employee

Consumer Personality and Green Buying Intention: The Mediate
Role of Consumer Ethical Beliefs
Long-Chuan Lu
•
Hsiu-Hua Chang
•
Alan Chang
Received: 2 December 2012 / Accepted: 13 December 2013
Ó Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013
Abstract The primary purpose of this study is to link the
effects of consumer personality traits (antecedents) on
green buying intention (consequences) via the mediating
variable of consumer ethical beliefs so as to extend the
context of green buying intentions with consumer ethics
literatures. Based on a survey of 545 Taiwanese respon-
dents, consumer personality traits were found to signifi-
cantly affect consumer ethical beliefs. The results also
indicate that some dimensions of consumer ethical beliefs
significantly predict consumer intention to buy green pro-
ducts. Generally speaking, this study enhances our
knowledge of consumers’ ethical decision-making in the
context of green consumption behaviors. Theoretical and
managerial implications, limitations, and future research
are also provided.
Keywords Consumer ethics Á Individualism Á Attitudes
toward business Á Loyalty proneness Á Green product
Introduction
Green buying intention and behavior, a subset of sustain-
able consumption, has attracted attention in Taiwan. The
concept of green consumerism refers to consumers who are
willing to buy ecologically friendly products whose con-
tents and methods of production have a minimal impact on
the environment (Jaiswal 2012). An increasing number of
Taiwanese consumers have positive ecological awareness
and voluntarily carry out recycling practices as well as
purchase environmentally friendly products. Tsay (2009)
finds that a large number of Taiwanese consumers have
realized that their purchasing behavior impacts and causes
many ecological problems, and are willing to purchase
green products to improve environmental quality. Con-
sumers are also willing to be activists and punish compa-
nies whose irresponsible behavior has harmful effects on
the environment, by switching brands, not buying the
company’s stock, or other means (Webb et al. 2008). This
consumer green movement is thus useful in encouraging
profit-driven enterprises to incorporate green concepts into
their production processes and marketing operations (Chan
and Lau 2000). Additionally, the public sector in Taiwan
has been carrying out ‘green procurement’ and has been
promoting the certificate of ‘Ecolabel’ for green products
in order to take the lead in green consumption (http://www.
energylabel.org.tw/). Green consumption in Taiwan has
thus recently become a form of mainstream consumption
culture, which represents an accepted way of reaching
comfort and happiness, satisfying physical needs, and
ultimately contributing to the construction of one’s self and
the communication of it to others (Irvine 2006). Therefore,
examination of consumer green buying intentions and
behaviors is very important in the field of marketing
research.
L.-C. Lu (&) Á H.-H. Chang
Department of Business Administration, School of Management,
National Chung Cheng University, 168 Univ. Road, San-Hsing,
Ming-Hsiung, Chia-Yi 62102, Taiwan
e-mail: [email protected]
H.-H. Chang
e-mail: [email protected]
A. Chang
China Biotech Corporation, 10 33rd. Road, Taichung Industrial
Park, Taichung, Taiwan
e-mail: [email protected]
1 3
J Bus Ethics
DOI 10.1007/s10551-013-2024-4
Academic researchers have explored the antecedent
variables of green buying from different aspects. First,
many studies (e.g., Laroche et al. 2001; Mostafa 2007)
focused on the identification of consumer demographics
such as age, gender, and income. Second, some researchers
examine how ecological factors impact on green buying
intentions. These factors may include environmental
knowledge (e.g., Chan and Lau 2000; Mostafa 2007),
environmental concern (e.g., Fujii 2006; Iversen and
Rundmo 2002; Kim and Choi 2005; Mainieri et al. 1997;
Roberts and Bacon 1997), and environmental attitude (e.g.,
Kim 2011; Mainieri et al. 1997). Health related factors
constitute the third group of driving force in green con-
sumption. These factors may include food safety concern,
health consciousness (Michaelidou and Hassan 2008), and
health concern (Yin et al. 2010). Forth, some studies focus
on personal or cultural values such as egoism, competence
(De Pelsmacker et al. 2005), attitude toward green pur-
chases (e.g., Chan 2001; Chan and Lau 2002; Michaelidou
and Hassan 2008), and individualism/collectivism (e.g.,
Gregory et al. 2002; Kim and Choi 2005). The final cate-
gory is moral perspective, including moral concern (Dean
et al. 2008), moral attitude (Arvola et al. 2008), ethical
motives (Honkanen et al. 2006), ethical obligation (Shaw
and Shui 2002), and ethical judgment (Chan et al. 2008).
Consumer ethics has been recognized as one of the
antecedents of green buying. However, the existent litera-
ture suffers many deficiencies. First, although many studies
try to test how consumer ethics affects green buying
intention, these studies do not actually test ethical per-
ceptions of consumers’ questionable practices (i.e., con-
sumer ethical beliefs). For example, moral attitude focuses
on the positive feelings of doing the right thing (Arvola
et al. 2008), while ethical motives, part of ethical identity,
examine ecological, political, and religious motives when
buying organic food (Honkanen et al. 2006). Purdy (1995)
stated that human–environment interaction is an ethical
issue and should be governed by moral principles. How-
ever, studies that empirically examine the relationship
between consumer ethical beliefs and green buying are
worth investigating and remain rare (Vitell 2003).
Second, previous research in consumer ethics has gen-
erated only moderate insight into the effects of personality
values such as attitude toward business and loyalty
proneness, more needs to be done to assess these rela-
tionships (Vitell 2003). Vitell and Muncy (1992) defined
attitude toward business is the level of satisfaction with
business. This attitude denotes a general viewpoint of
overall business activities in the market place, and is not
limited to a specific store, brand, product, or business
event. When consumers are satisfied with overall business,
they believe that business firms generally care about them
and deal fairly with them. Consumers further follow this
attitude to act (un)ethically. Only few studies, however,
have empirically investigated the effect of general business
attitude on consumer ethics (Vitell and Muncy 1992, 2005;
Vitell et al. 2007).
According to relationship marketing theory, loyalty
proneness is a predisposition that a consumer is intrinsi-
cally inclined to engage in relationships with sellers (De
Wulf et al. 2001). Thus, loyalty proneness is different from
consumer loyalty, which indicates a behavioral or affective
bind with a particular seller/store. When a consumer plays
a passive role and is not psychologically predisposed to
engage in a relationship with a seller, the development of a
relational buyer/seller transaction environment is not
facilitated (Pressey and Mathews 2000) regardless of the
retailer’s effort. Thus, consumers with high loyalty
proneness would not accept unethical consumer activities
to injure the seller’s benefits since they intend to establish
stable and conscious relationships with a store or a clerk
(Bloemer et al. 2003). Research into consumer loyalty
proneness within the context of consumer ethics, however,
is not quite enough.
Third, individualism is a significant predictor of green
buying intention and deserves more attention. Individual-
ism is a notable cultural trait of East Asian Confucian
cultures (Hofstede 1997), and is likely to be significant in
explaining the development and expression of personal
motives and behaviors in the context of consumer ethics
and green buying behaviors. Hashimoto et al. (2011) argue
that East Asians consider harmonious relations with others
important, because they see the meanings and significance
of themselves in relationships with other people. Thus,
drawing on these insights to develop a view of consumer
ethics and green consumption in an East Asian cultural
context would be valuable.
Finally, many related articles are not rooted in or
founded on well-known theories. Hunt (1991) explicitly
states that research studies should be rooted in well-known
theories or models in order to be systematically related to a
body of knowledge. Hunt and Vitell’s (1986, 2006) ethics
model is one of the most well-known theory in business
ethics (Blodgett et al. 2001) and has been tested by many
studies (e.g., Mayo and Marks 1990; Chan et al. 2008;
Vitell et al. 2001). Their model explicitly states that culture
and personal values are two important predictors of con-
sumer ethical beliefs, which have an impact on green
buying intention. Thus, Hunt and Vitell’s model (1986,
2006) allows us to incorporate individualism (cultural
factor), attitude, and loyalty proneness (personal factor) as
the antecedents of consumer ethical beliefs. Moreover,
Vitell and Muncy’s (1992) model is the most comprehen-
sive, well-known, and empirically tested one in the area of
consumer ethics. Thus, it is necessary to incorporate these
two models in the study.
L.-C. Lu et al.
