Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article. The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest. This research is one of the few studies integrating Social Influence Theory with the Goal-framing Theory based on the S-O-R model. In Figure 3, the calculated Cronbach’s α coefficient for each scale was above 0.7, indicating good internal consistency (Hair et al., 2010). Convergent validity was tested using composite reliability (CR), standardized factor loading (derived from CFA), and average variance extracted (AVE), and the summary of results is presented in Table 1. The CR value for each scale was above 0.7 (Bagozzi and Yi, 1988; Hair et al., 2010), the AVE values for all constructs was greater than 0.5 (Fornell and Larcker, 1981), and the standardized factor loading for all items ranged from 0.592 to 0.911 (Hair et al., 2010).
Significant differences were found between the upper and lower SCC subgroups in how the various goal frames convert into GPB. The influence of GGFs and NGFs on GPB in the lower SCC subgroup is significantly weaker than in the upper SCC subgroup. This suggests that the environmental crisis effectively activates consumers’ dual appeals, inducing them to purchase more green products to buffer against environmental problems and uncertainties (Xu et al., 2017).
- Based on the study’s findings, policymakers need to pay attention to the differences in the activation ability of social influence on consumers’ goal frames.
- Further studies may consider western residents as the research object and compare the results with our conclusions.
- Thus, positive gain goals fail to convert into actual green consumption, leading to a considerable gap between green motivation and behavior.
- While most governments are dedicated to green market development, environmental governance efficiency in the green market is significantly mired by numerous barriers (Carrington et al., 2010; Tu et al., 2020).
A possible explanation is that consumers with high SCC, resulting from FAI, are more inclined to consider their family members’ fears and anxiety for environmental concerns, making them more ecologically conscious and environmentally responsible (Yang and Zhang, 2020; Hosta and Zabkar, 2021). However, one unanticipated finding was that the activation ability of media on the three goal frames had no significant difference between subgroups. Also, the activation ability of PEI on the NGFs in the lower SCC subgroup was significantly stronger than in the upper SCC subgroup. These results suggest that high SCC can cause excessive anxiety and fear (Janis and Feshbach, 1953). This can cause consumers to make irrational interpretations and infer that environmental crisis information reported from media and peer is deliberately exaggerated. Consumers would believe that the harm caused by environmental crises is less likely to happen (Yang and Zhang, 2020, 2021), alleviating themselves to bear environmental responsibilities.
It would either have to beargued that the error can be rationalized some other way, or the claimthat there are rationality constraints on content attributions wouldhave to be rejected (see Brown 2004, Wikforss 2015 and 2017). In response, it has been argued that what is essential to belief ismerely that beliefs have contents that are true or false, not that oneought to believe a content if and only if it is true. This just shows that truebeliefs have an instrumental value, and fails to support thenormativity of belief thesis.
On one end of the spectrum are arguments that turn on theidea that there are direct conceptual entailments from meaningstatements to normative consequences; on the other end are argumentsthat depend on substantial theoretical assumptions about meaning. Inthe debate, direct arguments have played a prominent role since thesefit the idea, implicit in Kripke, that the claim that meaning isnormative provides a pre-theoretical constraint on any acceptabletheory of meaning; one that has to be accepted independently ofone’s specific semantic theory. Let us begin with the most wellknown direct normative goals meaning argument in support of ME normativity, what we call“the simple argument”. Second, the results provided a clearer picture of how consumers’ multiple motivations influence GPB and will further prove useful in expanding our understanding of the role of three goals (motivation) in guiding GPB. Similar to the conclusions of previous studies (e.g., Lindenberg and Steg, 2007; Tang et al., 2020), HGFs and NGFs significantly affect GPB. Surprisingly, GGFs activated by social influence did not exhibit a significant effect on GPB, extending studies, such as those by Tang et al. (2020).
