Content uploaded by Eric Van Steenburg
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Eric Van Steenburg on Jan 08, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
Content uploaded by Iman Naderi
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Iman Naderi on Jul 05, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
Me first, then the environment: young
Millennials as green consumers
Iman Naderi and Eric Van Steenburg
Abstract
Purpose –This research aims to shed greater light on millennials’ green behavior by examining four
psychographic variables (selfless altruism, frugality, risk aversion, and time orientation) that may be
relevant to millennials’ motives to engage in environmental activities.
Design/methodology/approach –Data were collected from a sample of younger millennials (n= 276;
age = 18 to 30) using a self-administered questionnaire. The data were then analyzed using structural
equation modeling (SEM) technique.
Findings –Overall, the results of the study reveal that rational and self-oriented rather than emotional and
others-oriented motives lead millennials to act pro-environmentally.
Practical implications –The findings of this study have implications for environmental advocates,
policymakers and green marketers. For instance, the findings suggest that environmental regulators and
lawmakers should continue their efforts to provide economic incentives to encourage pro-environmental
purchases among millennials. Additionally, marketers of green products may pursue self-directed
targeting strategies in promoting green products among millennials.
Originality/value –Millennials grasp the environmental consequences of their actions and have the
education, motivation and social awareness to participate in the green movement. However, they have
not truly begun to fully integrate their beliefs and actions. The present study is an initial attempt to address
this issue by investigating various psychological factors that are relevant to the millennials’ core
behavioral motives.
Keywords Green consumption, Millennials, Sustainable consumption, Pro-environmental behaviour,
Self-interest
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
During the past three decades, there has been massive growth in environmental awareness
and concerns, especially in more developed economies such as the USA and Western
European countries (Chen and Chai, 2010;Franzen, 2003;Jain and Kaur, 2004;Wray-Lake
et al.,2010
). Over this period, the market for environmentally friendly products (also known
as green products) has begun to extend to nearly every facet of the market. At local stores,
consumers now have the ability to purchase household-cleaning products, several types of
food and even bottles of water that have, in some way, integrated the green scheme of
marketing into products. Further, consumers’ environmentally friendly behavior could go
well beyond purchasing green products and be extended to various domains such as car
sharing, water and energy conservation and reuse, recycling or responsible disposal of the
products (Bekin et al.,2007;Seitz and Peattie, 2004;Frame and Newton, 2007;McKenzie-
Mohr, 2000).
In the extant marketing and environmental literature, research efforts have sought to
identify, analyze and understand “green consumers” (Diamantopoulos et al.,2003;Jain and
Kaur, 2006;Moisander, 2007;Peattie, 2001;Straughan and Roberts, 1999), and green
consumption is naturally regarded as a process that is strongly influenced by consumer
Iman Naderi is Assistant
Professor of Marketing at
Fairfield University,
Fairfield, Connecticut, USA.
Eric Van Steenburg is
based at Montana State
University, Bozeman,
Montana, USA.
Received 7 August 2017
Revised 16 November 2017
28 February 2018
Accepted 9 April 2018
PAGE 280 jYOUNG CONSUMERS jVOL. 19 NO. 3 2018, pp. 280-295, ©Emerald Publishing Limited, ISSN 1747-3616 DOI 10.1108/YC-08-2017-00722
Downloaded by Montana State University Library Bozeman, Doctor Eric Van Steenburg At 13:02 07 January 2019 (PT)
values, norms and habits (Peattie, 2010). Specifically, a more recent and growing body of
research is focused on young consumers, investigating how environmental behaviors and
attitudes are developed and shaped (Casal
o and Escario, 2016;Otto and Kaiser, 2014)and
examining the factors that may encourage or hinder pro-environmental behaviors among
this segment of consumers (Fischer et al., 2017;Lee, 2008;Lee et al.,2016;Muralidharan
and Xue, 2016). The present study aims to contribute to the latter group by investigating
how millennials’ psychological characteristics may influence their intentions to engage in
environmental actions.
Characterized as the largest generation of consumers, millennials (also known as
Generation Y) are formally defined as those who were born between 1982 and 2000 (US
Census Bureau, 2015), reaching young adulthood in the early twenty-first century. While
some research regarding this group of consumers shows that being environmentally
friendly is key to attracting their interest, and they seek brands they regard as having a
positive effect on the environment (Henrichs, 2008; Rosenburg, 2015), other studies refute
such generalizations and suggest that millennials are more attitudinally green than
behaviorally green (Diamantopoulos et al.,2003;Grønhøj and Thøgersen, 2009;Johnson
et al.,2004
;Uyeki and Holland, 2000). Still others show a divide in millennials’ green
consumption habits based on variables such as ecological knowledge (Kanchanapibul
et al., 2014), lifestyle (Jang et al.,2011), social influence (Lee, 2008;Muralidharan and Xue,
2016), transfer of environmental attitudes from parents to children (Casal
o and Escario,
2016;Meeusen, 2014) and even gender (Anvar and Venter, 2014;Lappa
¨nen et al.,2012).