1 3
The purpose of this study is to incorporate Hunt and
Vitell (1986, 2006) and Vitell and Muncy (1992) to
examine the effects of individualism, attitude toward
business and loyalty proneness on consumer ethical beliefs,
which, in turn, influence consumers’ green buying inten-
tion. With our findings, researchers should gain theoretical
insight into the ethics/intention relationship, while mar-
keters should be able to craft strategies to increase con-
sumers’ green buying intentions.
Literature Review and Hypotheses
Green Buying Intention
The definition of green marketing or green consumerism is a
broad and bewildering term, given the vast nature of its forms
and meanings. From an academic perspective, whether the
area of inquiry refers to ‘green marketing’, ‘environmental
marketing’, ‘ecological marketing’, or ‘sustainable market-
ing’, Kotler (2000) used the term ‘societal marketing con-
cept’ to cover social and ecological responsibilities. All of
these concepts describe the trend toward using new manu-
facturing and marketing techniques to reduce harmful effects
to the environment. In addition, the concept of green con-
sumerism or sustainable consumption refers to consumers
who are willing to buy ecological friendly products whose
contents and methods of production have a minimal impact
on the environment (Jaiswal 2012). Recycling, buying
organic food, purchasing products made of recycled mate-
rials, and considering environmental factors in marketing
practices (such as product and package design, green
advertising, and marketing strategies) are all associated with
the activities of green consumerism. Thus, green buying
behaviors preserve natural resources, protect the environ-
ment, and are considered to be a type of ethical consumer
behaviors (Papaoikonomou et al. 2011). We propose a model
(Fig. 1) to examine the effects of individualism and per-
sonality on consumer ethical beliefs, which in turn impact
green buying intention.
The Hunt–Vitell Model and Consumer Ethics
Of the three ethical decision making models (i.e., Ferrell
and Gresham 1985; Hunt and Vitell 1986, 2006; Trevino
1986), Hunt and Vitell’s ethics model (hereafter termed
‘‘Hunt–Vitell model’’: or ‘‘H–V model’’) proposes a posi-
tive theory to describe the process by which consumers
make their ethical decisions. It has been widely adopted as
a general theoretical framework of consumer ethical deci-
sion making (Blodgett et al. 2001; Chan et al. 2008; Singh
et al. 2007). Kavak et al. (2009, p. 115) indicates that the
H–V model is the only one that ‘‘can easily be applied to
consumers’ ethical behavior’’. The H–V model suggests
that an individual consumer will trigger the whole rea-
soning process when s/he recognizes an ethical dilemma.
When an ethical dilemma is perceived, consumers will
apply both a deontological and teleological evaluation to
make their ethical judgments. Finally, ethical judgment
results in intentions, which leads to actions.
The H–V model also suggests that an individual ethical
perception is influenced by cultural, professional, industrial,
organizational, and personal factors. Of these factors, pro-
fessional, industrial, and organizational factors are job-related
and/or specialty-related moral issues, while cultural and per-
sonal factors are relevant to individual consumer activities.
Thus, cultural and personal characteristics are hypothesized to
significantly influence consumer ethical beliefs and decision
making at the individual level (Vitell 2003). The personal
characteristics include the factors of moral development, such
as materialism (Rawwas et al. 2005; Van Kenhove et al.
2001), Machiavellianism (Rawwas 2001; Rawwas et al.
2005), moral philosophies (Kavak et al. 2009; Lu and Lu
2010), self-control (Vitell et al. 2009), self-monitoring(Kavak
et al. 2009), attitude toward business (Vitell et al. 2007) and
loyalty proneness. The demographic traits, such as age, gen-
der, religion, and education (Bateman and Valentine 2010; Lu
and Lu 2010) also belong to personal characteristics. Of these
personal factors, attitude toward business and loyalty prone-
ness are important but seldom discussed in the consumer
ethics literature. Additionally, cultural effects suggest that the
H1
H4
H5
H2
H3
Cultural factor
Individualism
Personal factor
Attitude toward business
Loyalty proneness
Consumer ethical beliefs Green buying intention
Fig. 1 The research model
Consumer Personality and Green Buying Intention
1 3
primary culture and sub-culture might influence consumers’
choices in a situation involving moral issues. Individualism/
collectivism, one of the most significant cultural dimensions
(Hofstede 1997), has been viewed as a basis for contrasting
differences at the individual level and strongly influences
consumer ethical beliefs and decision making (Chiou and Pan
2007; Lu et al. 2013).
Consumer ethical beliefs are ethical attitudes toward
questionable consumer practices. Mitchell et al. (2009)
argue that all actions that can cause organizations or con-
sumers to lose money or reputation as a result of direct or
indirect consumer behaviors are unethical. The consumer
ethics scale (CES) was first introduced by Muncy and Vitell
(1992) and Vitell and Muncy (1992) to examine consumer
ethical beliefs. They developed a four dimension scale to
determine how consumers perceived particular questionable
behaviors as ethically ‘‘right’’ or ‘‘wrong.’’ The scale
includes four dimensions: (1) Active: benefits incurred from
actively engaging in perceived illegal activities. This
dimension relates to consumers benefiting by deliberately
performing illegal practices, such as drinking a can of soda
in a store without paying for it (Vitell et al. 1991); (2)
Passive: benefits incurred from passively engaging in ques-
tionable activities. Examples include lying about a child’s age
to get a lower price or remaining silent when receiving too
much change (Vitell and Muncy 1992); (3) Questionable:
benefits incurred from actively engaging in questionable or
deceptive activities that are perceived as legal. Stretching the
truth on an income tax return is an activity belonging to this
dimension (Vitell et al. 1991); and (4) NoHarm: behaviors
perceived as involving ‘‘no harm/no foul’’ activities. This
dimension is defined as behaviors that are not considered
directly harmful by most consumers. These behaviors might
include recording an album instead of buying it and installing
software on a computer without buying it (Vitell et al. 1991).
Vitell and Muncy (2005) further modify the CES scale
by adding two new dimensions and modifying the NoHarm
dimension (Vitell et al. 2007). The new dimension, recy-
cling awareness activities (Recycling), considers environ-
mentally friendly practices such as ‘‘Purchasing something
made of recycled materials even though it is more expen-
sive’’ (Vitell and Muncy 2005). Doing good (DoGood)
dimension, the other new one, accounts for consumers
performing good or right behaviors. Examples include
correcting a miscalculated bill in their favor or paying for
an item that the cashier mistakenly failed to charge for
(Vitell and Muncy 2005).
According to Fishbein and Ajzen (1975), individuals’
beliefs affect attitudes toward their behaviors and subjective
norms, which in turn influence behavioral intention. Hunt
and Vitell (1986, 2006) extend the Fishbein and Ajzen model
and argue that there is a relationship between ethical beliefs
and moral judgment and intention. Singhapakdi et al. (2000)
empirically find that ethical beliefs positively influences
ethical intention. Therefore, the linkage between consumer
ethical beliefs and green buying intention is evident. That is,
consumers with high ethical beliefs are more likely to buy
green products than those with low ethical beliefs. Based on
the foregoing discussion, we propose:
H1 Consumer ethical beliefs are significantly positive
predictors of the intention to purchase green products.
Individualism/Collectivism
According to Hofstede (1997), cultural dimensions include
power distance, individualism/collectivism, uncertainty
avoidance, masculinity, and long-term orientation. Of these
dimensions, individualism/collectivism possesses more
strength than other dimensions in explaining consumer
ethical beliefs (Husted and Allen 2008). Erez and Earley
(1993) argue that individualism is especially relevant to
questions of consumer ethics. Thus, the individualism/
collectivism dimension is the cultural dimension of interest
for the current study.
Individualist societies emphasize an ‘‘I’’ consciousness
pertaining to autonomy, emotional independence, individ-
ual initiative, the right to privacy, the search of pleasure,
financial security, the need for specific friendship, and
universalism (Hofstede 1984). In individualist cultures,
individuals tend to place greater importance on achieving
goals than on maintaining harmonious relationships (Osy-
erman et al. 2002). Individualist people are more likely to
be goal-oriented and tend to crave both achievement and
success (Gouveia et al. 2003). It is a measure of the relative
importance that societal members place upon their own
views and welfare. Individualism thus is defined as the
relationship between an individual and a group to which
that person belongs (Hofstede 1997). Individualists tend to
have a high need for achievement and value individual
rights with a minimum of interference. In contrast to
individualists, who place great importance upon them-
selves, collectivists focus on the greater good of their
extended family or organization (Husted and Allen 2008).
