
In addition, this study found an intermediate variable in this common relationship, namely the WPGP. First, unlike some previous studies that claimed WPGP cannot influence green consumption behaviours (Dangelico et al. 2021; Yadav and Pathak 2017), the findings of this study show a significantly positive relationship between these two concepts. If people are willing to pay higher costs for green, they have more green consumption in their daily lives (Bulsara and Trivedi 2023; Li et al. 2016). Second, evidence is presented in this study that links perceived values and green consumption by WPGP, clarifying the complex relationship between these concepts to a greater degree than ever before (e.g., Yadav and Pathak 2017). These results contribute to the current debates about WPGP and green consumption and reveal one of the influence paths from perceived value to green consumption.
Briefly, when green consumption behaviour includes a green premium, perceived hedonic value is more effective than perceived utilitarian value in promoting green consumption. When considering green consumption choices, people need sufficient reasons to pay a green premium. Based on cost-benefit considerations in mindsponge theory (Nguyen and Jones 2022; Vuong 2023), the utilitarian value appears to contradict the green premium. This is because simultaneously incurring additional costs while seeking to maximize benefits is typically impractical. However, for the sake of additional emotional value (i.e., hedonic value), people are often willing to pay more, because the benefits increase while the costs remain constant. Therefore, the impact of perceived utilitarian value on WPGP will be much less than the impact of perceived hedonic value. When adopting strategies to encourage green consumption, policymakers should fully consider whether people need to expend more effort or pay a higher price for greenness. If so, the emotional values (such as the enjoyment created by green consumption) should be highlighted.
More importantly, as predicted by mindsponge theory, this study observes that psychological costs have considerable impacts on the indirect associations of perceived value with green consumption through WPGP. Specifically, as this study proposed, stress directly changed people’s WPGP. People with high levels of stress caused by green consumption have no reason to pay a green premium. This is because their highest priority in such situations is to keep away from the source of their discomfort (Johnstone and Tan 2015; Nguyen and Jones 2022). Moreover, high levels of stress boost the association of perceived hedonic value with WPGP. Since people are more sensitive to loss than gain (Kahneman and Tversky 1979; Tversky and Kahneman 1974), they may try their best to limit their green consumption costs. Moreover, individuals with higher levels of stress incur greater costs when engaging in green consumption, compared to those with lower stress levels. Therefore, hedonic value has a stronger marginal utility for consumers with high stress, while making a small change to perceived hedonic value may have a more significant influence on their WPGP. By contrast, compared to perceived hedonic value, perceived utilitarian value is more like a “hygienic factor” factor than a “motivational factor”. In other words, people’s demand for practicality is more stable and does not fluctuate with changes in stress. This renders stress less influential on the relationship between perceived utilitarian value and WPGP. Therefore, when consumers are under high stress, to promote their green behaviour with green premiums, the emphasis should be placed on the enjoyment brought about by green consumption.
Stigma also has a significant association with WPGP, but the relationship is opposite to that of stress. When people are afraid of abandoning green consumption due to social norms, they find ways to release the pressure; that is, they behave in an environmentally-friendly way. Therefore, stigma promotes WPGP and then increases green consumption. Furthermore, stigma weakens the relationship between perceived utilitarian value and WPGP. According to Liu, Lin, et al. (2023), avoiding personal loss is a more important motivation for taking action than obtaining personal gain. This means that a reduction in stigma is actually one of the benefits of green consumption. Under the cost-benefit filtering mechanism of mindsponge Theory, the marginal utility of perceived utilitarian benefits is significantly reduced, while other alternative benefits (e.g., reducing stigma) are available. Thus, customers may have strong WPGP, regardless of the level of perceived utilitarian value.
However, in this study, stigma failed to influence the relationship between perceived hedonic value and WPGP. This may be because hedonic value is a powerful motivator of WPGP; customers have enough reasons to pay a green premium, even when they do not need to decrease the uncomfortable feelings caused by perceptions of stigma. Accordingly, when the stigma level is high, emphasizing the utilitarian aspects of green consumption is of little use in promoting green consumer behaviours that involve a green premium. At such times, the hedonic value of green consumption should be highlighted. Conversely, when the stigma level is low, there is no significant difference in emphasizing the utilitarian or hedonic aspects of green consumption (see Table 4). Therefore, policymakers should generally focus more on the hedonic value of green consumption.
