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 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 signi- cantly affect consumer ethical beliefs. The results also indicate that some dimensions of consumer ethical beliefs signicantly 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 Individualism Attitudes toward business Loyalty proneness 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) nds 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 companys stock, or other means (Webb et al. 2008). This consumer green movement is thus useful in encouraging prot-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 certicate 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 ones self and the communication of it to others (Irvine 2006). Therefore, examination of consumer green buying intentions and behaviors is very important in the eld of marketing research. L.-C. Lu (&) 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: bmalcl@ccu.edu.tw H.-H. Chang e-mail: shelon0809@gmail.com A. Chang China Biotech Corporation, 10 33rd. Road, Taichung Industrial Park, Taichung, Taiwan e-mail: allie@ms3.hinet.net 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 identication 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 nal 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 deciencies. 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 humanenvironment 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) dened 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 specic store, brand, product, or business event. When consumers are satised with overall business, they believe that business rms 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 retailers effort. Thus, consumers with high loyalty proneness would not accept unethical consumer activities to injure the sellers benets 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 signicant 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 signicant 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 signicance 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 Vitells (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 Vitells 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 Muncys (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, inuence consumers green buying inten- tion. With our ndings, 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 denition 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 HuntVitell 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 Vitells ethics model (hereafter termed HuntVitell model: or HV 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 HV model is the only one that can easily be applied to consumers ethical behavior. The HV 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 HV model also suggests that an individual ethical perception is inuenced 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 signicantly inuence 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 inuence consumers choices in a situation involving moral issues. Individualism/ collectivism, one of the most signicant cultural dimensions (Hofstede 1997), has been viewed as a basis for contrasting differences at the individual level and strongly inuences 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 rst 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: benets incurred from actively engaging in perceived illegal activities. This dimension relates to consumers beneting 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: benets incurred from passively engaging in ques- tionable activities. Examples include lying about a childs age to get a lower price or remaining silent when receiving too much change (Vitell and Muncy 1992); (3) Questionable: benets 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 dened 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 inuence 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 nd that ethical beliefs positively inuences 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 signicantly 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, nancial security, the need for specic 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 dened 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 sacrice 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 ndings are consistent with previous literature. For example, Osy- erman et al. (2002) explicitly state that individualism/col- lectivism strongly inuences consumer attitudes and decision making. Wood et al. (1988) nd that individual- ism strongly inuences the moral reasoning of consumers. Cohen et al. (1996) also report a strong and signicant effect of Hofstedes 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 ndings, 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 benets, 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 rst 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 signicantly inuences 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 specic business rms (Anderson et al. 1979). Because marketing exchanges are interactive, the quality of services or goods provided by specic 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 satised 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 satised 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 specic 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 rms 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 beneting behaviors (Passive dimension) (Chan et al. 1998). Lu and Lu (2010) nd that consumer attitudes toward business are negatively correlated with actively beneting 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 beneting 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 ndings, 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 dened as the tendency for a consumer to develop and maintain a relatively stable relationship with a particular retailer. Loyalty proneness usually leads to a consumers 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 buyerseller 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 protability. Vitell (2003) suggests that store commitment may play a role in deter- mining consumers unethical behaviors. Steenhaut and Van Kenhove (2005) also nd 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 Proenca 2008). Such a consumer may possess a more positive attitude toward a particular retailer, shop more in that store, be a member of the stores 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 ndings, 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 rened 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 rened by Vitell and Muncy (2005). Consumers 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 Chois (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 rened 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 ve-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 rst pre-tested on 250 students who study in the EMBA program of a national university in Taiwan to ne-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 uent 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 2039 years old (56.7 %), with a bachelors 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 conrmatory 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 ination 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-t indices of CFA were asses- sed to determine the models overall goodness of t, as shown in Table 1. All values of model-t 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 (Joreskog and Sorbom 1992). Thus, the model appears to have a fairly good t with the data collected. Table 2 shows that the composite reliabilities of each construct conrm 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-t 