Collectivist societies, on the other hand, stress a ‘‘we’’
consciousness, including collective identity, emotional
dependence, group solidarity, sharing, duties and obliga-
tions, the need for stable and predetermined friendships,
group decision-making, and particularism (Kim et al. 1994;
Sivadas et al. 2008). In collectivist cultures, people are
more likely to sacrifice goal achievement for the sake of
good relationships with others (Triandis 1995). Collectiv-
ists value reciprocation of favors, a sense of belonging, and
respect for tradition (Schwartz 1992).
L.-C. Lu et al.
1 3
The effect of culture on ethical decision making is
evident (Blodgett et al. 2001). Haidt et al. (1993) have
shown that the domain of morality is culturally dependent.
That is, whether consumer practices are considered ethical
varies from culture to culture. Chiou and Pan (2007, p. 499)
empirically indicate the existence of the effect of collec-
tivism on ethical beliefs. They argue that collectivistic
consumers are ‘‘more likely to treat the sellers as part of
their in-groups and, therefore, are more likely to refrain
from questionable consumption behaviors’’. Their findings
are consistent with previous literature. For example, Osy-
erman et al. (2002) explicitly state that individualism/col-
lectivism strongly influences consumer attitudes and
decision making. Wood et al. (1988) find that individual-
ism strongly influences the moral reasoning of consumers.
Cohen et al. (1996) also report a strong and significant
effect of Hofstede’s individualism on ethical beliefs. Thus,
the effects of individualism on consumer ethical beliefs are
supported by a considerable amount of evidence (Smith
and Hume 2005). Based on the previous findings, we
hypothesize:
H2a Consumers with high individualism are less likely to
consider questionable consumer practices (i.e., Active,
Passive, Question, and NoHarm dimensions) as ethically
wrong than their collectivist counterparts.
H2b Consumers with high individualism are less likely to
consider good consumer practices (i.e., Recycling and
DoGood dimensions) as ethically acceptable than their
collectivist counterparts.
Trianids (1993) and McCarty and Shrum (1994; 2001)
indicate that individualism tends to be less friendly to the
environment than collectivism. Individualists engage in
voluntary associations; they place great importance upon
their personal benefits, which is consistent with their per-
ceiving themselves as distinct individuals (Husted and
Allen 2008). They also tend to have a high need for
achievement and value individual rights with a minimum
of interference (Schwartz 1992). This type of individualism
is not conducive to environmental friendliness because
social, environmental, and animal welfare are not the first
consideration for them. Laroche et al. (2001) suggest that
an individualist have less motivation to engage in proen-
vironmental behaviors than a collectivists. Similarly, Kim
and Choi (2005) suggest that collectivism significantly
influences green buying behaviors because collectivist
people value cooperation, helpfulness, and consideration of
the goals of the group relative to the individual. Thus,
individualist consumers tend to buy fewer green products
than collectivist consumers. Based on the previous dis-
cussion, we hypothesize:
H3 Individualism directly and negatively relates to green
buying intention.
Attitudes Toward Business
Attitudes toward business have regularly been used to
describe public and individual impressions of both busi-
nesses in general and specific business firms (Anderson
et al. 1979). Because marketing exchanges are interactive,
the quality of services or goods provided by specific
businesses contributes to the general shopping experience
and toward developing individual attitudes toward busi-
ness. A positive attitude toward business denotes a favor-
able viewpoint of business activities and product quality in
general. Additionally, Vitell and Muncy (1992) devise a
multi-dimensional scale of attitudinal characteristics with
attitude toward business as one of the attitudinal dimen-
sions. Consumers will have a positive attitude toward
business if they are satisfied with business and believe that
businesses generally care about consumers and deal fairly
with them. (Vitell and Muncy 1992). For example, con-
sumers with a positive attitude are more likely to believe
that most products are durable and are more likely to be
satisfied with the products they buy than those who have a
less positive (more negative) attitude. They also believe
that the business community can help to raise living stan-
dards. Thus, the personal trait of attitude toward business in
this study is viewed as a general attitude toward overall
business activities in the market place and is not limited to
a specific store, brand or business.
According to Vitell and Muncy (2005), consumer atti-
tudes toward business are related to their ethical beliefs
regarding consumer situations. If consumers believe that
firms truly and fairly care about consumers’ rights, they
would consider questionable consumer practices that might
damage sellers to be unacceptable or wrong (Vitell et al.
2007). Vitell et al. (2006) show that consumers with a more
favorable attitude toward business tend to be less tolerant
of passively benefiting behaviors (Passive dimension)
(Chan et al. 1998). Lu and Lu (2010) find that consumer
attitudes toward business are negatively correlated with
actively benefiting from illegal activities (Active dimen-
sion) and deceptive legal practices (Question dimension).
These results imply that consumers with a negative attitude
toward business tend to be tolerant of actively benefiting
behaviors, whether illegal or questionable. For example,
consumers with a negative attitude toward business may be
more likely to give misleading price information to a clerk
for an unpriced item than those consumers with a positive
attitude toward business. Thus, attitude toward business
impacts consumer ethical beliefs (Vitell and Muncy 1992).
Based on these findings, we hypothesize:
Consumer Personality and Green Buying Intention
1 3
H4a Consumers with a positive attitude toward business
are more likely to consider questionable consumer prac-
tices (i.e., Active, Passive, Question, and NoHarm dimen-
sions) as ethically wrong than consumers with a negative
attitude toward business.
H4b Consumers with a positive attitude toward business
are more likely to consider good consumer practices (i.e.,
Recycling and DoGood dimensions) as ethically acceptable
than consumers with a more negative attitude toward
business.
Loyalty Proneness
Loyalty proneness is the tendency for a customer to con-
sciously engage in a relationship with a retailer or a store.
Customers with high loyalty proneness have a favorable
attitude toward a particular store and exhibit affective
commitment, which is necessary for true customer loyalty
to occur (Van Kenhove et al. 2003). Additionally, loyalty
proneness is somewhat different from so-called ‘‘store
loyalty.’’ The former is more affection oriented than
behavior oriented, while the latter is more rooted in
behavioral inertia or convenience (Dick and Basu 1994).
Store loyalty may contain both affective and behavioral
outcomes, whereas loyalty proneness may not necessarily
result in behavioral loyalty. The personal trait of loyalty
proneness in this study is close to Odekerken-Schroder
et al.’s (2003) ‘‘consumer relationship proneness,’’ which is
defined as the tendency for a consumer to develop and
maintain a relatively stable relationship with a particular
retailer.
Loyalty proneness usually leads to a consumer’s affec-
tive commitment. When consumers’ affective commitment
is high, they have the desire to continue their relationship
‘‘because of positive affect towards the partner’’ (Kumar
et al. 1995, p. 351). Steenhaut and Van Kenhove (2005,
p. 347) suggest that highly affectively committed con-
sumers are motivated to shop in a particular store because
they want to, as opposed to calculatively committed cus-
tomers who engage in a buyer–seller relationship ‘‘because
they need to’’. Thus, when the binding factors are removed,
calculative commitment becomes a ‘‘false’’ loyalty. In this
case, affective commitment is more powerful in explaining
‘‘true’’ consumer behavior than calculative commitment.
Morgan and Hunt (1994) hypothesize that commitment
leads to cooperation and greater profitability. Vitell (2003)
suggests that store commitment may play a role in deter-
mining consumers’ unethical behaviors. Steenhaut and Van
Kenhove (2005) also find that a less committed customer is
more likely to passively accept a questionable behavior
(i.e., receiving too much change without reporting it). If a
consumer has a general predisposition to good
relationships, he/she will be more likely to interact with the
retailer (Christy et al. 1996) and be more prone to form a
friendly relationship with that retailer (Fernandes and
Proenc¸a 2008). Such a consumer may possess a more
positive attitude toward a particular retailer, shop more in
that store, be a member of the store’s club, and act in a
‘‘fair’’ way when shopping. Thus, consumers with high
loyalty proneness are more consciously orientated to
establish ethical relationships (Dick and Basu 1994; Ode-
kerken-Schroder et al. 2003). Based on the discussion and
findings, we hypothesize:
H5a Consumers with high loyalty proneness are more
likely to consider questionable consumer practices (i.e.,
Active, Passive, Question, and NoHarm dimensions) as
ethically wrong than those with low loyalty proneness.
H5b Consumers with high loyalty proneness are more
likely to consider good consumer practices (i.e., Recycling
and DoGood dimensions) as ethically acceptable than those
with low loyalty proneness.