The Two Types of Goals: Terminal and Normative
This paper has taken steps to obtain actual GPB data, but more improvements can be made in future research. For instance, researchers can consider identifying real green consumers by observing actual consumption scenarios. Further studies may consider western residents as the research object and compare the results with our conclusions.
Common Method Bias
In what follows we shall first discuss ME normativism, wherethe discussion following Kripke’s book plays a central role, andthen MD normativism. It differs from utilitarian value, which is task-oriented, as HGF reflects the pleasure and positive emotions experienced during shopping (Babin et al., 1994; Gonçalves et al., 2016; Xu et al., 2020). Given mounting environmental concerns, ME can gradually reshape a new lifestyle that advocates for green consumption, promotes identity for ecological citizenship, and increases hedonic motivations for conservation (Pinto et al., 2014; Xu et al., 2020).
However, many still do not practice green purchasing behaviors (GPBs), especially among apathetic consumers. While most governments are dedicated to green market development, environmental governance efficiency in the green https://1investing.in/ market is significantly mired by numerous barriers (Carrington et al., 2010; Tu et al., 2020). For green marketers, green consumption barriers are making green marketing strategies come to nothing (Chen et al., 2020).
Access this article
Similarly, as a psychological trait, varying levels of sensitivity to climate change (SCC) may considerably moderate the formation process of GPB. Several studies have investigated the moderated role of environmental literacy (e.g., environmental concern and environmental consciousness) in their theoretical models (Lin and Huang, 2012; Kautish et al., 2019). Kim and Hwang (2020) argued that the relative importance of explanatory variables in predicting behavior varies when individuals possess different levels of product knowledge.
For instance, Whiting (2016) argues that itis a mistake to try to defend normativism on these grounds, and thatthe normativist should stick to the orthodox interpretation that takesas its starting point (CM). It is clear that the type of normativity Kripke has in mind is MEnormativity; i.e., the claim is that meaning statements such as“expression \(e\) means \(M\) for \(S\)” have normativeconsequences. In the case of ME normativity, the arguments may be more orless direct, depending on more or less substantial assumptions aboutmeaning.
BDI and BOID Argumentation
For instance, versions of conceptual role semantics imply that thereis an essential link between mental content and belief as do versionsof informational theories of content (Dretske 1981; Fodor 1990),although the latter are typically coupled with a non-normativistaccount of belief. Another line of reasoning appeals to the idea thatthere is a constitutive connection between grasping a concept,understanding a content, and using it in the propositionalattitudes. According to CE normativity statements of the form “mental state\(M\) has content \(p\)” have normative consequences. The normsare typically construed as norms of action, most commonly asprescriptions, but could also be construed axiologically.
2 Varieties of Normativity
Concretely, we found that goal frames have significant total mediation effects on the paths of ME and PEI on GPB but were not significant in mediating the relationship between FAI and GPB. The findings provide strong evidence that media and peers can effectively activate consumers’ HGFs and NGFs, to reach GPB. This conclusion supports prior studies which found that emotional (Wang et al., 2017) and normative appeals (Lindenberg and Steg, 2007), activated by social influence, can positively influence consumer attitude toward green products. One possible reason is the lack of maturity of the current green consumption market, characterized by low innovation in green products, token environmental gestures (Chen et al., 2020), and fuzziness in the utility and satisfaction of green product use. Thus, positive gain goals fail to convert into actual green consumption, leading to a considerable gap between green motivation and behavior.
That is, theclaim need not be that the relevant norms guide our use of concepts,but could just be that it is a property essential to their havingcontent that certain mental states (true beliefs, for instance) arevaluable. Quite clearly, meaning determining rules would be constitutiverules (see section 1.2 above). Typically, they are taken to determine not only thatexpressions have meaning, but also which meanings they have.A rule \(R\) governing the use of an expression \(e\), the thought is,divides possible uses of \(e\) into those that accord with Rand those that do not. On the assumption that the former arethe semantically correct uses of \(e, \ R\) thus endows \(e\)with semantic correctness conditions, i.e., meaning.