antecedents of egyptian consumers’.pdf

Antecedents of Egyptian Consumers’Green Purchase Intentions:

A Hierarchical MultivariateRegression Model

Mohamed M. Mostafa

ABSTRACT. This study investigates the influence of various attitudi-nal and psychographic factors on the green purchase behavior of Egyp-tian consumers. Using a large sample of 1093 consumers, a survey wasdeveloped and administered across Egypt. The findings from the hierar-chical multiple regression model confirm the influence of the consum-ers’ ecological knowledge, concern, attitudes, altruism, and perceivedeffectiveness, among other factors, on their intention to purchase greenproducts. Results show that skepticism towards environmental claims isnegatively related to consumers’ intention to buy green products. Thestudy also discusses how the present findings may help policy makersand marketers alike to fine-tune their environmental and marketing pro-grams. [Article copies available for a fee from The Haworth Document Deliv-ery Service: 1-800-HAWORTH. E-mail address: <[email protected]> Website: <http://www.HaworthPress.com> © 2006 by The HaworthPress, Inc. All rights reserved.]

KEYWORDS. Green marketing, consumer behavior, multiple hierar-chical regression, Egypt

Mohamed M. Mostafa, PhD, is affiliated with the College of Business Administra-tion, Gulf University for Science and Technology, PO Box 7207, Hawaly 32093, Ku-wait (E-mail: [email protected]).

Journal of International Consumer Marketing, Vol. 19(2) 2006Available online at http://jicm.haworthpress.com

© 2006 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.doi:10.1300/J046v19n02_06 97

mailto:[email protected]


http://www.HaworthPress.com


http://jicm.haworthpress.com

INTRODUCTION

Green consumerism is described as being a multifaceted concept,which includes preservation of the environment, minimization of pollu-tion, responsible use of non-renewable resources, and animal welfareand species preservation (McEachern and McClean, 2002). Green orenvironmentally friendly products are broadly defined as products thatwill not pollute the earth or deplore natural resources, and can be recy-cled or conserved (Shamdasani et al., 1993). Some examples of theseproducts are household items manufactured with post-consumer plas-tics or paper, recyclable or reusable packaging, energy-efficient lightbulbs, and detergents containing ingredients that are biodegradable, non-polluting, and free of synthetic dyes or perfumes.

Evidence suggests that a growing number of consumers in the U.S. andWestern Europe are becoming more environmentally responsible interms of their personal habits and lifestyles (Stone et al., 1995). In aworldwide study, Starch (1996) identified the total number of green con-sumers as being 15%. In the UK, 10% are recognized as being hardcoregreen consumers (Curlo, 1999). Many U.S. polls since the 1990s indicatethat the percentage of consumers with a strong degree of environmentalawareness ranges from 37 to 96 (Erickson and Kramer-Leblanc, 1991).Recent polls also report that 50% of Americans claim to look for environ-mental labels and to switch brands based on environment-friendliness(Phillips, 1999). In a study of Australian consumers, Suchard and Pol-onsky (1991) found that 61.5% of the respondents would pay more forenvironmentally safe products, while 22.2% were unsure if they wouldpay more for green products. On average, those respondents who indi-cated that they would pay more for green products were willing to pay be-tween 15% and 20% more.

As a result of the increasing number of green consumers, marketers aretargeting the green segment of the population. Recycled paper and plasticgoods and dolphin-safe tuna are examples of products positioned on thebasis of environmental appeal (Banerjee et al., 1995). Marketers are alsoincorporating the environment into many marketing activities, includingproduct and package design (Bhat, 1993; Polonsky et al., 1997) and pric-ing (Kapelianis and Strachan, 1996). Marketers have even gone as far asto develop specific models for the development of green advertising andgreen marketing strategy (McDaniel and Rylander, 1993; Menon andMenon, 1997). Nowadays, environmental consciousness is not only anideology of activists, but also a matter of “market competition” (McClo-skey and Maddock, 1994), which influences consumer behavior (Follows

98 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL CONSUMER MARKETING

and Jobber, 1999). D’Souza (2004) claims that the green vision is a real-ity and needs to be more functionally understood to allow marketers todevelop strategies aimed to meet the green consumers’ needs.

Compared with what has been happening in the West, consumers inEgypt, as well as in the wider context of the Arab world, are just at thestage of green awakening. For example, United Arab Emirates FederalLaw No 24 concerning the protection of the environment came intoeffect only in February 2000. This law provides strong protection tothe environment from the adverse impact created by external activities(Hilotin, 2004). In Jordan, Law of Environmental Protection (LEP) wasissued in 1995 (Jahamani, 2003). This may explain the fact that little isunderstood about consumers’ intentions to purchase environmentallyfriendly products in this part of the world. Indeed, researchers agreethat very little research has been done concerning cross-cultural studieson environmental attitudes or behavior of different ethnic, cultural, orreligious groups (Klineberg, 1998; Schultz and Zelezny, 1999).

Systematic research into the attributions that consumers in Egyptmake about their pro-environmental behavior and into the relationshipsbetween these attributions is virtually nonexistent. This is surprising be-cause “understanding consumers’ perceptions of cause-and-effect rela-tionships would seem to be central to consumer behavior” (Folkes, 1988,p. 548). In an increasingly globalized marketplace, there is evidencethat knowledge of environmental issues, attitudes toward ecologicalproblems, and environmentally friendly behaviors vary across cultures(Johnson et al., 2004; Laroche et al., 2002). The timing is, therefore,right for consumer research that examines factors that motivate theadoption of green behaviors and products in an Arab non-Western con-text. Virtually no pertinent research has been undertaken in Egypt or theArab world in the field of green marketing. To remedy this void in theliterature, this study attempts to look at the influence of various psycho-graphic and attitudinal factors on the green purchase behavior of Egyp-tian consumers. However, similar findings are expected in other Arabcountries. Muna (1980) suggests that Arab societies (moderate and tra-ditional) have an inner similarity and share certain values despite theobvious differences in the economic and political attainments of theirmembers. These similarities are based on the notion that Arab culturalvalues and norms are formed based on religious beliefs as well as othercultural factors such as the more collectivistic (Hofstede, 1980) andhigh-context (Hall, 1976) nature of Arabic culture. Souiden (2002) sug-gests that there are a number of market communalities among Arabcountries in terms of consumers’ response to certain marketing stimuli.

Mohamed M. Mostafa 99

Amine and Cavusgil (1990) also reported that many communalities ex-ist among Arab countries, permitting the application of standardizedmarketing strategies in these countries.

This paper first presents the research objective followed by relevantliterature review and hypotheses development. Next, methodology andresults are discussed followed by implications section. Finally, researchlimitations and directions for future research are presented. In thisstudy, the terms “green,” “environmentally friendly” and “environmen-tally conscious” are used interchangeably.

RESEARCH OBJECTIVE

The objective of this research is to identify those factors that influ-ence the intention to buy environmentally responsible products amongEgyptian consumers. Seeking to determine factors that affect green pur-chase decisions is important in theory development, policy decisions,and methodological reasons. Research on eco-orientation is importantfrom a theoretical standpoint because even though environmental con-cerns are part of corporate social responsibility and ethics frameworks,researchers have largely ignored eco-specific topics related to con-sumer behavior, values, and culture. From a public policy standpoint, itis important to know what motivates consumers to buy environmentallyfriendly products if a pro-environmental change policy is to be success-fully implemented. Finally, from a methodological measurement stand-point, this research seeks to extend our knowledge about environmentallyfriendly behaviors to the Arab world where virtually no research hasbeen conducted in the realm of eco-orientation.

LITERATURE REVIEWAND HYPOTHESES DEVELOPMENT

Drawing on research from North America, Australasia, and Europe,there is a wealth of evidence that suggests that a wide variety of factorsinfluence pro-environmental behavior and, in turn, green purchase be-havior. These can be characterized as environmental knowledge, envi-ronmental concern, attitudes toward green products, perceived consumereffectiveness, altruism and skepticism towards environmental claims.