Finally, this study does not find any direct association of autonomy with WPGP or any moderating role of autonomy on perceived value and WPGP. There are two potential reasons for this. The first is that consumers might prefer more affordable (albeit less eco-friendly) options (Yang et al. 2022). The autonomy to make their own choices is secondary to budgetary constraints. The second reason is related to habitual consumption patterns. Specifically, people’s consumption behaviours are often driven by habits that are hard to change. Even when individuals have the autonomy to make greener choices, they might default to habitual behaviours that are not environmentally-friendly. This may be due to convenience or a lack of motivation to alter established routines (Nguyen et al. 2022; Vuong 2023). Nevertheless, perceived hedonic value can promote more green consumption with a green premium than perceived utilitarian value when autonomy is low.
In summary, this study concludes that perceived hedonic value provides a more compelling explanation for green consumption involving a green premium than perceived utilitarian value, particularly when customers’ psychological costs are high. These findings regarding psychological costs contribute to one’s understanding of why people choose or avoid green lifestyles and also indicate how policymakers should create mobilization strategies. Although studies have rarely focused on this topic up to now, this study encourages more empirical works to be conducted in the future to explore the impacts of psychological costs on green consumption. This study also calls for research in understanding green consumption behaviour from multiple perspectives. For example, sociocultural factors may influence people’s attitudes and cognitions towards environmental conservation (Vuong and Nguyen 2024). In real life, the uniqueness of sociocultural characteristics also shapes the specific issues of green consumption, thus affecting how psychological costs and perceived value impact green consumption. For example, consumers in societies with weaker environmental conservation values commonly refuse green consumption. Thus, people who behave conventionally may not experience stigma, and therefore, they are not motivated by “reducing stigma” to engage in green consumption. In other words, in societies with low environmental consciousness, perceived stigma may not play a crucial role in explaining why people choose green consumption. By engaging with real-world issues and drawing connections between different research findings, the arguments of this study can be strengthened and contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of the complex interplay between human behaviour and environmental conservation.
The findings of this study provide some implications for promoting green consumption. First, improving the cost performance of green products or services remains a key factor in the effort to increase green consumption. Another impactful approach is effectively communicating the value of green consumption to customers. In certain situations, perceived value can hold greater significance than actual values. Second, maintaining individuals’ WPGP is crucial to improving green consumption, unless and until green products and services become more convenient and cheaper than their conventional counterparts. Therefore, to sustain customers’ willingness to incur additional costs, practitioners should explore ways to enhance perceived value (particularly hedonic value) or to alleviate stress. Third, when customers already exhibit a similar WPGP (or when it is hard to increase customers’ WPGP), emphasizing the utilitarian value of green consumption becomes a more suitable strategy for encouraging green consumption behaviours. Current policies in China that encourage green consumption through cash subsidies may be based on this consideration. However, this study believes this is not a sustainable solution. Before the era when green consumption becomes non-premium, a strategy that promotes hedonic value to increase WPGP and thereby encourages green consumption may be more cost-effective.
Finally, while protecting the environment to improve human beings’ physical health is clearly necessary, the psychological well-being of individuals should not be overlooked. While many existing encouragement policies are based on social norms, telling people that they should engage in green consumption to protect the environment (which may increase the psychological costs to consumers), this study’s findings offer a new possibility. Practitioners can employ moderated strategies that encourage a green lifestyle without being overly forceful, such as promoting the various values brought about by green consumption. If consumers are currently in a state of paying high psychological costs, policymakers should emphasize the hedonic value of green consumption when encouraging consumption that involves a green premium.
This study also has some limitations. First, the sample cannot fully represent the Chinese population. Nevertheless, the sample includes customers with different types of employment. This is better than data collected from college students. Moreover, by using statistical techniques, this study eliminates the interference of demographic variables on the results as much as possible. Future studies could recruit more nationally representative participants to revalidate the findings. Second, due to its inherent defects, the cross-sectional data cannot deduce causality. A study designed using field experiments may help to resolve this issue. However, the results of this study still provide valuable empirical evidence for the hypothesized relationship between variables.