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 signicant (p \0.05). These are signicant 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 2029 175 32.1 3039 134 24.6 4049 91 16.7 5059 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 Bachelors degree 184 33.8 Masters degree or doctorate degree 79 14.5 Current occupation Public servants 43 7.9 Commerce 194 35.6 Industry 85 15.6 Farming/shing 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 t 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-t 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 inuences 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 signicant, 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 signicant, partially supporting H1. The construct of individualism is a signicant 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 inuence 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 signicantly 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 signicant. However, loyalty proneness does not signicantly 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 signicantly strong total effect on consumers green buying intention. The con- structs of attitude toward business and loyalty proneness also have signicantly 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 signicant 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 inu- 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 (DSouza 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 ndings of this Table 3 Results of the proposed model * t value is signicant 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 coefcient 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 signicant at p \0.05 n.s. non-signicant effect Consumer Personality and Green Buying Intention 1 3 study demonstrate that the ethical dimensions of Active, Passive, and NoHarm are not signicantly related to green buying intention. It appears that individuals consider the benets of active, passive, or no-harm consumer behaviors to be independent of green buying intentions. Second, we nd that Taiwanese consumers with a stronger individualism orientation tend to see beneting 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 benets and are sensitive to situations in which their benets 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 sacrice for the in-group (Triandis and Singeles 1998) and does not place the benet 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 inuences consumers moral reasoning, beliefs, and ethical decision- making processes (Husted and Allen 2008). Third, the construct of attitude toward business inu- ences almost all dimensions of consumer ethical beliefs, partially consistent with the ndings 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 rms are kind to their customers and they are satised 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 nding 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 Proenca (2008), who contended that relationship-prone consumers may be more receptive to a sellers 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 consumers tendency to build a stable and long-term relationship with a particular seller. One possible explanation is that respondents may see actively beneting 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 nd no direct effect of individualism on green buying intention, individualism is found to have an indirect and signicant inuence on green buying intention via the dimension of consumer ethics. These ndings are inconsistent with those of previous studies. For example, Laroche et al. (2001) nd 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 signicant 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 inuence consumer buying intention regarding green products through specic cognitive con- cepts, such as ethical beliefs. Based on these ndings, 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 inuence 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 studys ndings report a signicant 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 studys model, we show that Taiwanese consumer ethical judgment is affected by both individualism and attitude toward busi- ness. This studys research shows strong potential for use in assessing East Asian cultures. Finally, this study lls 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 inuence 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 rst 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 conrm 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 inuence 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 signicant 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 inuencing 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- ers marketing goals. Limitations and Further Suggestion First, this study did not nd a signicant 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 afliation, 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 ndings 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 rst 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 Beneting 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 Beneting Activities 1. Lying about a childs 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 Beneting 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 dont 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 dons 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 satised 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- trys 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 difcult 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), 394400. Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411423. 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, 443454. Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16, 7494. Bateman, C. R., & Valentine, S. R. (2010). Investigating the effects of gender on consumers moral philosophies and ethical intentions. Journal of Business Ethics, 95, 41393. 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), 190202. Bloemer, J., Odekerken-Schroder, G., & Kestens, L. (2003). The impact of need for social afliation and consumer relationship proneness on behavioural intentions: An empirical study in a Hairdressers context. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 10, 231240. Chan, R. (2001). Determinants of Chinese consumers green purchase behavior. Psychology & Marketing, 18(4), 389413. Chan, R. Y. K., & Lau, L. B. Y. (2000). Antecedents of green purchases: A survey in China. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 17(4), 338357. 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(23), 940. Chan, A., Wong, S., & Leung, P. (1998). Ethical beliefs of Chinese consumers in Hong Kong. Journal of Business Ethics, 17, 11631170. 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, 469481. 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, 487502. Christy, R., Oliver, G., & Penn, J. (1996). Relationship marketing in consumer markets. Journal of Marketing Management, 12, 175187. Cohen, J., Pant, L., & Sharp, D. (1996). A methodological note on cross-cultural accounting ethics research. International Journal of Accounting, 31, 5566. DSouza, C., Taghian, M., & Khosla, R. (2007). Examination of environmental beliefs and its impact on the inuence of price, quality and demographic characteristics with respect to green purchase intention. Journal of Targeting, Measurement and Analysis for Marketing, 15(2), 6978. 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), 363385. De Wulf, K., Odekerken-Schroder, G., & Iacobucci, D. (2001). Investments in consumer relationship: A cross-country and cross- industry exploration. Journal of Marketing, 65(October), 3350. 