Knowledge

Environmental knowledge can be defined as “a general knowledge offacts, concepts, and relationships concerning the natural environment andits major ecosystems” (Fryxell and Lo, 2003, p. 45). Thus, environmentalknowledge involves what people know about the environment, key rela-tionships leading to environmental aspects or impacts, an appreciation of“whole systems,” and collective responsibilities necessary for sustainabledevelopment. Schahn and Holzer (1990) have distinguished two types ofknowledge when examining environmental action: abstract and concrete.The former relates to knowledge concerning environmental issues: prob-lems, causes, solutions and so on. The latter relates to behavioral knowl-edge that can be utilized and acted upon. Hines et al. (1987) argued, intheir analysis of 128 previous studies, that abstract knowledge was themost significant type when predicting environmental action. They havenoted an average correlation of 0.30 between ecological knowledge andbehavior. This moderately, but statistically significant positive associa-tion, has been further supported by Grunert’s (1993) study on the pur-chase of green products. It was similarly found that when individuals whoare more actively engaged in environmental issues were compared withless actively engaged individuals, the single factor which most clearlydifferentiated between the groups was knowledge about the specificproblem and how to act in order to most effectively deal with it (Stern,1992). In a similar vein, Simmons and Widmar (1990) concluded thatlack of knowledge was a substantial barrier to recycling amongst peoplewith positive conservation attitudes. Based on a large sample (n = 1,388) ofpeople living in rural communities in Poland, Rokicka (2002) examinedthe structure, intensity, and determinants of pro-ecological attitudes. Re-sults suggest that attaining a high level of environmental knowledge pro-duces much better pro-environmental behavior. Very few studies haveshown that environmental knowledge has little bearing on the perfor-mance of environmentally friendly acts. For example, in a study of waterconservation (Watson et al., 1992), virtually no correlation was observedbetween knowledge and attitude, or between knowledge and intention. Inshort, on weighing all the foregoing empirical results, it appears that theconventional perspective–that a positive relationship between environ-mental knowledge and behavior exists–still prevails. Thus, it is hypothe-sized as follows:

H1: Environmental knowledge is positively related to consumers’intention to purchase green products.


Concern

Environmental concern has been traditionally viewed as a unidimen-sional construct ranging from unconcerned about the environment at thelow end to concerned at the high end, as measured by the new environ-mental paradigm (Milfont and Duckitt, 2004). On the other hand, Schultz(2000) proposed that environmental concerns have three correlatedfactors: concern for the self (egoistic), other people (altruistic), and thebiosphere (biospheric). Academic studies examining environmentalconcern include those of Fritzsche and Dueher (1982) who examinedthe effects of concern for the environment on the choice of deodorantcontainer, and Kinnear and Taylor (1973) who examined the effects ofecological concern on attitudes towards phosphates in laundry deter-gents. Other studies include Prothero and McDonagh (1992), examin-ing green cosmetics and toiletries, and Barr et al. (2003) examiningrecycled packaging. Baldassare and Katz (1992) and Seguin et al.(1998) have argued that environmental concern can have a significantimpact on the degree to which individuals are motivated to change be-havioral practices so as to attempt to alleviate the problem. In a numberof studies, environmental concern has been found to be a major determi-nant for buying organic food (e.g., Grunert, 1993). However, it shouldbe noted that reviews of the many studies analyzing the direct empiricalrelationship between environmental concern and behavior all agree inthe conclusion that this relation is low to moderate (e.g., Hines et al.,1987). Taken together, the general attitude toward environmental con-cern seems to explain not more than 10 per cent variance of specificenvironmental behaviors (Bamberg, 2003). Thus, it is hypothesized asfollows:

H2: Environmental concern is positively related to consumers’ in-tention to purchase green products.

Attitudes

The social psychology literature on behavioral research has estab-lished attitudes as important predictors of behavior, behavioral intention,and explanatory factors of variants in individual behavior (Kotchen andReiling, 2000). Many studies have specifically focused on the relation-ship between environmental attitudes and environmentally related behav-iors. These studies include investigations of environmental attitudes andpolitical participation (Mohai, 1990), choice of recreational activities


(Luzar et al., 1995), and willingness to modify behavior (Walsh andMcGuire, 1992). Consumer attitudes have also been used in past studiesto predict energy conservation and ecologically conscious purchase anduse of products. Kassarjian (1971) studied consumers’ reaction toward agasoline that reduced air pollution and found that attitude toward air pol-lution was the most important variable in determining consumers’ behav-ior toward the product. In a study conducted in Germany, Balderjahn(1988) found that a positive attitude toward ecologically conscious livingresulted in ecologically responsible buying and using of products, includ-ing the use of automobiles. It also prompted consumers to publicly showenvironmental concern by signing ecologically relevant petitions andsupporting or joining an antipollution organization. The usual findingsreveal a strong association between environmental attitude and ecologi-cal behavior (e.g., Lynne and Rola, 1988). However, a number of studieshave found either a moderate relationship between environmental atti-tude and ecological behavior (e.g., Axelrod and Lehman, 1993; Smithet al., 1994) or a weak relationship (e.g., Berger and Corbin, 1992). Thus,it is hypothesized as follows:

H3: Environmental attitudes are positively related to consumers’intention to purchase green products.

Perceived Consumer Effectiveness

In the environmental domain, different concepts of perceived controlare used; for instance, internal locus of control (Arbuthnot, 1977), self-efficacy (Axelrod and Lehman, 1993; Rice et al., 1996), and feelings ofpowerlessness (Busch-Rossnagel and Weigel, 1984). Because the bene-fits that accrue from pro-environmental behaviors are future-oriented andunlikely to benefit directly the person performing the behavior, it is likelythat fundamental concepts that relate to people’s beliefs about their abil-ity to influence future outcomes and their desire to provide benefits forothers may influence pro-environmental beliefs and behaviors (McCartyand Shrum, 2001). Hines et al.’s (1987) meta analysis showed that in 15different studies individuals with high perceived effectiveness more oftenbehaved in an environmentally responsible manner than did individualswith an external locus of control (individuals who perceive that changesare due to random events). Shamdasani et al. (1993) found that greenconsumers are more internally controlled as they believe that an individ-ual consumer can be effective in environmental protection. Berger andCorbin (1992) found that perceived consumer effectiveness is a very


influential moderator of the environmental attitude-consumer behaviorrelationship. Roberts (1996) also found that 33% of the variation in eco-logically conscious consumer behavior can be explained by perceivedconsumer effectiveness. In a similar vein, Ellen et al. (1991) found thatperceived consumer effectiveness was a significant predictor of three en-vironmental behaviors: purchasing, recycling, and contributing to envi-ronmental groups. Thus, it is hypothesized as follows:

H4: Perceived consumer effectiveness is positively related to con-sumers’ intention to purchase green products.

Altruism

Schwartz (1977) theory of altruism suggests that pro-environmentalbehavior becomes more probable when an individual is aware of harm-ful consequences to others from a state of the environment and whenthat person ascribes responsibility for changing the offending environ-mental condition. Previous studies (e.g., Stern et al., 1993) examinedthe role that social altruism (concern for the welfare of others), andbiospheric altruism (a concern for the non-human elements of the envi-ronment) play in influencing green behavior. The findings suggest thatthe two constructs positively influence consumers’ green behavior.Thus, it is hypothesized as follows:

H5: Altruism is positively related to consumers’ intention to pur-chase green products.

Skepticism Towards Environmental Claims

There is considerable evidence to suggest that the much-vaunted con-sumer concern for the environment and concomitant desire for greenproducts as not subsequently translated into purchase behavior (Crane,2000). Some scholars claim that consumers’ backlash to environmentalmarketing is due to false, unsubstantiated or exaggerated claims (Carlsonet al., 1993). Davis (1991) claims that terms such as biodegradable, re-cyclable, and environmentally friendly have been used by many firms fordescribing benefits, which were unproven, inconclusive, or unrealistic.Calfee and Ringold (1988) argue that consumers are by nature skepticalof environmental claims unless they have credible bases for evaluatingthe claims. Thus, it is hypothesized as follows:


H6: Skepticism towards environmental claims is negatively re-lated to consumers’ intention to purchase green products.