Methodology
Measures
In order to insure content validity, the scales for constructs
used in this study were developed based on a thorough
literature review. First, we use a measurement scale for
individualism originally developed by Hofstede (1984,
1997) and refined by Lu et al. (1999) and Blodgett et al.
(2001). A high score denotes a high individualism pro-
pensity. Second, we use the scale for attitude toward
business developed by Richins (1983) and refined by Vitell
and Muncy (2005). Consumer’s attitude toward business
improves with stronger respondent agreement with each
item. A sample item is ‘‘Most companies are concerned
about their customers.’’ Third, the measurement items for
loyalty proneness are taken from consumer relationship
proneness (Odekerken-Schroder et al. 2003) and relation-
ship commitment (Steenhaut and Van Kenhove 2005). The
higher the score, the higher a customer consciously enga-
ges in a relationship with a store. Fourth, intention to
purchase green products is measured using a scale based on
Kim and Choi’s (2005) green buying behavior. A high
score indicates a high tendency for a consumer to buy
green products. Finally, the construct of consumer ethical
beliefs is measured using the six dimensions of the CES,
developed by Muncy and Vitell (1992) and refined by
Vitell and Muncy (2005) and Vitell et al. (2007). The lower
the score obtained from each questionable activity
regarding the dimensions of Active, Passive, Deceptive,
and NoHarm, the more strongly the consumers feel the
L.-C. Lu et al.
1 3
questionable activity is less ethical, while a high score on
the DoGood and Recycling dimensions indicates respon-
dents consider such practices acceptable and ethical.
Except for certain items which respondents will be
instructed to rate whether they perceive questionable con-
sumer practices as ethically ‘‘wrong’’ (1) or ‘‘not wrong’’
(5) on a five-point scale, all items were measured with a
5-point Likert type scale, ranging from ‘‘1 = strongly
disagree’’ to ‘‘5 = strongly agree.’’ Additionally, the
instrument was first pre-tested on 250 students who study
in the EMBA program of a national university in Taiwan to
fine-tune the items of each construct used in the formal
survey. All measures were translated into Chinese by a
native speaker of Chinese who is also fluent in English. The
translation was then reviewed, revised and back translated
by both scholars and ordinary consumers to insure the
authenticity of the translation.
Data Collection and Sample
The questionnaire was delivered by hand to pedestrians
near various shopping malls, ports, and train stations in
Taiwan to obtain a broad sample of the population. Inter-
viewees were selected to contact every Nth passing con-
sumer, with ‘‘n’’ selected randomly by the interviewer.
About 553 questionnaires were collected. After excluding
invalid samples, a total of 545 questionnaires were retained
for analysis. As shown in Table 1, respondents were pri-
marily female (54.5 %), aged 20–39 years old (56.7 %),
with a bachelor’s degree or higher educational level
(48.3 %).
Results
Since the study examines the relationships among con-
sumer personality, consumer ethics and green buying
intention, we conduct a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA)
to establish uni-dimensionality for each factor and then use
structural equation modeling (SEM) to test the model.
Harris and Goode (2004, p. 147) indicate that ‘‘structural
equation models overcome the limitations of bivariate
analyses through the simultaneous analysis of all the
complex relationships between the constructs’’. Similarly,
Hair et al. (2010, p. 641) explicitly states that ‘‘SEM is
most appropriate when the research has multiple con-
structs, each represented by several measured variables,
and ….allows for all of the relationship/equations to be
estimated simultaneously’’. Thus, CFA and SEM are suit-
able for the study and type I error inflation is under control.
Reliability and Validity Analysis
After removing several items with low scores of item-to-
total correlation to improve the consistency and stability of
each constructs, the model-fit indices of CFA were asses-
sed to determine the model’s overall goodness of fit, as
shown in Table 1. All values of model-fit indices (v
2
(620) = 1184.62, CFI = 0.98, NFI = 0.96, NNFI = 0.98,
RFI = 0.96, GFI = 0.90, RMSEA = 0.041) exceed their
respective acceptance levels suggested by previous
research (Jo¨reskog and So¨rbom 1992). Thus, the model
appears to have a fairly good fit with the data collected.
Table 2 shows that the composite reliabilities of each
construct confirm the rule that the value must exceed 0.7
(Nunnally and Bernstein 1994). The authors consider
convergent validity by examining the average variance
extracted (AVE), factor loading, and goodness-of-fit
indexes in the CFA. In this study, all constructs’ AVE
values are above the recommended 0.50 level and all of the
items in the measurement model have factor loadings
exceeding 0.62 and are positively significant (p \0.05).
These are significant and appropriate for this study
Table 1 Sample characteristics
Item Frequency Valid percen
Gender
Male 248 45.5
Female 297 54.5
Age
Under 19 72 13.2
20–29 175 32.1
30–39 134 24.6
40–49 91 16.7
50–59 63 11.6
Over 60 10 1.8
Highest Education Level obtained
Junior high school diploma or less 22 4.0
Senior high school 149 27.3
Some college 111 20.4
Bachelor’s degree 184 33.8
Master’s degree or doctorate degree 79 14.5
Current occupation
Public servants 43 7.9
Commerce 194 35.6
Industry 85 15.6
Farming/fishing 13 2.4
Household 39 7.2
Students 108 19.8
Others 63 11.6
Consumer Personality and Green Buying Intention
1 3
(Bagozzi and Yi 1988). All indices of model fit exceed 0.9,
achieving acceptable levels (Anderson and Gerbing 1988).
In addition, the authors found that all shared variances
between factors were lower than the value of AVE, as
suggested by Fornell and Larcker (1981) for acceptable
discriminant validity (Table 2). Therefore, the measure-
ment model of this study appears to possess adequate
reliability and validity.
Hypotheses Testing
This study tests its hypotheses using SEM. Findings are
displayed in Table 3. The goodness model-fit indices of
structure model were v
2
(637) = 1424.15, CFI = 0.98,
NFI = 0.96, NNFI = 0.97, RFI = 0.95, GFI = 0.88, and
RMSEA = 0.048. First, the study indicates that the vari-
able of consumer ethics influences consumer intention to
buy green products. Although the dimensions of Active
(b = -0.00, n.s.), Passive (b = -0.02, n.s.), and NoHarm
(b = 0.01, n.s.) are not significant, the effects of Question
(b = -0.13, t value = -2.31), Recycling (b = 0.43,
t value = 7.60), and DoGood (b = 0.18, t value = 3.46)
on the construct of green buying intention are significant,
partially supporting H1.
The construct of individualism is a significant predictor
of the dimensions of Active (c = 0.37, t value = 8.46),
Passive (c = 0.38, t value = 8.44), Question (c = 0.23,
t value = 4.44), NoHarm (c = 0.41, t value = 7.37),
Recycling (c = -0.16, t value = -2.70), and DoGood
(c = -0.23, t value = -4.08). However, individualism
does not directly influence consumer green buying inten-
tion (c = 0.07, n.s.). H2a and H2b are thus fully supported,
but H3 is not supported.
Attitude toward business significantly effects the ethical
values of Active (c = -0.61, t value = -12.69), Passive
(c = -0.46, t value = -9.91), Question (c = -0.30,
t value = -5.74), NoHarm (c = -0.21, t value = -3.92),
and DoGood (c = 0.32, t value = 5.64), but not Recycling
(c = 0.09, n.s.). These support H4a and partially support
H4b. Moreover, the effects of loyalty proneness on Passive
(c = -0.19, t value = -5.04), Question (c = -0.25,
t value = -5.36), Recycling (c = 0.19, t value = 3.61),
and DoGood (c = 0.14, t value = 2.80) are significant.
However, loyalty proneness does not significantly affect
Active (c = -0.01, n.s.) and NoHarm (c = -0.06, n.s.).
Thus, H5a is partially supported and H5b is fully
supported.
Finally, Table 4 summarizes the direct, indirect, and
total effect of the constructs in the model on green buying
intention. Individualism, despite showing a weaker direct
effect on green buying intention than Question, Recycling
and DoGood dimension, exhibits a significantly strong total
effect on consumers’ green buying intention. The con-
structs of attitude toward business and loyalty proneness
also have significantly indirect and total effects on green
buying intention.
