Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 191

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 12 of the 12 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

With the best of intentions: a large sample test of the intention‐behaviour gap in pro‐environmental consumer behaviour

Open access
Grimmer, Martin, Miles, Morgan P.·2017·International Journal of Consumer Studies

Abstract

Many consumers intend to make pro‐environmental purchases; however, this is not always what occurs. A gap exists between consumer intentions to purchase environmentally friendly products and their actual purchase behaviour. The current study uses a large sample of Australian consumers (N = 772) to test Carrington, Neville and Whitwell's (2010) conceptual model of the intention‐behaviour gap. Responses showed that implementation intentions mediated the relationship between intention and pro‐environmental consumer behaviour. Behavioural control and environmental involvement were found to moderate the relationship between implementation intentions and behaviour. Shopping context was found to moderate the relationship between intention and implementation intentions. The findings have theoretical implications for furthering understanding of pro‐environmental consumer behaviour, and practical implications regarding how to generate socially beneficial behaviours.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/ijcs.12290

Cites

12 of 12 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Metadata

Authors
Grimmer, M., & Miles, M. P.
Venue
International Journal of Consumer Studies
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2016-06-26
Volume
41
Issue
1
Pages
2-10
ISSN
  • 1470-6423 (ISSN-L)
  • 1470-6431
OpenAlex
W2410808191
Cited by
191
References
12
FWCI
15.31
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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

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.