METHOD

Sample

The questionnaire used in this study was an attractive three-pagebooklet with a cover page of brief instructions. Before conducting thecomprehensive survey, three marketing professors were first invited toassess the foregoing measurement instrument. After one pre-test with40 subjects, the final version of the questionnaire included two sections.The first section consisted of demographic data such as age, sex, andeducation level. The second section covered the following topics: per-ceived environmental knowledge, environmental concern, green pur-chase attitude, perceived consumer effectiveness, altruism, skepticismtowards environmental claims, and green purchase intention.

Collecting data by mail surveys in the Arab world has been very dif-ficult (Harzing, 1997; Nasif et al., 1991). In order to ensure an accept-able number of responses, a convenience sample was used. A networkof contacts at universities throughout Egypt cooperated in distributingand returning the questionnaire. All of the contacts were university pro-fessors or administrators. Each contact received a packet containingbetween 100 and 200 questionnaires, depending on the number of stu-dents with whom they interacted. The questionnaires were adminis-tered to groups of students who completed them in the classroom.Students responded voluntarily and were not compensated for theirparticipation.

A total of 1500 questionnaires was distributed. Confidentiality of re-sponses was emphasized in the cover letter with the title “Confidentialsurvey” and in the text. To reduce social desirability artifacts, the coverletter indicated that the survey seeks “attitudes towards green purchase”and nothing else. In total, 1274 responses were received by the cut-offdate, but 181 questionnaires were discarded because the respondentsfailed to complete the research instrument appropriately. The effectivesample size, thus, was 1093. Around half of the participants were fe-males (52.8 per cent). Almost 22 per cent of the students were seniors,17 per cent juniors, 25 per cent sophomore, 27 per cent freshmen, and9 per cent graduate students. Average age in the sample was 22.7.


Although the extent to which student subjects represent the generalpopulation can be debated (Greenberg, 1987; Gordon et al., 1987), usinguniversity students as subjects has been a research method practicedworldwide for many years, mainly for their accessibility to the researcherand homogeneity as a group (Calder et al., 1981). U.S. research foundmarketing students’ responses to questions relating to environmentalconsciousness to be similar to those recorded by the general public as awhole (Synodinos, 1991). In fact, previous research has reported thatsociodemographic characteristics have minor importance for explainingthe variance in environmental attitudes/beliefs and ecological behavior(e.g., Tanner et al., 2004).

Measures

All constructs used in this study were measured by various items on5-point Likert-type scale (1 = Completely disagree to 5 = Completelyagree). It is widely believed that attitudes are best measured by way ofmultiple measures and the general trend in measuring environmentalissues is via several items instead of single item questions (Gill et al.,1986). The items contain an explicit key expression representing thespecific construct (see Appendix). Positive and negative formulationsof the items were presented for guaranteeing the content balance of thestudy. All items are based on scales that have been previously vali-dated.

Perceived environmental knowledge was measured using the per-ceived knowledge of environmental issues scale (Ellen et al., 1997).The scale was found to be valid and reliable with reported � value of0.86 (Mohr et al., 1998). This scale has been chosen because other ef-forts are either seriously dated or unreliable or both. For exampleMaloney et al. (1975) proposed a 15-item instrument to measure envi-ronmental knowledge. Later, Benton (1994) encountered unacceptableinternal consistency in using this scale (� = 0.38). Recent use of thescale has also given highly skewed distributions, with a high number ofrespondents giving correct answers to the questions utilized, renderingthe data collected unusable (Kristensen and Grunert, 1991). Weaver(2002) developed a 3-item environmental knowledge scale. These itemsinclude knowledge about the greenhouse effect, the relationship be-tween pesticides and chemicals used in food and human health, and theenvironmental consequences of car pollution. Initially these three itemswere grouped together as an index, but the index did not meet reliabilitystandards with Cronbach’s alpha well below 0.5.


Unlike previous research (e.g., Chan 2001; Chan and Lau, 2000), wemeasure knowledge of environmental issues using perceived environ-mental knowledge instead of factual environmental knowledge. Rol-ston and Di Benedetto (1994) warned researchers against measuringfactual consumer knowledge about environmental issues since evenexperts cannot agree on a product’s effect on the environment. In fact,research documents the low level of knowledge consumers have aboutenvironmental issues and the meaning of environmental terms (e.g., El-len, 1994). In their review of 24 surveys on environmental issues, Hastaket al. (1994) report, for example, that a majority of consumers know theterm recyclable, but many do not have a detailed understanding of theterm and its implications for purchasing decisions.

There have been numerous environmental concern scales that havebeen developed each with various advantages and disadvantages; how-ever, the new NEP scale was chosen for use in the present study owingto its sound psychometric properties and relatively small number ofitems. The new, revised environmental paradigm (NEP) scale (Dunlapet al., 2000) is an updated and expanded 15-item version of its predeces-sor, which has been used for over two decades (Dunlap and Van Liere,1978). While several of the items remain, the new NEP differs in theway items are selected to elicit five facets of environmental concern: re-ality of limits to growth; anti-anthropocentrism; the fragility of Nature’sbalance; rejection of the idea that humans are exempt from the con-straints of Nature; and the possibility of an eco-crisis or ecological ca-tastrophe. Analysis of new NEP results have revealed predictive andconstruct validity in addition to a marginal increase of internal consis-tency from the original scale (Dunlap et al., 2000).

In the environmental psychology literature, NEP “is commonly takento measure general environmental concern” (Poortinga et al., 2004,p. 72). The scale has been used to examine environmental concern inthe United States (e.g., Caron, 1989; Nooney et al., 2003), Canada (Ed-gell and Nowell, 1989), Sweden (Widegren, 1998), the Baltic States(Gooch, 1995), Turkey (Furman, 1998), and Japan (Pierce et al., 1987).This study represents the first application of the scale in the Arabworld.

Four items from a scale developed by Paulhus (1983) were used tomeasure perceived consumer effectiveness. Paulhus partitioned locusof control into three distinct behavioral spheres; the sphere deemedmost appropriate for the current study was control in societal situations.The scale was found to be valid and reliable with reported � value of0.82 (McCarty and Shrum, 2001).


Four items from a scale developed by Mohr et al. (1998) were used tomeasure skepticism toward environmental claims. This tool is a mea-sure of skepticism toward marketing communications that make envi-ronmental claims. The scale was found to be valid and reliable withreported � value of 0.79 (Mohr et al., 1998).

Three items from a scale developed by Stern et al. (1993) were usedto measure altruism. The reported reliability of the scale (Stern et al.,1993) was only moderate (� = 0.62) which is not surprising given thesmall number of items used to construct the scale.

Green purchase attitude was measured using a 3-item scale thatfound to be valid and reliable (Taylor and Todd, 1995). The three state-ments coded by 5-point semantic-differential scales were employed inprevious research to operationalize the global measure of attitudes to-ward green purchase (Chan, 2001).

Finally, Green purchase intention was also measured using a 3- itemscale adapted from Li (1997) and utilized by Chan (2001) to study theintention of Chinese consumers to engage in green purchase behavior.

Procedures

The Arabic version of the scales was created through careful transla-tion and back-translation techniques (Candell and Hulin, 1987; McGorr,2000). First, the author translated the scale items into Arabic. Then,these Arabic items were back-translated into English by a bilingualexpert to make sure that the original content was kept in translation todecrease discrepancies between the English and the Arabic measure-ments. No individual item was problematic in translation. In translatingthe scale items into Arabic, the author followed Malinowski’s (1935)technique of translation, which involves the following four steps:

1. An interlinear, or word-by-word, translation,2. a “free” translation in which clarifying terms, conjunction, etc.,

are added and the words reinterpreted,3. an analysis and collation of the two translations, leading to4. a contextual specification of meaning.

The translated version was cross-checked independently by anothergroup of bilingual researchers and was pre-tested to allow final adjust-ments before full-scale applications. Since the scales that were used tomeasure the general environmental attitudes and knowledge domains hadnot previously been cross-culturally validated in an Arab non-Western


context, the calculation of item-total correlations for the pooled data wasfirst used as a basis for detecting poor items. Items with item-total corre-lation of 0.30 or less were eliminated from the analysis. Following rec-ommendations by Anderson and Gerbing (1988), the retained items weresubjected to an exploratory principal component analysis, separately foreach scale, to further investigate the unidimensionality of the scales. Wechose the oblique rotation since the attitude and behavioral dimensionsare expected to be correlated among themselves. Advocates of the ob-lique rotation assert that in the real world, important factors are likely tobe correlated; thus searching for unrelated factors is unrealistic (Dixon,1993). Finally, the retained items were combined into sum scales andreliabilities and means were calculated.