Table 2 Reliability, AVE, and discriminant validity
Individualism Attitude toward
business
Loyalty
proneness
Active Passive Question NoHarm Recycling DoGood Green
buying
Individualism 0.60 0.19 0.10 0.37 0.37 0.17 0.24 0.06 0.09 0.03
Attitude toward
business
-0.44 0.54 0.06 0.53 0.38 0.18 0.13 0.03 0.12 0.03
Loyalty
proneness
-0.32 0.25 0.79 0.08 0.18 0.16 0.06 0.07 0.00 0.03
Active 0.61 -0.73 -0.28 0.60 0.58 0.27 0.19 0.10 0.25 0.06
Passive 0.61 -0.62 -0.43 0.76 0.61 0.32 0.28 0.09 0.08 0.05
Question 0.41 -0.42 -0.40 0.52 0.57 0.62 0.25 0.02 0.01 0.04
NoHarm 0.49 -0.36 -0.24 0.44 0.53 0.50 0.55 0.04 0.05 0.03
Recycling -0.24 0.16 0.26 -0.31 -0.30 -0.14 -0.21 0.44 0.14 0.24
DoGood -0.30 0.34 0.02 -0.50 -0.29 -0.10 -0.22 0.37 0.52 0.09
Green buying -0.16 0.15 0.18 -0.25 -0.23 -0.20 -0.17 0.49 0.30 0.66
Composite
reliability
0.85 0.82 0.94 0.86 0.86 0.83 0.83 0.76 0.81 0.85
v
2
(620) = 1184.62, CFI = 0.98, NFI = 0.96, NNFI = 0.98, RFI = 0.96, GFI = 0.90, RMSEA = 0.041
Diagonal elements show the AVE
Off-diagonal elements of the lower half of the matrix show the correlations. All correlations are significant at 0.05 level
Off-diagonal elements of the upper half of the matrix show the shared variance
L.-C. Lu et al.
1 3
Conclusions
Based on a survey of 545 Taiwanese consumers, the data
provides support for our proposed research model and for
many of our hypotheses. We elucidate the effect of indi-
vidualism, attitude toward business and loyalty proneness
on each dimension of ethical beliefs, which in turn influ-
ences consumer buying intention toward green products.
First, green buying intention is dependent on consumer
ethical beliefs about Question, Recycling and DoGood
activities. One suggestion is that when environmental
awareness is considered a dimension of consumer ethical
beliefs (Vitell and Muncy 2005), consumers with high
ethical awareness demonstrate a relatively consistent
intention to buy green products (D’Souza et al. 2007).
Thus, if people are more likely to consider questionable but
legal activities unethical and perceive recycling and doing
good practices as ethically acceptable, they are more
willing to buy green products. However, the findings of this
Table 3 Results of the
proposed model
* t value is significant at
p \0.05 when the t value
exceeds 1.96
v
2
(637) = 1424.15,
CFI = 0.98, NFI = 0.96,
NNFI = 0.97, RFI = 0.95,
GFI = 0.88, RMSEA = 0.048
Hypothesis Causal path Standardized
structural
coefficient
t value Conclusion
H1 Active ? Green buying 0.00 0.03 Partial supported
Passive ? Green buying -0.02 -0.03
Question ? Green buying -0.13 -2.31*
NoHarm ? Green buying -0.01 -0.21
Recycling ? Green buying 0.43 7.60*
DoGood ? Green buying 0.18 3.46*
H2a Individualism ? Active 0.37 8.46* Supported
Individualism ? Passive 0.38 8.44*
Individualism ? Question 0.23 4.44*
Individualism ? NoHarm 0.41 7.37*
H2b Individualism ? Recycling -0.16 -2.70* Supported
Individualism ? DoGood -0.23 -4.08*
H3 Individualism ? Green buying 0.07 0.91 Not supported
H4a Attitude toward business ? Active -0.61 -12.69* Supported
Attitude toward business ? Passive -0.46 -9.91*
Attitude toward business ? Question -0.30 -5.74*
Attitude toward business ? NoHarm -0.21 -3.92*
H4b Attitude toward business ? Recycling 0.09 1.53 Partial supported
Attitude toward business ? DoGood 0.32 5.64*
H5a Loyalty proneness ? Active -0.01 -0.18 Partial supported
Loyalty proneness ? Passive -0.19 -5.04*
Loyalty proneness ? Question -0.25 5.36*
Loyalty proneness ? NoHarm -0.06 1.40
H5b Loyalty proneness ? Recycling 0.19 3.61* supported
Loyalty proneness ? DoGood 0.14 2.80*
Table 4 Direct, indirect, and total effects of determinants on green
buying intention
Predictor Dependent variable: green
buying intention
Direct
effect
Indirect
effect
Total
effect
Individualism n.s. -0.16 -0.16
Attitude toward
business
0.15 0.15
Loyalty proneness 0.10 0.10
Active n.s. n.s.
Passive n.s. n.s.
Question -0.13 -0.13
NoHarm n.s. n.s.
Recycling 0.43 0.43
DoGood 0.18 0.18
All nonzero effects are significant at p \0.05
n.s. non-significant effect
Consumer Personality and Green Buying Intention
1 3
study demonstrate that the ethical dimensions of Active,
Passive, and NoHarm are not significantly related to green
buying intention. It appears that individuals consider the
benefits of active, passive, or no-harm consumer behaviors
to be independent of green buying intentions.
Second, we find that Taiwanese consumers with a
stronger individualism orientation tend to see benefiting
from questionable practices as ethically acceptable, more
so than those with a lower individualism orientation. In
individualist cultures, individuals tend to place greater
importance on achieving tasks than on maintaining har-
monious relationships (Osyerman et al. 2002). It is rea-
sonable to assume that individualism would be more likely
to tolerate unethical activities in the Active, Passion,
Question, and Noharm dimension if they heavily empha-
size personal benefits and are sensitive to situations in
which their benefits are threatened. Additionally, this study
also shows that individualists are less accepting of the good
practices contained in the Recycling and DoGood dimen-
sions. This is probably because this kind of consumers does
not desire to serve and sacrifice for the in-group (Triandis
and Singeles 1998) and does not place the benefit to the in-
group ahead of their own goals (Singelis et al. 1995). Thus,
individualism, which has a greater tolerance of deviations
from group norms than collectivism, strongly influences
consumers’ moral reasoning, beliefs, and ethical decision-
making processes (Husted and Allen 2008).
Third, the construct of attitude toward business influ-
ences almost all dimensions of consumer ethical beliefs,
partially consistent with the findings of Vitell et al. (2007).
The stronger the consumers’ positive attitudes toward
businesses, the more they avoid engaging in the morally
questionable practices contained in the Active, Passive,
Question, and NoHarm dimensions, and the likelier they
are to accept activities in the DoGood dimension. If con-
sumers generally consider that most firms are kind to their
customers and they are satisfied with products they buy,
they hold highly positive attitudes toward business in
general and thus refrain from unethical beliefs. However,
we found that attitude toward business does not affect the
Recycling dimension, a finding consistent with previous
studies (Lu and Lu 2010). Consumer ethical beliefs
regarding recycling appear to be driven traits or beliefs not
related to attitude toward business.
Forth, loyalty proneness apparently plays a far more
important role in consumer determination of whether
activities are unethical. Consumers with stronger loyalty
proneness are more likely to consider Passive and Question
activities not acceptable or unethical than those who have
less loyalty proneness. These results are consistent with
those of Steenhaut and Van Kenhove (2005), which indi-
cate that more committed customers are less likely to
accept unethical behavior. Moreover, loyalty proneness
also directly affects the Recycling and DoGood dimension.
That is somewhat similar to the ideas of Fernandes and
Proenc¸a (2008), who contended that relationship-prone
consumers may be more receptive to a seller’s efforts to
form a relationship (Odekerken-Schroder et al. 2003) and
reciprocate friendly actions (De Wulf et al. 2001) as well as
will desire to build long-term relationships with sellers.
However, the activities of Active and NoHarm dimensions
are independent from a consumer’s tendency to build a
stable and long-term relationship with a particular seller.
One possible explanation is that respondents may see
actively benefiting from illegal activities as criminal
behaviors whether they have high or low loyalty proneness.
In addition, consumers appear to feel that no harm/no foul
activities are not harmful to others, making loyalty
proneness irrelevant.