Millennial consumers, similar to their older counterparts, value accessibility, affordability
and quality, while green products are often associated with inconvenience, high costs and
lower performance (Chen and Chai, 2010;Mainieri et al., 1997;Newman et al.,2014;
Ottman et al.,2006). Is it possible, then, that millennial consumer may see green products
as an inconvenience despite their positive attitudes toward the environment?
This research aims to shed greater light on millennials’ green behavior and provide a
theoretical explanation for these conflicting preconceptions. In doing so, it focuses on how
individual psychographic characteristics may affect consumption behavior among this
generation of consumers. Research into millennials identified three smaller cohorts within
the generation that behave differently in terms of consumption. These socio-demographic
categories include single college students, single young professionals and married young
professionals (Gur
au, 2012). It is the first cohort that is the population of interest for the
present research.
Further, in the environmental literature, an extensive body of work has investigated
characteristics of green consumers that differentiate them from other consumers.
Particularly, several early studies in this domain strived to profile green consumers to
develop meaningful market segmentations using various criteria (Kilbourne and Beckmann,
1998;Peattie, 2010). Variables examined typically included age, gender, number of
children, education, and socioeconomic status (Casimir and Dutilh, 2003;Laroche et al.,
2001;Olli et al., 2001;Roberts, 1996;Straughan and Roberts, 1999;Shrum et al.,1995).
However, in a comprehensive review of this research stream, Diamantopoulos et al. (2003)
concluded that, while sociodemographic variables cannot be ignored, they offer limited
value when trying to profile green consumers or understand green consumption behavior.
In addition, previous research (Schwepker and Cornwell, 1991;Shrum et al.,1995) shows
that demographic variables typically have less explanatory power compared to
psychographic variables. Therefore, the present investigation focuses on four major
psychographic characteristics of this generation (i.e. altruism, frugality, risk aversion and
time orientation) that may be relevant to their motives to engage in environmental
consumption.
In doing so, the research makes four key contributions:
VOL. 19 NO. 3 2018 jYOUNG CONSUMERS jPAGE 281
Downloaded by Montana State University Library Bozeman, Doctor Eric Van Steenburg At 13:02 07 January 2019 (PT)
1. It challenges the presumption that millennials are environmentalist in nature.
2. It helps identify the reasons behind millennials’ pro-environmental consumption
behaviors by challenging the empathy–altruism hypothesis.
3. It confirms the motives that are more important in predicting millennials’ commitment to
act as green consumers.
4. It provides a starting point for developing strategies that marketers of green brands can
use to reach this economically powerful generation.
Are millennials really green?
As millennials, the largest generation in the USA at more than 83 million (US Census
Bureau, 2015), reach their prime working and spending years, their impact on the economy
will be extensive. With an estimated $200bn in annual buying power (Schawbel, 2015),
millennials have grown up during a time of technological change, globalization and
economic disruption, giving them a different set of behaviors and experiences than their
parents.
Despite the fact that millennials have grown up in one of the most difficult economic
climates, a global study (Nielsen, 2015) found that this group continues to be most willing to
pay extra for sustainable offerings. More precisely, almost three-out-of-four millennial
respondents were willing to pay more for brands committed to a positive social and
environmental impact, compared to only 51 per cent of baby boomers (age, 50-64) willing
to pay extra. In addition, for those willing to spend more, personal values outweigh personal
benefits, such as cost or convenience. Millennials are also supportive of stricter
environmental laws, more likely to attribute global warming to human activity, and likely to
favor environmentally friendly policies such as green energy development and economic
incentives for sustainability (Pew Research Center, 2011).
Despite this, it is still debatable as to whether millennials are committed to going green.Ina
US nationwide survey, although 69 per cent of millennials expressed genuine interest in the
environment, they appear to have a lack of personal involvement in green-related activities
(Diamantopoulos et al.,2003). For instance, only 33 per cent of American millennials always
recycle, compared with 51 per cent of American adults. In addition, millennials fell behind
the general population on other environmental issues, such as drinking water from reusable
containers, minimizing water usage during daily tasks and unplugging electronics or turning
off power strips (Head, 2013). Further, millennials neither select the environment over their
personal comfort or convenience nor consider themselves to be more personally
responsible to change their behavior to positively impact the environment (Grønhøj and
Thøgersen, 2009).
In sum, the strength of pro-environmental attitudes and behaviors among millennials
depends on individual and personal characteristics. In fact, green consumption behavior
may be influenced by general characteristics that lead to different motives to engage in
green behavior. The following section examines four important characteristics of this
generation: selfless altruism, consumer frugality, future orientation and risk averseness.
Conceptual development and hypotheses
Selfless altruism
A motivational state with the goal of increasing another’s welfare (Batson, 1991),
selfless altruism has been argued to be a quality that millennials are lacking (Twenge
and Campbell, 2009;Twenge and Foster, 2010). This generation has been
characterized as selfish, individualist, entitled and even narcissist, leading Twenge
(2006) to label it Generation Me. In addition, extant research in social and clinical
PAGE 282 jYOUNG CONSUMERS jVOL. 19 NO. 3 2018
Downloaded by Montana State University Library Bozeman, Doctor Eric Van Steenburg At 13:02 07 January 2019 (PT)
psychology (Cramer, 2011;Horton and Tritch, 2014;Horton et al., 2006) has shown that
adolescents’ other- (vs self-) oriented characteristics and behaviors could be shaped
by parenting styles and practices (e.g. warmth, psychological control, monitoring,
support, overvaluation).