Three items were eliminated from the NEP scale to produce an ac-ceptable reliability. This is consistent with previous research reportingthe use of the NEP scale cross-culturally. For example, Bechtel et al.(1999) eliminated two items from the NEP scale when it was adminis-tered in Brazil. Table 1 reports construct measures, descriptive statis-tics, and reliabilities. The reliabilities, measured with Cronbach’s alpha,ranged from 0.76 to 0.95. Cronbach’s alpha is considered for the mostpart to be a conservative estimate of a construct’s reliability (Carminesand Zeller, 1983). For the statistical analysis of the questionnaires,SPSS 13.0 was selected because of its ability to extensively analyzequantitative data.


TABLE 1. Construct Measures and Descriptive Statistics (n =1093)

Construct Source Final No.of items

Scale Range Mean St. Dev. Alpha

Perceived consumereffectiveness

McCarty and Shrum(2001)

4 5-point Likert type 4 to 20 16.83 2.71 0.817

New environmentparadigm

Dunlap et al. (2000) 12 5-point Likert type 12 to 60 47.77 7.54 0.804

Perceived environmentalknowledge

Ellen et al. (1997) 5 5-point Likert type 5 to 25 18.66 3.15 0.778

Green purchaseattitudes

Chan (2001) 3 5-point Likert typesemantic differential

3 to 15 10.74 2,67 0.932

Green purchaseintention

Li (1997) 3 5-point Likert type 3 to 15 10.67 2.56 0.926

Skepticism towardsenvironmental claims

Mohr et al. (1998) 4 5-point Likert type 4 to 20 6.84 1.59 0.946

Altruism Stern et al. (1993) 3 5-point Likert type 3 to 15 8.21 2.06 0.758

RESULTS

Product-Moment Correlations

Though it does not prove causation, correlation can serve as predictorof causation (Sekaran, 2000). The product moment correlations be-tween the variables are shown in Table 2. This table was constructed toget a feel for the associations among the six constructs constituting themodel. Most of the correlation coefficients were significant and had theexpected sign. Thus the constructs, in general, are highly related. How-ever, this result should be interpreted with some caution due to the largesample size.

Hierarchical Regression Analysis

Hierarchical regression analysis was used to test the research hypoth-eses. This method is also known as incremental variance partitioning(Pedhazur, 1982). This approach allows us to focus on the variablesforming the hypotheses, and at the same time sieve out the influence of


TABLE 2. Product-Moment Correlation Matrix

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. ALT

2. NEP 0.297**

3. PEK 0.335** 0.355**

4. GPI 0.575** 0.398** 0.486**

5. PCE 0.452** 0.289** 0.419** 0.668**

6. GPA 0.607** 0.271** 0.597** 0.727** 0.541**

7. SEC 0.042 0.074* �0.048 �0.238** 0.190** �0.307**

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

Note:

ALT = Altruism

NEP = Environmental concern

PEK = Perceived environmental knowledge

GPI = Green purchase intentions

PCE = Perceived consumer effectiveness

GPA = Green purchase attitudes

SEC = Skepticism towards environmental claims

the control variables that might have a moderating effect on consumers’green purchase decisions. Also this method allows the researcher tocontrol the order of the variables entered into the regression model, al-lowing us to assess the incremental predictive ability of any variable ofinterest (McQuarrie, 1988). Prior research has demonstrated that greenpurchase intention can be influenced by demographic characteristics(e.g., Balderjahn, 1988; Blo- cker and Eckberg, 1997). Therefore, threedemographic variables (gender, age, and education) were included asthe first of four blocks in hierarchical multiple regression. Demographicvariables were included as controls to reduce the possibility of spuriousrelationships based on these types of personal characteristics. Genderwas included as a control variable because Western research indicatesthat females are somewhat more likely to purchase green products(Zelezny et al., 2000). This variable was coded as 1 for males and 0 forfemales. Age was included as a control variable because the era inwhich one was brought up is important in shaping environmental val-ues. Education was included, given its obvious relationship to environ-mental knowledge. This was coded as an ordinal scale from 1 (freshman)through 5 (postgraduate degree).

Table 3 shows a summary of results of the hierarchical regressionanalysis. As seen in Table 3, when the three demographic variableswere entered into the regression equation in the first step, the coefficientof determination (R2) was found to be 0.112 indicating that 11.2 percent of green purchase intention is explained by these demographicvariables. This result confirms Balderjahn (1988) and Shrum et al.’s(1994) studies, which found that demographic and socio-economicvariables such as education, income, and family size are only of limitedvalue in explaining different degrees of environmental attitudes. In asimilar vein, Olli et al. (2001) found that sociodemographic correlatesexplain only 10 % of environmental acts.

Following the recommendation of Mainieri et al. (1997), environmen-tal knowledge and environmental concern were our second entry. This isbecause knowledge and concern are fundamental to attitudes and inten-tional behavior. By adding the two independent variables in step 2, R2

increased to 0.458 or 45.8 per cent. This R2 change (0.346) is significant(p < 0.001). This implies that the additional 34.6 per cent of variation inconsumers’ intention to purchase green products is explained by environ-mental knowledge and environmental concern.

In the third step, perceived consumer effectiveness, altruism, andskepticism towards environmental claims scales were entered. The de-cision to enter these three independent variables is based on Ajzen and


Fishbein’s (1980) theory that specific attitudes are better than generalattitudes as predictors of related behavior. When the three scales wereentered the R2 increased from 45.8 per cent to 66.2 per cent indicating achange of 20.4 per cent, which is significant (p < 0.001).

In the fourth and final step, the green purchase attitudes scale wasentered in the equation in order to gauge its impact as an independent


TABLE 3. Hierarchical Regression Results

StandardizedCoefficients

T SIG. R2 R2

ChangeF Change SIG. F

Change

Beta

Model 1

(Constant) 16.807 0.000 0.112 0.112 45.780 0.000

Age 0.118 1.819 0.069

Sex �0.758 �10.269 0.000

Education �0.660 �7.201 0.000

Model 2

(Constant) 14.190 0.000 0.458 0.346 347.148 0.000

Age �0.070 �1.330 0.184

Sex �0.733 �13.388 0.000

Education �1.013 �13.827 0.000

Knowledge 0.563 20.483 0.000

Concern 0.378 14.355 0.000

Model 3

(Constant) �0.5930 0.554 0.662 0.204 218.562 0.000

Age �0.382 �8.048 0.000

Sex �0.469 �9.729 0.000

Education �0.243 �3.626 0.000

Knowledge 0.251 9.986 0.000

Concern 0.213 9.660 0.000

Perceived control 0.345 15.378 0.000

Altruism 0.329 13.983 0.000

Skepticism 0.069 3.572 0.000

Model 4

(Constant) �1.646 0.100 0.764 0.102 468.704 0.000

Age �0.621 �15.073 0.000

Sex �0.208 �4.958 0.000

Education 0.000 0.002 0.998

Knowledge 0.060 2.613 0.009

Concern 0.345 17.758 0.000

Perceived control 0.202 10.184 0.000

Altruism 0.135 6.276 0.000

Skepticism �0.136 �7.296 0.000

Attitudes 0.640 21.650 0.000

predictor. From the final regression equation (model 4), it can be seenthat R2 increased from 66.2 per cent to 76.4 per cent indicating a changeof 10.2 per cent, which is significant (p < 0.001). Thus, the final modelexplains 76.4 per cent of the variation in consumers’ intention topurchase green products.

From the final regression model, we found perceived environmentalknowledge to be positively and significantly (at the 0.01 level) relatedto ecologically favorable attitudes and behaviors (� = 0.060). This re-sult supports the first hypothesis. This finding also confirms many pre-vious studies, which found that environmental knowledge positivelyaffects pro-environmental intention and behavior (e.g., Amyx et al.,1994; Chan, 1999).