Finally, though we find no direct effect of individualism
on green buying intention, individualism is found to have
an indirect and significant influence on green buying
intention via the dimension of consumer ethics. These
findings are inconsistent with those of previous studies. For
example, Laroche et al. (2001) find that individualist con-
sumers are less likely to pay a higher price to buy envi-
ronmental friendly products than their collectivist
counterparts. These results imply that individualism pre-
sents tangible cues that can be used to decrease consumer
ethical perceptions, which in turn affects consumer buying
intention regarding green products. In addition, although
the personality traits of attitude toward business and loyalty
proneness theoretically have no direct relationship to green
buying intention, it is interesting that a significant indirect
and total effect are found between these constructs in this
study. The total effects of attitude toward business and
loyalty proneness on green buying intention are 0.15 and
0.10, respectively. We boldly propose that the personality
traits of attitude toward business and loyalty proneness
could indirectly influence consumer buying intention
regarding green products through specific cognitive con-
cepts, such as ethical beliefs. Based on these findings, the
cultural factor (individualism) and these two personal
factors (attitude toward business and loyalty proneness)
could encourage consumers to be more ethical, increasing
the probability that they will consider buying green pro-
ducts when they make purchase decisions. Consumer ethics
thus would be an effectively and strong mediator between
personality and green buying intention.
Theoretical Application
In previous research, examination of individual traits and
attitudes influence consumer ethical beliefs or behavior is
L.-C. Lu et al.
1 3
limited. This study explores a rarely-examined trait, loyalty
proneness, to evaluate how it stimulates ethical consumer
behavior through the relationship between the customer
and the store itself. Within the context of relationship
marketing, the effects of loyalty proneness or consumer
relationship proneness on relationship outcomes such as
consumer trust, commitment, satisfaction, and loyalty are
widely explored. However, the concept of loyalty prone-
ness is an effective construct for examining the value that
consumers themselves assign to the relationship with the
sellers. This study’s findings report a significant association
between the personality trait of loyalty proneness and
ethical beliefs. Thus, loyalty proneness should be tested as
a critical antecedent to consumer ethical beliefs in further
research.
Although the personalities of individualism and attitude
toward business have been examined in the context of
consumer ethical beliefs, the results have been mixed and
limited to western countries. Base on this study’s model,
we show that Taiwanese consumer ethical judgment is
affected by both individualism and attitude toward busi-
ness. This study’s research shows strong potential for use
in assessing East Asian cultures. Finally, this study fills a
gap in the literature by investigating the mediating effect
between personality and green buying intention. Most prior
studies focus on what kinds of constructs influence con-
sumer beliefs about ethical practices. However, studies on
the consequences of consumer ethics are lacking. Vitell
(2003) argues that exploration of the link between con-
sumer ethics and intentions would likely be fruitful. Thus,
this study first includes the construct of consumer green
buying intention as a consequence variable and then
examines the antecedents and consequences of consumer
ethical beliefs simultaneously. Using a sample of Tai-
wanese, our model shows that consumer ethical beliefs
play a vital mediating role between personality and green
buying intention. More research is necessary to confirm
this research model in other countries.
Implications for Practice
The results of this study have managerial relevance. A better
understanding of the linkage between consumer ethics and
personal traits can improve customer relationship manage-
ment practices. First, the personal characteristics of indi-
vidualism, attitude toward business, and loyalty proneness
appear to influence consumer ethical beliefs. Marketers
should address these traits in strategy formulation. For
example, if businesses know which consumers are prone to
engage in relationships with retailers and have positive
attitudes toward business, they can tailor marketing efforts
to match the expectations of these consumers.
Consumer ethics also play as a significant mediating role
between personality and green buying intention. If con-
sumers realize that their ethical beliefs cause ecological
problems, they will become more environmentally
responsible, in turn influencing their purchase behaviors.
Therefore, improving consumers’ environmental awareness
or ethical beliefs is useful in encouraging the willingness to
buy green products. Firms must consider how to motivate
consumers to buy ‘green’ in ways that will reach the sell-
er’s marketing goals.
Limitations and Further Suggestion
First, this study did not find a significant relationship
between attitude toward business and the ethical dimension
of recycling awareness activities. Loyalty proneness also
did not affect consumer ethical beliefs toward active but
illegal and no harm/no foul practices. That is to say the
selected variables only partially explained the variance of
consumer ethics, and thus further studies should examine
additional variables. For example, traits such as age, gen-
der, religion, social affiliation, or social recognition should
be examined in the context of consumer ethical beliefs. In
addition, the dimensions of consumer ethical scale do not
strongly predict green buying intention in the findings of
this study. Further research is necessary to investigate other
mediating or moderating variables to improve the explan-
atory power of the research model. Finally, although this
study first examined the mediating role of consumer ethics
within the context of consumer intentions toward green
products, the sample was limited to Taiwan. Based on the
variety of personal traits and ethical beliefs across cultures,
further research should expand this research model to other
East Asian countries to improve its power to explain the
effects of consumer ethics on green buying.
Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank the two anon-
ymous reviewers for their valuable comments. Professor Gregory
Rose, Associate Dean of Milgard School of Business, University of
Washington, is very much appreciated for providing valuable con-
tribution toward proof-reading this article and editorial assistance.
Appendix: The Measurement Items
Green Buying Intention
1. I make a special effort to buy paper and plastic
products that are made from recycled materials
2. I have switched products for ecological reasons
3. When I have a choice between two equal products, I
purchase the one less harmful to other people and the
environment
Consumer Personality and Green Buying Intention
1 3
Consumer Ethics
Actively Benefiting from Illegal Activities
1. Giving misleading price information to a clerk for an
unpriced item
2. Using the SIM card that does not belong to you
3. Drinking a can of soda in a store without paying for it
4. Reporting a lost item as ‘‘stolen’’ to an insurance
company in order to collect the insurance money
Passively Benefiting Activities
1. Lying about a child’s age to get a lower price
2. Not saying anything when the waiter or waitress
miscalculates a bill in your favor
3. Getting too much change and not saying anything
4. Observing someone shoplifting and ignoring it
Actively Benefiting from Deceptive Activities
1. Using an expired coupon for merchandise
2. Using a coupon for merchandise you did not buy
3. Stretching the truth on an income tax return
No Harm/No Foul Activities
1. Installing software on your computer without buying it
2. ‘‘Burning’’ a CD rather than buying it
3. Returning merchandise after buying it and not liking it
4. Downloading music from the internet instead of
buying it
Recycling Awareness Activities
1. Buying products labeled as ‘‘environmentally friendly’’
even if they don’t work as well as competing goods
2. Purchasing something made of recycled materials even
though it is more expensive
3. Buying only from companies that have a strong record
of protecting environment
4. Recycling materials such as cans, bottles, newspapers,
etc.
Doing Good Activities
1. Returning to the store and paying for an item that the
cashier mistakenly did not charge you for
2. Correcting a bill that has been miscalculated in your
favor
3. Giving a larger than expected tip to a waiter or waitress
4. Not purchasing product from companies that you
believe don’s treat their employees fairly
Individualism
1. It is important for me that I have considerable freedom
to adopt my own approach to the job
2. It is better to work in a group than alone (It denotes a
reverse item)
3. Groups make better decisions than individuals (It
denotes a reverse item)
4. I prefer to be responsible for my own decisions
Attitude Toward Business
1. Most companies are concerned about their customers
2. In general, I am satisfied with most of the products I buy
3. What most products claim to do and what they actually
do are two different things
4. The business community has helped raise our coun-
try’s standard of living
Loyalty Proneness
1. Generally, I am someone who likes to be a regular
customer of a green product store
2. Generally, I am someone who wants to be a steady
customer of the same green product store
3. Generally, I am someone who is willing to ‘‘go the
extra mile’’ to purchase at the same green product store
4. Even if the green product store is more difficult to
reach, I would still keep buying there
References
Anderson, R. D., Engledow, J. L., & Becker, H. (1979). Evaluating
the relationships among attitude toward business, product
satisfaction, experience, and search effect. Journal of Marketing
Research, 16(3), 394–400.
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation
modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step
approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411–423.
Arvola, A., Vassallo, M., Dean, M., Lampila, P., Saba, A., &
Lahteenmaki, R. (2008). Predicting intentions to purchase
organic food: The role of affective and moral attitudes in the
theory of planned behaviour. Appetite, 50, 443–454.
Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural
equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
16, 74–94.
Bateman, C. R., & Valentine, S. R. (2010). Investigating the effects of
gender on consumers’ moral philosophies and ethical intentions.
Journal of Business Ethics, 95, 41–393.
Blodgett, J. G., Lu, L.-C., Rose, G. M., & Vitell, S. J. (2001). Ethical
sensitivity to stakeholder interests: A cross-cultural comparison.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 29(2), 190–202.
