The DOI matches its Crossref record; 79 of the 79 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Thinking green, buying green? Drivers of pro-environmental purchasing behavior
Abstract
Purpose: – The theory of planned behavior (TPB) served as a framework for identifying major antecedents of everyday green purchasing behavior and for determining their relative importance. Design/methodology/approach: – The German market research institute GfK provided data (n = 12,113) from their 2012 household panel survey. A two-step structural equation modeling approach was applied to test both the measurement and the structural model. Findings: – Willingness to pay (WTP) was the strongest predictor of green purchasing behavior, followed by personal norms. The impact of attitude is insignificant. This implies an attitude – behavior gap. Research limitations/implications: – Individuals overestimate their self-reported WTP and behavior, which suggests that the share of explained variance is in reality lower. It has to be doubted whether consumers are objectively able to judge products by their environmental impact. Even if consumers are willing to buy a “greener” product, their subjective evaluation might be incorrect. Further research should be based on actual purchasing data. In addition, the attitude – behavior gap should be scrutinized by further research to identify further barriers to green consumption. Practical implications: – Consumers need to be aware that their consumption behavior can make a difference. They have to value the benefits of green products and understand why these are priced higher. Firms can apply pricing and promotional strategies addressing personal norms and inducing a higher WTP to capitalize on the opportunities of the green market segment. Originality/value: – The study integrates WTP and personal norms as critical predictors into the TPB and furthermore expands the extant literature on green purchasing behavior to cover daily consumer goods extending beyond organic food. This enhances understanding of the structure of the constructs and determines their relative importance.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.2307/3151312 · Cited by 109,314
Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.1177/002224378101800104 · Cited by 109,190
The theory of planned behavior
Ajzen, I. (1991) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-t · Cited by 90,587
Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.411 · Cited by 41,941
Efficacy of the Theory of Planned Behaviour: A meta‐analytic review
Armitage, C. J., & Conner, M. (2001) · British Journal of Social Psychology · doi:10.1348/014466601164939 · Cited by 9,970
Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research.
Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener, D. T., MacCallum, R. C., & Strahan, E. J. (1999) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/1082-989x.4.3.272 · Cited by 9,587
Kollmuss, A., & Agyeman, J. (2002) · Environmental Education Research · doi:10.1080/13504620220145401 · Cited by 8,866
Perceived Behavioral Control, Self‐Efficacy, Locus of Control, and the Theory of Planned Behavior 1
Ajzen, I. (2002) · Journal of Applied Social Psychology · doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2002.tb00236.x · Cited by 7,629
Marsh, H. W., Hau, K.-T., & Wen, Z. (2004) · Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal · doi:10.1207/s15328007sem1103_2 · Cited by 6,691
Normative Influences on Altruism
Schwartz, S. H. (1977) · Advances in Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/s0065-2601(08)60358-5 · Cited by 5,364
Cited by
Predicting green product consumption using theory of planned behavior and reasoned action
Paul, J., Modi, A., & Patel, J. (2016) · Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services · doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2015.11.006 · Cited by 2,399
Prakash, G., & Pathak, P. (2017) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.09.116 · Cited by 632
Why Do Consumers Make Green Purchase Decisions? Insights from a Systematic Review
Zhang, X., & Dong, F. (2020) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph17186607 · Cited by 337
Jacobs, K., Petersen, L., Hörisch, J., & Battenfeld, D. (2018) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.07.320 · Cited by 330
A systematic review of drivers influencing consumer willingness to pay for organic food
Katt, F., & Meixner, O. (2020) · Trends in Food Science & Technology · doi:10.1016/j.tifs.2020.04.029 · Cited by 298
Metadata
- Authors
- Moser, A. K.
- Venue
- Journal of Consumer Marketing
- Publisher
- Emerald
- Published
- 2015-05-11
- Volume
- 32
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 167-175
- ISSN
- 0736-3761 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1601195269
- Cited by
- 657
- References
- 79
- FWCI
- 69.04
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Thinking green, buying green? Drivers of pro-environmental purchasing behavior. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1108/jcm-10-2014-1179
- The paper
- Moser, A. K. (2015). Thinking green, buying green? Drivers of pro-environmental purchasing behavior. Journal of Consumer Marketing. https://doi.org/10.1108/jcm-10-2014-1179
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.