The standardized coefficient for environmental concern is positive(� = 0.345) and significant at the 0.001 level, which supports the secondhypothesis. The positive and significant relationship between environ-mental concern as measured by the NEP scale supports also previousresearch which found that a pro-ecological orientation or “seeing theworld ecologically,” reflected by a high score on the NEP scale led topro-environmental beliefs and attitudes on a wide range of issues (Pierceet al., 1999; Stern et al., 1993).

We found environmental attitudes to be positively and significantly(at the 0.01 level) related to green purchase intention (� = 0.640). Thisresult supports the third hypothesis. This finding also confirms manyprevious studies, which found that environmental attitudes positivelyaffect pro-environmental intention and behavior (e.g., Arcury, 1990;Chan, 1999).

The standardized coefficient for perceived consumer effectiveness ispositive (� = 0.202) and significant at the 0.001 level. The strong pos-itive relationship found in this study between perceived consumer effec-tiveness and green purchase intention provides a strong support to thefourth hypothesis. Findings of previous research have been fairly con-clusive that perceived consumer effectiveness is positively correlatedwith ecologically conscious consumer behavior. Roberts (1996) foundthat perceived consumer effectiveness was the single strongest predictorof ecologically conscious consumer behavior.

The standardized coefficient for altruism is positive (� = 0.135) andsignificant at the 0.001 level. This finding supports the fifth hypothesis.This result also corroborates the findings of Straughan and Roberts(1999) who found that the inclusion of altruism in the model predictinggreen consumer behavior adds significantly to past efforts (e.g., Roberts,1996).


The standardized coefficient for skepticism toward environmentalclaims is negative (� = �0.136) and significant at the 0.001 level. Thisresult strongly supports the sixth hypothesis. This result also lendsstrong support to Gray-Lee et al.’s (1994) findings, which suggest thatone reason for green consumers’ lack of support of green products maybe the confusion about and skepticism toward green marketing commu-nications.

IMPLICATIONS

Research Implications

Lee and Green (1991) claim that while most of the major consumer be-havior models have been developed and tested in the West, relatively lit-tle attention has been devoted to investigating the validity of these modelsunder other cultural settings. However, this cross-cultural testing is es-sential as most behavioral theories are rooted in psychology, which, inturn, is heavily bound by cultural values (Chan and Lau, 1998). In this re-search, we developed a model that has proved to be reasonably competentin explaining Egyptian consumers’ green purchase intentional behavior.Developing such models is important for bridging the gap of knowledgethat currently exists between practitioners (as evidenced by widespreaduse of green products) and academic researchers (as evidenced by thelack of empirical research on green purchase behavior).

The high environmental concern among Egyptian consumers found inthis study contradicts previous research conducted in the West. Some au-thors have argued that environmental concern is a post-material value–aset of attitudes that develops among wealthy people once the more basicneeds of food and safety have been met (e.g., Buttel, 1992; Inglehart,1990). This line of reasoning leads to the prediction that developing na-tions like Egypt should be less concerned about environmental issuesthan the U.S. or European countries. Our results show that the tradition-al wisdom that environmental concern is a luxury afforded by only thewealthy is unfounded cross-culturally.

Marketing Implications

The knowledge of the green consumer is important for the whole sup-ply chain and especially for the retailers, since the environmental issuesinfluence the purchase and nutritional decisions of six out of ten con-


sumers in the U.S. and the UK (Ottman, 1992). Knowing the green-profile of consumers in Egypt allows marketers to develop strategiesspecifically targeted at this segment. For example, green marketersshould consider the positive relationship observed between perceivedenvironmental knowledge and intention to buy green products. Theycould, for instance, educate consumers about the convenience of buyingecologically safe products.

Substantial numbers of consumers in our study claim to be green, but itis unclear to what extent they are willing to purchase goods based solelyon environmental grounds. They may expect green products to becompetitively priced and perform the same as others, thus using a prod-uct’s greenness to differentiate two relatively equal goods. Therefore, it isof primary importance for marketers to advise why it is convenient to pur-chase green products and to change consumer perceptions in a positiveway. Building up beliefs about green products could, perhaps, be accom-plished through green promotional materials and green advertisementsthat appeal to consumer rationality and emotions. Schuhwerk and Lefkoff-Hagius (1995) have noted that although green appeals are not signifi-cantly more influential than non-green appeals for environmentally in-volved consumers, they are much more persuasive than non-green appealsfor environmentally uninvolved consumers. By attaching themselves toenvironmental causes, marketers not only educate consumers, but alsomay improve their environmental image.

While several of the demographic variables in our model achievestatistical significance, they lack the explanatory power of the psycho-graphic variables. This suggests that psychographics generally repre-sent a better method of segmenting the green products market in Egyptthan demographics.

Our results show that perceived consumer effectiveness is positivelyrelated to intention to buy green products. Such result suggests thatcampaigns to promote green products should convey the message thatpeople’s actions make a difference.

Policy Implications

Egypt faces pressing environmental problems such as air and waterpollution (Chukwuma, 1995). Those problems cause increasing supportfor the local environment. Understanding factors affecting environ-mental attitudes is necessary before the county can move toward moreeffective environmental policies and institutional actions designed toincrease environmentally friendly behavior.


Some authors argue that green policies are profitable through costreduction (Rugman and Verbeke, 2000). Green firms can shape futureregulations and reap first-mover advantage (Porter and van der Linde,1995). It can be argued, then, that the ideal solution to environmentalproblems in Egypt is for companies to include green policies in theirlong-term strategies. Thus, Egyptian government should expedite greenpurchase through legislation. Given that the development of green mar-keting in Egypt, as well as in the rest of the Arab world, is still in its in-fancy, it is suggested that the Egyptian government should work closelywith the business community and form strategic alliances with environ-mental groups to come up with a comprehensive eco-certificationscheme and a set of guidelines that regulate the practices of green market-ing. For example, in the United Arab Emirates, the Federal EnvironmentalAgency (FEA) and the Emirates Environmental Group (EEG) are doingadmirable work in spreading awareness about environmental issues, in-cluding green purchasing, in the country. By working closely with thepublic and private sectors, these entities have succeeded in large mea-sure in preserving the environment (Gulf News, 2004).

LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH

First, the measures used in the study are based on self-reports of pastbehaviors or predictions about future actions. Though such self-reportsoften represent fairly good approximations of actual behaviors (Ajzenand Fishbein, 1980), they clearly have limitations. In particular, sociallydesirable past behaviors and intentions are usually overreported andless desirable past behaviors are underreported. Future research shouldexamine the potential impact of social desirability bias on consumers’responses to questions about green purchase behavior. Second, usingonly one method of data collection in evaluating a complex purchase de-cision where emotions may be strongly involved, is particularly proneto mono-method bias. Future research may support questionnaire surveywith in-depth personal interviews or focus group discussions. Either ofthese techniques allows for some quantifiable data to be obtainedthrough the use of closed-ended questions. Third, this study has used across-sectional rather than a longitudinal approach. This implies thatmuch more emphasis has been placed on observing consumers’ behav-iors than in observing changes in behavior. Therefore, there would seemto be a need for much more longitudinal research to focus on observingchanges in consumers behavior over time. Fourth, for the purpose of


this research, a multiple hierarchical regression approach was adoptedto identify consumers’ behavioral intention regarding green products.The use of quantitative methods alone is valuable in establishing rela-tionships between variables, but is considered weak when attempting toidentify the reasons for those relationships (Chisnall, 1997). Using qual-itative research along quantitative methods in future studies may enableus to further explore relationships amongst variables. Finally, Thisstudy was conducted in Egypt using college students as subjects and sosome caution should be observed in generalizing its results to otherArab countries. Although Egypt may reflect market and consumer atti-tudes in other Arab countries, future research might extend the list ofcountries and use subjects from other populations to assess more signif-icantly pan-Arab consumers’ behaviors regarding green products.

REFERENCES

Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting behavior.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Amine, L., & Cavusgil, S. (1990). Marketing environment in the Middle East andNorth Africa: the forces behind the homoginization. In H. Thorelli & S. Cavusgil(Eds.), International marketing strategy. Pergamon Press, 229-247.