Conclusions
This study conducted an online survey in China to explore the role of psychological costs on the classical behaviour model of perceived value on green consumption through WPGP. The study finds that perceived value can directly influence green consumption (or indirectly promote green consumption) by increasing WPGP. In addition, the direct/indirect associations of perceived hedonic value and perceived utilitarian value are distinctive. Additionally, stress positively moderates the positive relationship between perceived hedonic value and WPGP, while stigma negatively moderates the positive relationship between perceived utilitarian value and WPGP, thereby influencing green consumption behaviours. However, autonomy does not have a similar moderating role. Finally, when consumers’ psychological costs are high, the indirect association of perceived hedonic value with green consumption behaviours through WPGP is greater in this study than the indirect association of perceived utilitarian value through WPGP.
Data availability
The datasets of this study are showed in the supplementary files. The R code about analysis process is available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
References
Ahmad W, Jafar RMS, Waheed A, Sun HP, Kazmi S (2023) Determinants of CSR and green purchase intention: Mediating role of customer green psychology during COVID-19 pandemic. J Clean Product, 389. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.135888
Alam SS, Wang CK, Masukujjaman M, Ahmad, I, Lin CY, Ho YH (2023) Buying Behaviour towards Eco-Labelled Food Products: Mediation Moderation Analysis. Sustainability, 15(3). https://doi.org/10.3390/su15032474
Babin BJ, Darden WR, Griffin M (1994) Work and or fun - measuring hedonic and utilitarian shopping value. J Consum Res 20(4):644–656. https://doi.org/10.1086/209376
Bulsara HP, Trivedi M (2023) Exploring the Role of Availability and Willingness to Pay Premium in Influencing Smart City Customers’ Purchase Intentions for Green Food Products. Ecol Food Nutr. https://doi.org/10.1080/03670244.2023.2200942
National Development and Reform Commission, China (2022) Promotion of Green Consumption Implementation Plan. Retrieved from https://www.ndrc.gov.cn/xwdt/tzgg/202201/t20220121_1312525.html
Culiberg B, Elgaaied-Gambier L (2016) Going green to fit in - understanding the impact of social norms on pro-environmental behaviour, a cross-cultural approach. Int J Consum Stud 40(2):179–185. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12241
Dai SQ, Chen K, Jin R (2022) The effect of message framing and language intensity on green consumption behavior willingness. Environ Dev Sustain 24(2):2432–2452. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-01540-8
Dangelico RM, Alvino L, Fraccascia L (2022) Investigating the antecedents of consumer behavioral intention for sustainable fashion products: Evidence from a large survey of Italian consumers. Technological Forecast Soc Change, 185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2022.122010
Dangelico RM, Nonino F, Pompei A (2021) Which are the determinants of green purchase behaviour? A study of Italian consumers. Bus Strategy Environ 30(5):2600–2620. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2766
de Medeiros JF, Ribeiro JLD, Cortimiglia MN (2016) Influence of perceived value on purchasing decisions of green products in Brazil. J Clean Prod 110:158–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.07.100
Fornell C, Larcker DF (1981) Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J Mark Res 18(1):39–50. https://doi.org/10.2307/3151312
Gallarza MG, Gil-Saura I, Holbrook MB (2011) The value of value: Further excursions on the meaning and role of customer value. J Consum Behav 10(4):179–191. https://doi.org/10.1002/cb.328
Gilovich T, Kumar A, Jampol L (2015) A wonderful life: experiential consumption and the pursuit of happiness. J Consum Psychol 25(1):152–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2014.08.004
Hair JF, Black WC, Babin BJ, Anderson RE (2019) Multivariate data analysis, 8th ed. Australia, Cengage
Han H (2020) Theory of green purchase behavior (TGPB): A new theory for sustainable consumption of green hotel and green restaurant products. Bus Strategy Environ 29(6):2815–2828. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2545
Hwang H, Yeo H (2022) Inconsistency between subjective propensity and practice of sustainable consumption: Impact of the consumers’ values-in-behavior and social participation. Sustain Dev 30(6):1796–1810. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2348
Johnstone ML, Tan LP (2015) Exploring the Gap Between Consumers’ Green Rhetoric and Purchasing Behaviour. J Bus Ethics 132(2):311–328. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2316-3
Kahneman D, Tversky A (1979) Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk. Econometrica 47(2):263–291