Bloemer, J., Odekerken-Schro¨der, G., & Kestens, L. (2003). The
impact of need for social affiliation and consumer relationship
proneness on behavioural intentions: An empirical study in a
Hairdresser’s context. Journal of Retailing and Consumer
Services, 10, 231–240.
Chan, R. (2001). Determinants of Chinese consumers’ green purchase
behavior. Psychology & Marketing, 18(4), 389–413.
Chan, R. Y. K., & Lau, L. B. Y. (2000). Antecedents of green
purchases: A survey in China. Journal of Consumer Marketing,
17(4), 338–357.
Chan, R. Y. K., & Lau, L. B. Y. (2002). Explaining green purchasing
behavior: A cross-cultural study on American and Chinese
consumers. Journal of International Consumer Marketing,
14(2–3), 9–40.
Chan, A., Wong, S., & Leung, P. (1998). Ethical beliefs of Chinese
consumers in Hong Kong. Journal of Business Ethics, 17,
1163–1170.
L.-C. Lu et al.
1 3
Chan, A., Wong, S., & Leung, P. (2008). Applying ethical concepts to
the study of ‘‘Green’’ consumer behavior: An analysis of Chinese
consumers’ intentions to bring their own shopping bags. Journal
of Business Ethics, 79, 469–481.
Chiou, J. S., & Pan, L. Y. (2007). The impact of social darwinism
perception, status anxiety, perceived trust of people, and cultural
orientation on consumer ethical beliefs. Journal of Business
Ethics, 78, 487–502.
Christy, R., Oliver, G., & Penn, J. (1996). Relationship marketing in
consumer markets. Journal of Marketing Management, 12,
175–187.
Cohen, J., Pant, L., & Sharp, D. (1996). A methodological note on
cross-cultural accounting ethics research. International Journal
of Accounting, 31, 55–66.
D’Souza, C., Taghian, M., & Khosla, R. (2007). Examination of
environmental beliefs and its impact on the influence of price,
quality and demographic characteristics with respect to green
purchase intention. Journal of Targeting, Measurement and
Analysis for Marketing, 15(2), 69–78.
De Pelsmacker, P., Driesen, L., & Rayp, G. (2005). Do consumers
care about ethics? Willingness to pay for fair-trade coffee. The
Journal of Consumer Affairs, 39(2), 363–385.
De Wulf, K., Odekerken-Schro¨der, G., & Iacobucci, D. (2001).
Investments in consumer relationship: A cross-country and cross-
industry exploration. Journal of Marketing, 65(October), 33–50.
Dean, M., Raats, M. M., & Shepherd, R. (2008). Moral concerns and
consumer choice of fresh and processed organic foods. Journal
of Applied Social Psychology, 38(8), 2088–2107.
Dick, A. S., & Basu, K. (1994). Customer loyalty: Toward an
integrated conceptual framework. Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 22(2), 99–113.
Erez, M., & Earley, P. C. (1993). Culture, self-identity, and work.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Fernandes, T. M., & Proenc¸a, J. F. (2008). The blind spot of
relationships in consumer markets: The consumer proneness to
engage in relationships. Journal of Marketing Management,
24(1–2), 153–168.
Ferrell, O. C., & Gresham, L. G. (1985). A contingency framework
for understanding ethical decision making in marketing. Journal
of Marketing, 49(summer), 87–96.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Beliefs, attitude, intention and
behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation
models with unobservable variables and measurement error.
Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39–50.
Fujii, S. (2006). Environmental concern, attitude toward frugality, and
ease of behavior as determinants of pro-environmental behavior
intentions. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 26, 262–268.
Gouveia, V. V., Clement, M., & Espinosa, P. (2003). The horizontal
and vertical attributes of individualism and collectivism in a
Spanish population. The Journal of Social Psychology, 143(1),
43–63.
Gregory, G. D., Munch, J. M., & Peterson, M. (2002). Attitude
functions in consumer research: Comparing value–attitude
relations in individualist and collectivist cultures. Journal of
Business Research, 55, 933–942.
Haidt, J., Koller, S. H., & Dias, M. G. (1993). Affect, culture, and
morality, or is it wrong to eat your dog? Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 65(4), 613–628.
Hair, J., Jr, Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010).
Multivariate data analysis: A global perspective (7th ed.). Upper
Saddle River: Pearson.
Harris, L. C., & Goode, M. M. H. (2004). The four levels of loyalty
and the pivotal role of trust: A study of online service dynamics.
Journal of Retailing, 80, 139–158.
Hashimoto, H., Li, Y., & Yamagishi, T. (2011). Beliefs and
preferences in cultural agents and cultural game players. Asian
Journal of Social Psychology, 14, 140–147.
Hofstede, G. (1984). Culture’s consequences: International differences
in work-related values (Abridged ed.). Beverly Hills: Sage.
Hofstede, G. (1997). Cultures and organizations: Software of the
mind. NY: McGraw Hill.
Honkanen, P., Verplanken, B., & Olsen, S. O. (2006). Ethical values
and motives driving organic food choice. Journal of Consumer
Behavior, 5, 420–430.
Hunt, S. D. (1991). Modern marketing theory: Critical issues in the
philosophy of marketing science. Cincinnati, OH: South-Western
Publishing Co.
Hunt, S. D., & Vitell, S. J. (1986). A general theory of marketing
ethics. Journal of Macromarketing, 6, 5–15.
Hunt, S. D., & Vitell, S. J. (2006). The general theory of marketing
ethics: A revision and three questions. Journal of Macromar-
keting, 26(2), 1–11.
Husted, B. W., & Allen, D. B. (2008). Toward a model of cross-
cultural business ethics: The impact of individualism and
collectivism on the ethical decision-making process. Journal of
Business Ethics, 82, 293–305.
Irvine, W. B. (2006). On desire: Why we want what we want. NY:
Oxford Uinversity Press.
Iversen, H., & Rundmo, T. (2002). Environmental concern and
environmental behavior among the Norwegian public. Journal of
Risk Research, 5(3), 265–279.
Jaiswal, N. (2012). Green products: Availability, awareness and
preference of use by the families. Indian Journal of Environ-
mental Education, 12, 21–25.
Jo¨reskog, K. G., & So¨rbom, D. (1992). LISREL: A guide to the
program and applications. Chicago: Scientific Software
International.
Kavak, B., Gurel, E., Eryigit, C., & Tektas, O. O. (2009). ‘Examining
the effects of moral development level, self-concept, and self-
monitoring on consumers’ ethical attitudes’. Journal of Business
Ethics, 88, 115–135.
Kim, Y. (2011). Understanding green purchase: The influence of
collectivism, personal values and environmental attitudes, and
the moderating effect of perceived consumer effectiveness. Seoul
Journal of Business, 17(1), 65–92.
Kim, Y., & Choi, S. M. (2005). Antecedents of green purchase
behavior: An examination of collectivism, environmental con-
cern, and PCE. Advances in Consumer Research, 32, 592–599.
Kim, U., Triandis, H. C., Kagitcibasi, C., & Yoon, G. (1994).
Individualism and collectivism: Theoretical and methodological
issues. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Kotler, P. (2000). Marketing management: The millennium edition.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Kumar, N., Scheer, L. K., & Steenkamp, J. B. E. M. (1995). The
effects of perceived interdependence on dealer attitudes. Journal
of Marketing Research, 32(3), 348–356.
Laroche, M., Bergeron, J., & Barbaro-Forleo, G. (2001). Targeting
consumers who are willing to pay more for environmentally
friendly products. The Journal of Consumer Marketing, 18(6),
503–520.
Lu, L.-C., Chang, H.-H., & Yu, S.-T. (2013). Online shoppers,
perceptions of E-retailers’ ethics, cultural orientation, and
loyalty: An exploratory study in Taiwan. Internet Research,
23(1), 47–68.
Lu, L.-C., & Lu, C. J. (2010). Moral philosophy, materialism, and
consumer ethics: An exploratory study in Indonesia. Journal of
Business Ethics, 94(2), 193–210.
Lu, L.-C., Rose, G., & Blodgett, J. (1999). The effects of cultural
dimensions on ethical decision making in marketing: An
exploratory study. Journal of Business Ethics, 18(1), 91–105.
Consumer Personality and Green Buying Intention
1 3
Mainieri, T., Barnett, E. G., Valdero, T. R., Unipan, J. B., & Oskamp,
S. (1997). Green buying: The influence of environmental
concern on consumer behavior. Journal of Social Psychology,
137(2), 189–204.
Mayo, M. A., & Marks, L. J. (1990). An empirical investigation of a
general theory of marketing ethics. Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 18(2), 163–171.