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), 20882107. Dick, A. S., & Basu, K. (1994). Customer loyalty: Toward an integrated conceptual framework. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 22(2), 99113. Erez, M., & Earley, P. C. (1993). Culture, self-identity, and work. New York: Oxford University Press. Fernandes, T. M., & Proenca, J. F. (2008). The blind spot of relationships in consumer markets: The consumer proneness to engage in relationships. Journal of Marketing Management, 24(12), 153168. Ferrell, O. C., & Gresham, L. G. (1985). A contingency framework for understanding ethical decision making in marketing. Journal of Marketing, 49(summer), 8796. 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, 3950. Fujii, S. (2006). Environmental concern, attitude toward frugality, and ease of behavior as determinants of pro-environmental behavior intentions. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 26, 262268. 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), 4363. Gregory, G. D., Munch, J. M., & Peterson, M. (2002). Attitude functions in consumer research: Comparing valueattitude relations in individualist and collectivist cultures. Journal of Business Research, 55, 933942. 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), 613628. 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, 139158. Hashimoto, H., Li, Y., & Yamagishi, T. (2011). Beliefs and preferences in cultural agents and cultural game players. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 14, 140147. Hofstede, G. (1984). Cultures 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, 420430. 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, 515. Hunt, S. D., & Vitell, S. J. (2006). The general theory of marketing ethics: A revision and three questions. Journal of Macromar- keting, 26(2), 111. 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, 293305. 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), 265279. Jaiswal, N. (2012). Green products: Availability, awareness and preference of use by the families. Indian Journal of Environ- mental Education, 12, 2125. Joreskog, K. G., & Sorbom, D. (1992). LISREL: A guide to the program and applications. Chicago: Scientic 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, 115135. Kim, Y. (2011). Understanding green purchase: The inuence of collectivism, personal values and environmental attitudes, and the moderating effect of perceived consumer effectiveness. Seoul Journal of Business, 17(1), 6592. 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, 592599. 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), 348356. 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), 503520. 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), 4768. Lu, L.-C., & Lu, C. J. (2010). Moral philosophy, materialism, and consumer ethics: An exploratory study in Indonesia. Journal of Business Ethics, 94(2), 193210. 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), 91105. 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 inuence of environmental concern on consumer behavior. Journal of Social Psychology, 137(2), 189204. 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), 163171. 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), 5362. McCarty, J. A., & Shrum, L. J. (2001). The inuence of individu- alism, collectivism and locus of control on environmental beliefs and behavior. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 20(Spring), 93104. 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), 163170. 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), 395412. Morgan, R. M., & Hunt, S. D. (1994). The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing. Journal of Marketing, 58(3), 2038. 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, 220229. Muncy, J. A., & Vitell, S. J. (1992). Consumer ethics: An investigation of the ethical beliefs of the nal consumer. Journal of Business Research, 24(June), 297311. Nunnally, J., & Bernstein, I. (1994). Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill. Odekerken-Schroder, G., De Wulf, K., & Schumacher, P. (2003). Strengthening outcomes of retailerconsumer relationships: The dual impact of relationship marketing tactics and consumer personality. Journal of Business Research, 56, 177190. Osyerman, D., Coon, H. M., & Kemmelmeier, M. (2002). Rethinking individualism and collectivism: Evaluation of the theoretical assumptions and meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 372. Papaoikonomou, E., Ryan, G., & Valverde, M. (2011). Mapping ethical consumer behavior: Integrating the empirical research and identifying future directions. Ethics and Behavior, 21(3), 197221. Pressey, A. D., & Mathews, P. B. (2000). Barriers to relationship marketing in consumer retailing. Journal of Services Marketing, 14(3), 272286. Purdy, K. A. (1995). Environmental ethics. In J. K. Roth (Ed.), International encyclopedia of ethics (pp. 267270). 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), 188211. 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, 183195. Richins, M. L. (1983). An analysis of consumer interaction styles in the marketplace. Journal of Consumer Research, 10, 7382. Roberts, J. A., & Bacon, D. R. (1997). Exploring the subtle relationships between environmental concern and ecologically conscious behavior. Journal of Business Research, 40(1), 7989. 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. 165). 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), 286293. 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 renement. Cross- Cultural Research, 29(3), 240275. 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), 86112. 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), 271284. 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, 201210. 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, 209220. 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, 335353. Trevino, L. K. (1986). Ethical decision making in organizations: A personsituation interactionist model. Academy of Management Review, 11(3), 601617. 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), 3547. Trianids, H. C. (1993). Collectivism and individualism as cultural syndromes. Cross-cultural Research, 27(3), 155180. 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. 23672374). 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, 261278. 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, 347361. Vitell, S. J. (2003). Consumer ethics research: Review, synthesis and suggestions for the future. Journal of Business Ethics, 43(1/2), 3347. 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, 601613. 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), 365375. Vitell, S. J., & Muncy, J. (1992). Consumer ethics: An empirical investigation of factors inuencing ethical judgments of the nal consumer. Journal of Business Ethics, 11(August), 585597. L.-C. Lu et al. 1 3 Vitell, S. J., & Muncy, J. (2005). The MuncyVitell consumer ethics scale: A modication and application. Journal of Business Ethics, 62, 267275. 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), 117124. 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), 117124. Vitell, S. J., Singhapakdi, A., & Thomas, J. (2001). Consumer ethics: An application and empirical testing of the HuntVitell theory of ethics. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 18(2), 153178. 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), 9198. 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, 249257. 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, 13611367. Consumer Personality and Green Buying Intention 1 3