Amyx, D., De Jong, P., Lin, X., Chakraborty, G., & Wiener, J. (1994). Influencers ofpurchase intentions for ecologically safe products: An exploratory study. In C. W.Park & D. L. Smith (Eds.), AMA Winter Educators’ Conference Proceedings, Chi-cago, AMA, 341-347.

Anderson, J., & Gerbing, D. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A re-view and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 411-423.

Arbuthnot, J. (1977). The roles of attitudinal and personality variables in the predictionof environmental behavior and knowledge. Environment and Behavior, 9, 217-237.

Axelrod, L., & Lehman, D. (1993). Responding to environmental concerns: What fac-tors guide individual action? Journal of Environmental Psychology, 13, 149-159.

Baldassare, M., & Katz, C. (1992). The personal threat of environmental problems aspredictor of environmental practices. Environment and Behavior, 24, 602-616.

Balderjahn, I. (1988). Personality variables and environmental attitudes as predictorsof ecologically responsible consumption patterns. Journal of Business Research,17, 51-56.

Bamberg, S. (2003). How does environmental concern influence specific environmen-tally related behaviors? A new answer to an old question. Journal of EnvironmentalPsychology, 23, 21-32.

Banergee, B., & McKeage, K. (1994). How green is my value: Exploring the relation-ship between environmentalism and materialism. In C. T. Allen & D. R. John(Eds.), Advances in consumer research, 21, Provo, UT: Association for ConsumerResearch, 147-152.


Banergee, S., Gulas, C., & Iyer, E. (1995). Shades of green: A multidimensional analy-sis of environmental advertising. Journal of Advertising, 24 (2), 21-31.

Barr, S., Ford, N., & Gilg, A. (2003). Attitudes towards recycling household waste inExeter, Devon: Quantitative and qualitative approaches. Local Environment, 8,407-421.

Bhat, V. (1993). Green marketing begins with green design. Journal of Business & In-dustrial Marketing, 8, 26-31.

Bechtel, R., Corral-Verdugo, V., & Pinheiro, J. (1999). Environmental belief systems:United States, Brazil, and Mexico. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 30,122-128.

Benton, R. (1994). Environmental knowledge and attitudes of undergraduate businessstudents compared to non-business students. Business and Society, 33, 191-205.

Berger, I., & Corbin, R. (1992). Perceived consumer effectiveness and faith in others asmoderators of environmentally responsible behaviors. Journal of Public Policy &Marketing, 11, 79-89.

Busch-Rossnagel, N. & Weigel, D. (1984). Implications for college educators of stu-dent attitudes toward energy. Journal of College Student Personnel, 25, 265-266.

Buttel, F. (1992). Environmentalization: Origins, processes, and implications for ruralsocial change. Rural Sociology, 57, 1-27.

Calder, B., Phillips, L., & Tybout, A. (1981). Designing research for applications. Jour-nal of Consumer Research, 8, 197-207.

Calfee, J., & Ringold, D. (1988). Consumer skepticism of advertising: what do thepolls show? In Advances in consumer research, Vol. 15, Thomas K. Srull (Ed.),Provo, UT, Association for Consumer Research, 244-248.

Candell, G., & Hulin, H. (1987). Cross-language and cross-cultural comparisons inscale translations. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 17, 417-440.

Carlson, L., Stephen, J., & Kangun, N. (1993). A content analysis of environmental ad-vertising: a matrix approach. Journal of Advertising, 22, 27-40.

Carmines, E., & Zeller, R. (1983). Reliability and validity assessment, Beverly Hills:Sage.

Caron, J. (1989). Environmental perspectives of blacks: Acceptance of the new envi-ronmental paradigm. Journal of Environmental Education, 20 (3), 21-26.

Chan, R. (2001). Determinants of Chinese consumers’ green purchasing behavior. Psy-chology & Marketing, 18, 389-413.

Chan, R. (1999). Environmental attitudes and behaviors of consumers in China: Sur-vey findings and implications. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 11(4), 25-52.

Chan, R., & Lau, L. (2000). Antecedents of green purchases: A survey in China. Jour-nal of Consumer Marketing, 17, 338-357.

Chan, R., & Lau, L. (1998). A test of the Fishbein-Ajzen behavioral intentions modelunder Chinese cultural settings: Are there any differences between PRC and HongKong consumers? Journal of Marketing Practice: Applied Marketing Science, 3,85-101.

Chisnall, P. (1997). Marketing research, 5th ed., Berkshire, UK: McGraw-Hill.Chukwuma, C. (1995). Environmental, developmental and health perspectives in

Egypt. Environmental Management and Health, 6, 29-37.


Crane, A. (2000). Facing the backlash: green marketing and strategic reorientation inthe 1990s. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 8, 277-296.

Curlo, E. (1999). Marketing strategy, product safety, and ethical factors in consumerchoice. Journal of Business Ethics, 21, 37-48.

Davis, J. (1991). A blueprint for green marketing. Journal of Business Strategy, 12,81-87.

Dixon, J. (1993). Grouping techniques. In B. Munro & E. Page (Eds.), Statistical meth-ods for healthcare research, 2nd ed., Philadelphia, PA: J. B. Lippincott Co.

D’Souza, C. (2004). Eco-label programmes: A stakeholder (consumer) perspective.Corporate Communications, 9, 179-188.

Dunlap, R., Van Liere, K., Mertig, A., & Jones, R. (2000). Measuring endorsement ofthe new ecological paradigm: A revised NEP scale. Journal of Social Issues, 56,425-444.

Dunlap, R., & Van Liere, K. (1978). The “New Environmental Paradigm”: A proposedmeasuring instrument and preliminary results. Journal of Environmental Education,9, 10-19.

Edgell, M., & Nowell, D. (1989). The new environmental paradigm scale: Wildlife andenvironmental beliefs in British Columbia. Society and Natural Resources, 2,285-296.

Ellen, S. (1994). Do we know what we need to know? Objective and subjective knowl-edge effects on pro-ecological behaviors. Journal of Business Research, 30, 43-52.

Ellen, P., Eroglu, D., & Webb, D. (1997). Consumer judgments in a changing informa-tion environment: How consumers respond to “green marketing claims”, Workingpaper, Georgia State University.

Ellen, P., Wiener, J., & Cobb-Walgren, C. (1991). The role of perceived consumer effec-tiveness in motivating environmentally conscious behaviors. Journal of Public Pol-icy and Marketing, 10, 102-117.

Erickson, A., & Kramer-Leblanc, C. (1991). Eco-labels: The link between environ-mental preferences and green practices? In J. Caswell & R. Cotterill (Eds.), strategyand policy in the food system, NE 65 conference proceedings, Washington, D.C.

Folkes, V. (1988). Recent attributions research in consumer behavior: A review andnew directions. Journal of Consumer Research, 14, 548-565.

Follows, S., & Jobber, D. (1999). Environmentally responsible purchase behavior: Atest of a consumer model. European Journal of Marketing, 34, 723-746.

Fritzsche, D., & Dueher, R. (1982). The effects of ecological concern on product attrib-ute utility. American Marketing Association Proceedings, Chicago, 364-369.

Fryxell, G., & Lo, C. (2003). The influence of environmental knowledge and values onmanagerial behaviors on behalf of the environment: An empirical examination ofmanagers in China. Journal of Business Ethics, 46, 45-59.

Furman, A. (1998). A note on environmental concern in a developing country: Resultsfrom an Istanbul survey. Environment and Behavior, 30, 520-534.

Gill, J., Lawrence, A., & Taylor, J. (1986). Ecological concern, attitude, and socialnorms in voting behavior. Public Opinion Quarterly, 50, 537-554.

Gooch, G. (1995). Environmental beliefs and attitudes in Sweden and the Baltic states.Environment and Behavior, 27, 513-539.


Gordon, M., Stade, L., & Schmitt, N. (1987). Student guinea-pigs: Porcine predictorsand particularistic phenomena. Academy of Management Review, 12, 160-163.

Gray-Lee, J., Scammon, D., & Mayer, R. (1994). Review of legal standards for envi-ronmental marketing claims. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 13, 155-159.