McCarty, J. A., & Shrum, L. J. (1994). The recycling of solid wastes:
Personal and cultural values and attitudes about recycling as
antecedents of recycling behavior. Journal of Business Research,
30(May), 53–62.
McCarty, J. A., & Shrum, L. J. (2001). The influence of individu-
alism, collectivism and locus of control on environmental beliefs
and behavior. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 20(Spring),
93–104.
Michaelidou, N., & Hassan, L. M. (2008). The role of health
consciousness, food safety concern and ethical identity on
attitudes and intentions towards organic food. International
Journal of Consumer Studies, 32(2), 163–170.
Mitchell, V. W., Balabanis, G., Schlegelmich, B. B., & Cornwell, T.
B. (2009). Measuring unethical consumer behaviors across four
countries. Journal of Business Ethics, 88(2), 395–412.
Morgan, R. M., & Hunt, S. D. (1994). The commitment-trust theory
of relationship marketing. Journal of Marketing, 58(3), 20–38.
Mostafa, M. M. (2007). Gender differences in Egyptian consumers’
green purchase behavior: The effects of environmental knowl-
edge, concern and attitude. International Journal of Consumer
Studies, 31, 220–229.
Muncy, J. A., & Vitell, S. J. (1992). Consumer ethics: An
investigation of the ethical beliefs of the final consumer. Journal
of Business Research, 24(June), 297–311.
Nunnally, J., & Bernstein, I. (1994). Psychometric Theory. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Odekerken-Schroder, G., De Wulf, K., & Schumacher, P. (2003).
Strengthening outcomes of retailer–consumer relationships: The
dual impact of relationship marketing tactics and consumer
personality. Journal of Business Research, 56, 177–190.
Osyerman, D., Coon, H. M., & Kemmelmeier, M. (2002). Rethinking
individualism and collectivism: Evaluation of the theoretical
assumptions and meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 128,
3–72.
Papaoikonomou, E., Ryan, G., & Valverde, M. (2011). Mapping
ethical consumer behavior: Integrating the empirical research
and identifying future directions. Ethics and Behavior, 21(3),
197–221.
Pressey, A. D., & Mathews, P. B. (2000). Barriers to relationship
marketing in consumer retailing. Journal of Services Marketing,
14(3), 272–286.
Purdy, K. A. (1995). Environmental ethics. In J. K. Roth (Ed.),
International encyclopedia of ethics (pp. 267–270). London:
Fitzroy-Dearborn.
Rawwas, M. Y. A. (2001). Culture, personality and morality: A
typology of international consumers’ ethical beliefs. Interna-
tional Marketing Review, 18(2), 188–211.
Rawwas, M. Y. A., Swaidan, Z., & Oyman, M. (2005). Consumer
ethics: A cross-cultural study of the ethical beliefs of Turkish and
American consumers. Journal of Business Ethics, 57, 183–195.
Richins, M. L. (1983). An analysis of consumer interaction styles in
the marketplace. Journal of Consumer Research, 10, 73–82.
Roberts, J. A., & Bacon, D. R. (1997). Exploring the subtle
relationships between environmental concern and ecologically
conscious behavior. Journal of Business Research, 40(1), 79–89.
Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of
values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries.
In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology
(Vol. 25, pp. 1–65). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Shaw, D., & Shui, E. (2002). An assessment of ethical obligation and
self-identity in ethical consumer decision-making: A structural
equation modelling approach. International Journal of Con-
sumer Studies, 26(4), 286–293.
Singelis, T. M., Triandis, H. C., Bhawuk, D. P. S., & Gelfand, M. J.
(1995). Horizontal and vertical dimensions of individualism and
collectivism: A theoretical and measurement refinement. Cross-
Cultural Research, 29(3), 240–275.
Singh, J. J., Vitell, S. J., Al-Khatib, J., & Clark, I., I. I. I. (2007). The
role of moral intensity and personal moral philosophies in the
ethical decision making of marketers: A cross-cultural compar-
ison of China and the United States. Journal of International
Marketing, 15(2), 86–112.
Singhapakdi, A., Salyachivin, S., Virakul, B., & Veerayangkur, V.
(2000). Some important factors underlying ethical decision
making of managers in Thailand. Journal of Business Ethics,
27(3), 271–284.
Sivadas, E., Bruvold, N. T., & Nelson, M. R. (2008). A reduced
version of the horizontal and vertical individualism and collec-
tivism scale: A four-country assessment. Journal of Business
Research, 61, 201–210.
Smith, A., & Hume, E. C. (2005). Linking culture and ethics: A
comparison of accountants’ ethical beliefs systems in the
individualism/collectivism and power distance contexts. Journal
of Business Ethics, 62, 209–220.
Steenhaut, S., & Van Kenhove, P. (2005). Relationship commitment
and ethical consumer behavior in a retail setting: The case of
receiving too much change at the checkout. Journal of Business
Ethics, 56, 335–353.
Trevino, L. K. (1986). Ethical decision making in organizations: A
person–situation interactionist model. Academy of Management
Review, 11(3), 601–617.
Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and Collectivism. Boulder, CO:
Westview Press.
Triandis, H. C., & Singeles, T. M. (1998). Training to recognize
individual differences in collectivism and individualism within
culture. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 22(1),
35–47.
Trianids, H. C. (1993). Collectivism and individualism as cultural
syndromes. Cross-cultural Research, 27(3), 155–180.
Tsay, Y.-Y. (2009). The impacts of economic crisis on green
consumption in Taiwan. In D. F. Kocaoglu, T. R. Anderson & T.
U. Daim (Eds.), Proceedings of techology management in the
age of fundamental change conference (pp. 2367–2374). Port-
land: Portland International Center for Management of Engi-
neering and Technology.
Van Kenhove, P. V., De Wulf, K., & Steenhaut, S. (2003). The
relationship between consumers’ unethical behavior and cus-
tomer loyalty in a retail environment. Journal of Business Ethics,
44, 261–278.
Van Kenhove, P., Vermeir, I., & Verniers, S. (2001). An empirical
investigation of the relationships between ethical beliefs, ethical
ideology, political preference and need for closure. Journal of
Business Ethics, 32, 347–361.
Vitell, S. J. (2003). Consumer ethics research: Review, synthesis and
suggestions for the future. Journal of Business Ethics, 43(1/2), 33–47.
Vitell, S. J., Bing, M. N., Kristl Davison, H., Ammeter, A. P., Garner,
B. L., & Novicevic, M. M. (2009). Religiosity and moral
identity: The mediating role of self-control. Journal of Business
Ethics, 88, 601–613.
Vitell, S. J., Lumpkin, J. R., & Rawwas, M. Y. A. (1991). Consumer
ethics: An investigation of the ethical beliefs of elderly
consumers. Journal of Business Ethics, 10(5), 365–375.
Vitell, S. J., & Muncy, J. (1992). Consumer ethics: An empirical
investigation of factors influencing ethical judgments of the final
consumer. Journal of Business Ethics, 11(August), 585–597.
L.-C. Lu et al.
1 3
Vitell, S. J., & Muncy, J. (2005). The Muncy–Vitell consumer ethics
scale: A modification and application. Journal of Business
Ethics, 62, 267–275.
Vitell, S. J., Paolillo, J. G. P., & Singh, J. J. (2006). The role of money
and religiosity in determining consumers. Ethical Beliefs’,
Journal of Business Ethics, 64(2), 117–124.
Vitell, S. J., Singh, J. J., & Paolillo, J. G. P. (2007). Consumers,
ethical beliefs: The role of money and religiosity and attitude
toward business. Journal of Business Ethics, 73(4), 117–124.
Vitell, S. J., Singhapakdi, A., & Thomas, J. (2001). Consumer ethics:
An application and empirical testing of the Hunt–Vitell theory of
ethics. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 18(2), 153–178.
Webb, D., Mohr, L. A., & Harris, K. E. (2008). A re-examination of
socially responsible consumption and its measurement. Journal
of Business Research, 61(2), 91–98.
Wood, J. A., Longenecker, J. G., McKinney, J. A., & Moore, C. W.
(1988). Ethical attitudes of students and business professionals:
A study of moral reasoning. Journal of Business Ethics, 7,
249–257.
Yin, S., Wu, L., Du, L., & Chen, M. (2010). Consumers’ purchase
intention of organic food in China. Journal of the Science of
Food and Agriculture, 90, 1361–1367.
Consumer Personality and Green Buying Intention
1 3