Lam LW (2012) Impact of competitiveness on salespeople’s commitment and performance. J Bus Res 65(9):1328–1334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.10.026
Lee KH, Lee M, Gunarathne N (2019) Do green awards and certifications matter? Consumers’ perceptions, green behavioral intentions, and economic implications for the hotel industry: A Sri Lankan perspective. Tour Econ 25(4):593–612. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354816618810563
Li JY, Khan AA, Khan SU, Ali MA, Luo JC (2022) Estimating farmers’ willingness to pay for photovoltaic industry to improve agricultural green resources and environment. Front Environ Sci 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2022.1029568
Li Y, Lu Y, Zhang XY, Liu LP, Wang MH, Jiang XQ (2016) Propensity of green consumption behaviors in representative cities in China. J Clean Prod 133:1328–1336. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.06.012
Liu BS, He SQ, Lin S, Zhang JF, Xue B (2023) How usability of policy transparency promotes citizen compliance: evidence from a survey experiment. J Chin Governance. https://doi.org/10.1080/23812346.2023.2166568
Liu BS, Lin S, Yuan XH, He SQ, Zhang JF (2023) Nudge citizen participation by framing mobilization information: a survey experiment in China. J Chin Governance. https://doi.org/10.1080/23812346.2023.2191413
Luan J, Filieri R, Xiao J, Han QQ, Zhu B, Wang T (2023) Product information and green consumption: An integrated perspective of regulatory focus, self-construal, and temporal distance. Inf Manag 60(2). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2022.103746
Mehraj D, Qureshi IH (2022) Does green brand positioning translate into green purchase intention?: A mediation-moderation model. Bus Strat Environ 31(7):3166–3181. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.3069
Nguyen MH, Jones TE (2022) Building eco-surplus culture among urban residents as a novel strategy to improve finance for conservation in protected areas. Humanit Soc Sci Commun, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-022-01441-9
Nguyen MH, Khuc QV, La VP, Le TT, Nguyen QL, Jin RN, Vuong QH (2022) Mindsponge-Based Reasoning of Households’ Financial Resilience during the COVID-19 Crisis. J Risk Financial Manag, 15(11). https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm15110542
PRCEE (2020) Report on Citizens’ Ecological Behavior Survey in 2020. Retrieved from http://www.prcee.org/yjcg/yjbg/202007/W020200715533896297047.pdf
PRCEE (2022) Report on Citizens’ Ecological Behavior Survey in 2022. Retrieved from http://www.prcee.org/zyhd/202306/t20230629_1034892.html#
Preacher KJ, Hayes AF (2008) Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behav Res Methods 40(3):879–891. https://doi.org/10.3758/brm.40.3.879
Purnomo YW (2017) A Scale for Measuring Teachers’ Mathematics-Related Beliefs: A Validity and Reliability Study. Int J Instr 10(2):23–38. https://doi.org/10.12973/iji.2017.10120a
Ryu K, Han H, Jang S (2010) Relationships among hedonic and utilitarian values, satisfaction and behavioral intentions in the fast-casual restaurant industry. Int J Contemp Hospitality Manag 22(2-3):416–432. https://doi.org/10.1108/09596111011035981
Schwartz SH (1992) Universals in the content and structure of values - theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. Adv Exp Soc Psychol 25:1–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0065-2601(08)60281-6
Sheth JN, Newman BI, Gross BL (1991) Why we buy what we buy - a theory of consumption values. J Bus Res 22(2):159–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/0148-2963(91)90050-8
Siraj A, Taneja S, Zhu YM, Jiang HB, Luthra S, Kumar A (2022) Hey, did you see that label? It’s sustainable!: Understanding the role of sustainable labelling in shaping sustainable purchase behaviour for sustainable development. Bus Strategy Environ 31(7):2820–2838. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.304
Suphasomboon T, Vassanadumrongdee S (2022) Toward sustainable consumption of green cosmetics and personal care products: The role of perceived value and ethical concern. Sustain Prod Consum 33:230–243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2022.07.004
Tamburini E, Costa S, Summa D, Battistella L, Fano EA, Castaldelli G (2021) Plastic (PET) vs bioplastic (PLA) or refillable aluminium bottles - What is the most sustainable choice for drinking water? A life-cycle (LCA) analysis. Environ Res, 196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2021.110974
Thomsen MK, Baekgaard M, Jensen UT (2020) The psychological costs of citizen coproduction. J Public Adm Res Theory 30(4):656–673. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muaa001
Trujillo CA, Estrada-Mejia C, Rosa JA (2021) Norm-focused nudges influence pro-environmental choices and moderate post-choice emotional responses. Plos One, 16(3). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0247519
Tversky A, Kahneman D (1974) Judgment under Uncertainty - Heuristics and Biases. Science 185(4157):1124–1131. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124