Greenberg, J. (1987). The college sophomore as guinea pig: Setting the score straight.Academy of Management Review, 12, 157-159.

Grunert, S. (1993). Everybody seems concerned about the environment but is this con-cern reflected in (Danish) consumers’ food choice? European Advances in Con-sumer Research, 1, 428-433.

Gulf News (2004). In harmony with the environment (October 20), 8.Hall, E. (1959). Te silent language. Doubleday, New York.Harzing, A. (1997). Response rates in international mail surveys: Results of a 22-coun-

try study. International Business Review, 6, 641-665.Hastak, M., Horst, R., & Mazis, M. (1994). Consumer perceptions about and compre-

hension of environmental terms: Evidence from survey research studies. Proceed-ings of the 1994 marketing and public policy conference, Arlington, VA, 94-108.

Hilotin, J. (2004). Corporate growth puts spotlight on green law abuse. Gulf News (Oc-tober 20), 5.

Hines, J., Hungerford, H., & Tomera, A. (1987). Analysis and synthesis of research onenvironmental behavior: A meta-analysis. Journal of Environmental Education, 18,1-8.

Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-relatedvalues. Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.

Inglehart, R. (1990). Culture shift in advanced industrial society. Princeton, NJ:Princeton University Press.

Jahamani, Y. (2003). Green accounting in developing countries: The case of U.A.E.and Jordan. Managerial Finance, 29, 37-45.

Johnson, C., Bowker, J., & Cordell, H. (2004). Ethic variation in environmental beliefand behavior: An examination of the new ecological paradigm in a social psychol-ogy context. Environment and Behavior, 36, 157-186.

Kapelianis, D., & Strachan, S. (1996). The price premium of an environmentallyfriendly product. South African Journal of Business Management, 27 (4), 89-95.

Kassarjian, H. (1971). Incorporating ecology into marketing strategy: The case of airpollution. Journal of Marketing, 35, 61-65.

Kinnear, T., & Taylor, J. (1973). The effect of ecological concern on brand perception.Journal of Marketing Research, 10, 191-197.

Kinnear, T., Taylor, J., & Ahmed, S. (1974). Ecologically concerned consumers: whoare they? Journal of Marketing, 38, 20-24.

Klineberg, S. (1998). Environmental attitudes among Anglos, Blacks and Hispanics inTexas: Has the concern gap disappeared? Race, Gender, and Class, 6, 70-82.

Kotchen, M., & Reiling, S. (2000). Environmental attitudes, motivations, and contin-gent valuation of nonuse values: A case study involving endangered species. Eco-logical Economics, 32, 93-107.

Kristensen, K., & Grunert, S. (1991). The effect of ecological consciousness on thedemand for organic foods. In J. Chias & A. Sureda (Eds.), Marketing for the new


Europe: Dealing with complexity, Proceedings of the 1991 annual conference of theEuropean Marketing Academy, Vol. 2, Barcelona, 299-318.

Laroche, M., Bergeron, J., Tomiuk, M., & Barbaro-Forleo, G. (2002). Cultural differ-ences in environmental knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors of Canadian consum-ers. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 19, 267-283.

Lee, C., & Green, R. (1991). Cross-cultural examination of the Fishbein behavioral in-tentions models. Journal of International Business Studies, 22 (2) 289-305.

Li, L. (1997). Effects of collectivist orientation and ecological attitude on actual envi-ronmental commitment: The moderating role of consumer demographics and prod-uct involvement. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 9 (4), 31-53.

Luzar, E., Diagne, A., Gan, C., & Henning, B. (1995). Evaluating nature based tourismusing the new environmental paradigm. Journal of Agriculture & Applied Econom-ics, 2, 544-555.

Lynne, G., & Rola, L. (1988). Improving attitude-behavior prediction models witheconomic variables: Farmer actions towards soil conservation. Journal of SocialPsychology, 128, 19-28.

Mainieri, T., Barnett, E., Valdero, T., Unipan, J., & Oskamp, S. (1997). Green buying:The influence of environmental concern on consumer behavior. Journal of SocialPsychology, 137, 189-204.

Malinowski, B. (1935). Coral gardens and their magic, 2: The language of magic andgardening, London: George Allen & Unwin.

Maloney, M., Ward, M., & Braucht, G. (1975). Psychology in action: A revised scalefor the measurement of ecological attitudes and knowledge. American Psycholo-gist, 30, 787-790.

McCarty, J., & Shrum, L. (2001). The influence of individualism, collectivism, andlocus of control on environmental beliefs and behavior. Journal of Public Policy &Marketing, 20,93-104. 1.

McCloskey, J., & Maddock, S. (1994). Environmental management: Its role in corpo-rate strategy. Management Decision, 32, 27-32.

McDaniel, S., & Rylander, D. (1993). Strategic green marketing. Journal of ConsumerMarketing, 10 (3), 4-10.

McEachern, M., & McClean, P. (2002). Organic purchasing motivations and attitudes:Are they ethical? International Journal of Consumer Studies, 26, 85-92.

McGorr, S. (2000). Measurement in a cross-cultural environment: Survey translationissues. Qualitative Market Research, 3, 74-81.

McQuarrie, E. (1988). An alternative to purchase intentions: The role of prior behaviorin consumer expenditure on computers. Journal of the Market Research Society, 37,407-437.

Menon, A., & Menon, A. (1997). Enviropreneurial marketing strategy: The emer-gence of corporate environmentalism as market strategy. Journal of Marketing,61, 51-67.

Milfont, L., & Duckitt, J. (2004). The structure of environmental attitudes: A first-andsecond-order confirmatory factor analysis. Journal of Environmental Psychology,24, 289-303.

Mohai, P. (1990). Black environmentalism. Social Science Quarterly, 7, 744-765.


Mohr, L., Eroglu, D., & Ellen, P. (1998). The development and testing of a measure ofskepticism toward environmental claims in marketers’ communication. Journal ofConsumer Affairs, 32, 30-55.

Muna, F. (1980). The Arab executive. Macmillan. London.Nasif, E., Al-Daeaj, H., Ebrahimi, B., & Thibodeau, M. (1991). Methodological prob-

lems in cross-cultural research: An updated review. Management International Re-view, 31, 13-32.

Nooney, J., Woodrum, E., Hoban, T., & Clifford, W. (2003). Environmental world-view and behavior: consequences of dimensionality in a survey of North Carolin-ians. Environment and Behavior, 35, 763-783.

Olli, E., Grendstad, G., & Wollebaek, D. (2001). Correlates of environmental behav-iors. Environment and Behavior, 33, 181-208.

Ottman, J. (1992). Sometimes consumers will pay more to go green. Marketing News(July, 6), 16.

Paulhus, D. (1983). Sphere-specific measures of perceived control. Journal of Person-ality and Social Psychology, 44, 1253-1265.

Pedhazur, E. (1982). Multiple regression in behavioral research: explanation and pre-diction, Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, New York.

Phillips, L. (1999). Green attitudes. American Demographics, 21, 46-47.Pierce, J., Dalton, R., & Zaitsev, A. (1999). Public perceptions of environmental condi-

tions. In R. J. Dalton et al (Eds.), Critical masses, citizens, nuclear weapons produc-tion, and environmental destruction in the United States and Russia, Cambridge:MIT Press, 97-129.

Pierce, J., Lovrich, N., & Tsurutani, T. (1987). Culture, politics and mass publics: Tra-ditional and modern supporters of the new environmental paradigm in Japan and theUnited States. Journal of Politics, 9, 139-159.

Polonsky, M., Carlson, L., Grove, S., & Kangun, N. (1997). International environmen-tal marketing claims- Real changes or simple posturing? International MarketingReview, 14, 218-232.

Poortinga, W., Steg, L., & Vlek, C. (2004). Values, environmental concerns, and envi-ronmental behavior: A study into household energy use. Environment and Behav-ior, 36, 70-93.

Porter, M., & Van der Linde, C. (1995). Toward a new conception of the environ-ment-competitiveness relationship. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 4, 97-18.

Prothero, A., & McDonald, P. (1992). Producing environmentally acceptable cos-metics- The impact of environmentalism on the United Kingdom cosmetics andtoiletries industry. Journal of Marketing Management, 8, 147-166.