Varah F, Mahongnao M, Pani B, Khamrang S (2021) Exploring young consumers’ intention toward green products: applying an extended theory of planned behavior. Environ Dev Sustain 23(6):9181–9195. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-020-01018-z
Vuong QH (2023) Mindsponge Theory: Walter de Gruyter GmbH
Vuong QH, Nguyen MH (2024) Call Vietnam mouse-deer ‘cheo cheo’ and let empathy save them from extinction: a conservation review and call for name change. Pacific Conserv Biol, 30(3). https://doi.org/10.1071/pc23058
Wang H, Bai RB, Zhao HB, Hu ZC, Li Y (2023) Why does frugality influence the recycling intention of waste materials? Front Psychol, 13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.952010
Wei Q, Lv D, Lin YX, Zhu DM, Liu SY, Liu YT (2023) Influence of Utilitarian and Hedonic Attributes on Willingness to Pay Green Product Premiums and Neural Mechanisms in China: An ERP Study. Sustainability, 15(3). https://doi.org/10.3390/su15032403
Wu CS, Ge MM, Huang ZY, Wang LC, Liu T (2023) An extended STIRPAT model and forecast of carbon emission based on green consumption behaviors: evidence from China. Environ Dev Sustain. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-023-03077-4
Xu AX, Wei CW, Zheng MH, Sun LL, Tang DC (2022) Influence of Perceived Value on Repurchase Intention of Green Agricultural Products: From the Perspective of Multi-Group Analysis. Sustainability, 14(22). https://doi.org/10.3390/su142215451
Xu MM, Lin BQ (2021) Leveraging carbon label to achieve low-carbon economy: Evidence from a survey in Chinese first-tier cities. J Environ Manag, 286. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.112201
Yadav R, Pathak GS (2017) Determinants of Consumers’ Green Purchase Behavior in a Developing Nation: Applying and Extending the Theory of Planned Behavior. Ecol Econ 134:114–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.12.019
Yang MH, Chen H, Long RY, Sun QQ, Yang JH (2022) How does government regulation promote green product diffusion in complex network? An evolutionary analysis considering supply side and demand side. J Environ Manag, 318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.115642
Zhang B, Fu ZT, Huang J, Wang JQ, Xu SY, Zhang LX (2018) Consumers’ perceptions, purchase intention, and willingness to pay a premium price for safe vegetables: A case study of Beijing, China. J Clean Prod 197:1498–1507. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.06.273
Zhang GF, Li M, Li J, Tan M, Li HE, Zhong YP (2022) Green Product Types Modulate Green Consumption in the Gain and Loss Framings: An Event-Related Potential Study. Int J Environ Res Public Health, 19(17). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191710746
Zhang T (2022) Measuring following behaviour in gift giving by utility function: statistical model and empirical evidence from China. Humanit Soc Sci Commun, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-022-01214-4
Zheng MH, Tang DC, Chen JH, Zheng QJ, Xu AX (2022) How different advertising appeals (green vs. non-green) impact consumers’ willingness to pay a premium for green agricultural products. Front Psychol, 13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.991525
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the National Social Science Foundation of China (Grant numbers [20BKS079]).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were performed by Changpeng Shao and Sen Lin. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Changpeng Shao and Sen Lin, and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Ethical Approval
This study obtained ethics approval from Ethics Committee of School of Marxism at Shanghai Dianji University before beginning data collection (8th March 2023, Application ID is SDU 2023M001). The research was performed in accordance with relevant guidelines/regulations of Declaration of Helsinki.
Consent to Participate
Written informed consent was obtained from all individual participants in the beginning of this survey. The participants have been fully informed that their anonymity is assured, why the research is being conducted, how their data will be utilised, and there is no risk to them of participating or withdraw. Then they confirmed that they have understood the consent information and agree to participate in this study.
Consent to Publish
We grant the Publisher an exclusive licence to publish the article.
Additional information
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary information
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Shao, C., Lin, S. Do psychological costs matter? The mechanism of perceived value on green consumption behaviour. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 11, 1490 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-04005-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Version of record:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-04005-1