Rice, G., Wongtada., & Leelakulthanit, O. (1996). An investigation of self-efficacyand environmentally concerned behavior of Thai consumers. Journal of Interna-tional Consumer Marketing, 9 (2), 1-19.

Roberts, J. (1996). Green consumers in the 1990s: profile and implications for advertis-ing. Journal of Business Research, 36, 217-231.

Rokicka, E. (2002). Attitudes towards natural environment. International Journal ofSociology, 32 (2), 78-90.

Rolston, C., & Di Benedetto, C. (1994). Developing a greenness scale: An explorationof behavior versus attitude. In C. Park et al. (Eds.), AMA Winter educators’ confer-ence proceedings, Chicago: AMA, 335-340.


Rugman, A., & Verbeke, A. (2000). Environmental regulations and the global strate-gies of multinational enterprises. In A. Prakash & J. Hart (Eds.), Coping with glob-alization, London: Routledge, 77-93.

Samdahl, D., & Robertson, R. (1989). Social determinants of environmental concern:specification and test of the model. Environment and Behavior, 21, 57-81.

Schahn, J., & Holzer, E. (1990). Studies of individual environmental concern: The role ofknowledge, gender, and background variables. Environment and Behavior, 22, 72.

Schuhwerk, M., & Lefkoff-Hagius, R. (1995). Green or non-green? Does type of ap-peal matter when advertising a green product? Journal of Advertising, 24 (2), 45-54.

Schultz, P. (2000). Empathizing with nature: The effects of perspective taking on con-cern for environmental issues. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 391-406.

Schultz, P., & Zelezny, L. (1999). Values as predictors of environmental attitudes: Evi-dence for consistency across 14 countries. Journal of Environmental Psychology,19, 255-265.

Schwartz, S. (1977). Normative influences on altruism. In Advances in experimentalsocial psychology, Berkowitz, L. (Ed.). Vol. 10, New York, Academic Press,pp. 221-279.

Seguin, C., Pelletier, L., & Hunsley, J. (1998). Toward a model of environmental activ-ism. Environment and Behavior, 30, 628-652.

Sekaran, U. (2000). Research methods for business, 3rd ed., New York: Wiley.Simmons, D., & Widmar, R. (1990). Motivations and barriers to recycling: Toward a

strategy for public education. Journal of Environmental Education, 22, 13-18.Shamdasani, P., Chon-Lin, G., & Richmond, D. (1993). Exploring green consumers in

an oriental culture: Role of personal and marketing mix. Advances in Consumer Re-search, 20, 488-493.

Smith, S., Haugtvedt, C., & Petty, R. (1994). Attitudes and recycling: Does the mea-surement of affect enhance behavioral prediction? Psychology & Marketing, 11,359-374.

Souiden, N. (2002). Segmenting the Arab markets based on the marketing stimuli. In-ternational Marketing Review, 19, 611-636.

Starch, R. (1996). Green gauge survey. In C. Frankel (Ed.), In earth’s company: Busi-ness environment and the challenge of sustainability, Canada: New Society Pub-lishers.

Stern, P. (1992). What psychology knows about energy conservation. American Psy-chologist, 47, 1224-1232.

Stern, P., Dietz, T., & Kalof, L. (1993). Value orientations, gender, and environmentalconcern. Environment and Behavior, 25, 322-348.

Stone, G., Barnes, J., & Montgomery, C. (1995). Ecoscale: A scale for the measure-ment of environmentally responsible consumers. Psychology & Marketing, 12,595-612.

Suchard, H., & Polonsky, M. (1991). A theory of environmental buyer behavior and itsvalidity: The environmental action-behavior model. In M. Gilly et al. (Eds.), AMASummer educators’ conference proceedings, Chicago: AMA, 187-201.

Synodinos, N. (1991). Environmental attitudes and knowledge: A comparison of mar-keting and business students with other groups. Journal of Business Research,161-170.


Tanner, C., Kaiser,F., & Kast, S. (2004). Contextual conditions of ecological consum-erism: A food-purchasing survey. Environment and Behavior, 36, 94-111.

Taylor, S., & Todd, P. (1995). Decomposition and crossover effects in the theory ofplanned behavior: A study of consumer adoption intentions. International Journalof Research in Marketing, 12, 137-155.

Walsh, J., & McGuire, J. (1992). An examination of environmental attitudes amongcollege students. Procedings of the 1992 Northeastern Recreational Research Sym-posium, General Technical Report, NE- 176.

Watson, R., Murphy, M., & Moore, S. (1992). Developmental and social contextualvariables in water usage behavior. Brussels: XXV International Congress of Psy-chology.

Weaver, A. (2002). Determinants of environmental attitudes: A five- country compari-son. International Journal of Sociology, 32, 77-108.

Widegren, O. (1998). The new environmental paradigm and personal norms. Environ-ment and Behavior, 30, 75-100.

Zelezny, L., Chua, P., & Aldrich, C. (2000). Elaborating on gender differences in envi-ronmentalism. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 443-457.

SUBMITTED: August, 2005FIRST REVISION: January, 2006

SECOND REVISION: February, 2006ACCEPTED: March, 2006


APPENDIX

PERCEIVED ENVIRONMENTAL KNOWLEDGE SCALE

I know that I buy products and packages that are environmentally safe.I know more about recycling than the average person.I know how to select products and packages that reduce the amount of wasteending up in landfills.I understand the environmental phrases and symbols on product package.I am very knowledgeable about environmental issues.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN SCALE

We are approaching the limit of the number of people the earth can support.The earth has plenty of natural resources if we just learn to develop them. (R)The earth is like a spaceship with only limited room and resources.Humans have the right to modify the natural environment to suit their needs.(R)Plants and animals have as much right as humans to exist.Humans were meant to rule over the rest of the Nature. (R)When humans interfere with Nature, it often produces disastrous conse-quences.The balance of Nature is strong enough to cope with the impacts of modern in-dustrial nations. (R)(a)

The balance of Nature is very delicate and easily upset.Human ingenuity will ensure that we do not make the earth unlivable. (R)Despite our special abilities, humans are still subject to the laws of Nature. (a)

Humans will eventually learn enough about how nature works to be able tocontrol it. (R)Humans are severely abusing the environment.The so-called ecological crisis facing humankind has been greatly exagger-ated. (R)(a)

If things continue on their present course, we will soon experience a majorecological catastrophe.

GREEN PURCHASE ATTITUDES SCALE

I (1 = Dislike; 5 = Like) the idea of purchasing green.Purchasing green is a (1 = Bad; 5 = Good) idea.I have a/an (1 = Unfavorable; 5 = Favorable) attitude toward purchasing agreen version of a product.


APPENDIX (continued)

PERCEIVED CONSUMER EFFECTIVENESS SCALE

There is very little we, as consumers, can do to keep the cost of living from go-ing up. (R)The average citizen can have an influence on government decisions.By taking an active part in political and social affairs we, the people, can con-trol world events.I prefer to concentrate my energy on other things rather than on solving theworld’s problems. (R)

ALTRUISM SCALE

We do not need to worry much about the environment because future genera-tions will be better able to deal with these problems than we are. (R)The effects of pollution on public health are worse than we realize.Pollution generated here harms people all over the earth.

SKEPTICISM TOWARDS ENVIRONMENTAL CLAIMS SCALE

Most environmental claims made on package labels or in advertising are true.(R)Because environmental claims are exaggerated, consumers would be betteroff if such claims on package labels or in advertising were eliminated.Most environmental claims on package labels or in advertising are intended tomislead rather than to inform consumers.I do not believe most environmental claims made on package labels or in ad-vertising.

GREEN PURCHASE INTENTION SCALE

Over the next month, I will consider buying products because they are lesspolluting.Over the next one month, I will consider switching to other brands for ecologi-cal reasons.Over the next one month, I plan to switch to a green version of a product.(R) = Reverse-coded scores; (a) = Items excluded from analysis.


antecedents of egyptian consumers’.pdf

Documents

green products

consumers intention

green marketing

percentage of consumers

study of australian

growing number of consumers

total number of green

hardcoregreen consumers