The first explanation for why some people engage in pro-environmental activities is
environmental concern (Bamberg, 2003;Schwepker and Cornwell, 1991). People are normally
motivated to engage in pro-environmental behavior because they inherently care about the
environment and its human occupants. Therefore, altruism may be a strong motive for some
individuals, leading them to act environmentally friendly. In fact, de Groot and Steg (2009)
suggested that altruistic considerations provide the most stable basis for pro-environmental
behavior, and thus, it is important to strengthen altruism to promote such behavior. In addition,
Clark et al.’s (2003) study shows that altruism is an internal variable that influences green
behavior. Other studies (Chan, 2001;Li, 1997) have demonstrated the significant effect of an
individual’s collectivist orientation (group altruism) on his or her pro-environmental actions.
While the findings of the aforementioned studies generally support the existence of a
positive relationship between individuals’ selfless altruism and their willingness to engage in
green behavior, each employed research samples that included participants from various
generations. In addition, Kollmuss and Agyeman (2002) argued that people who satisfy
their personal needs are more likely to act ecologically because they have more resources
(time, money, energy) to care about bigger, less personal, social and pro-environmental
issues. Comparatively, Geller (1995) hypothesized that to act pro-environmentally,
individuals must be able to think beyond the satisfaction of their own immediate needs and
be concerned about the well-being of others and their community at large. Geller (1995)
further suggested that this state of “actively caring” can only occur if personality factors
related to self-affirmation (i.e. self-esteem, belonging and personal control) have been
satisfied. However, it is worth noting that millennials may lack some of these qualities, as
they are still in their early stages of adulthood and independence. Therefore, it is quite
possible that the findings of previous research are not extendable to this generation. The
first hypothesis examines the effect of selfless altruism on green consumption behavior in
millennials:
H1. Millennials who are higher in selfless altruism tend to engage in green consumption
behaviors more frequently.
Consumer frugality
From a rational economic perspective, consumer frugality could also be important in
motivating consumers to buy green products (Peattie, 2001;Schaefer and Crane, 2005;
Stern et al.,1999). For example, the money saving associated with driving hybrid cars or
using LED light bulbs may encourage value-conscious consumers to purchase these
products. In fact, some studies claim that the increased enthusiasm for green products is
partly due to consumers’ perception of green as money saving. For example, nearly 60 per
cent of American consumers practice “green” behaviors to save money rather than support
the environment, and this sentiment is higher among millennials (Rosenburg, 2015).
Consumer frugality, defined as “careful use of resources and avoidance of waste”
(DeYoung, 1986, p. 285), is investigated in this study because it encompasses the careful
use of both financial and physical resources. Prior to adulthood, saving and spending
patterns could be influenced by family factors. For instance, Pritchard et al. (1989) found
that adolescent savers were from families who saved and planned their use of money,
whereas discretionary spenders were mostly from families with higher income and
socioeconomic status. It is expected that consumers who are careful in how they use their
financial and physical resources will engage in pro-environmental behaviors more
frequently. In addition, less consumption, only buying needed things, using things until they
VOL. 19 NO. 3 2018 jYOUNG CONSUMERS jPAGE 283
Downloaded by Montana State University Library Bozeman, Doctor Eric Van Steenburg At 13:02 07 January 2019 (PT)
are worn out and not wasting things are all forms of behaviors that not only save money but
also are good for the planet, and thus can be labeled pro-environmental.
Frugality and economic motives are particularly critical in millennials’ decision-making, as
their financial resources are limited. In fact, numerous millennials came of age during the
global economic recession of the past decade, which was also a time when hybrid cars and
energy-saving light bulbs helped link economic pragmatism and environmental
sustainability in the consumer psyche (Rosenburg, 2015). As a result, millennials’ purchase
habits are shaped both by strong eco-friendly ideals combined with an economizing mind-
set. Therefore, it is hypothesized that:
H2. Millennials who are more frugal tend to engage in green consumption behaviors
more frequently.
Future orientation
Environmental concerns and economic considerations, while important, are not the only
motivating factors relevant to making decision about pro-environmental consumption
among millennials. Temporal considerations (e.g. time orientation) could also be equally
important. Until recently, however, they have received relatively little attention in the
environmental literature. Time orientation refers to the direction (i.e. past, present or future)
that most commonly motivates a person’s behavior and thinking (Zimbardo and Boyd,
1999). Based on this framework, future orientation is broadly defined as the extent to which
an individual thinks about the future, anticipates future consequences and plans ahead
before acting (Steinberg et al.,2009). Across development, future orientation is particularly
important during periods of major changes, for example, during the transition from
adolescence to adulthood, when youth must make choices about social groups and
academic paths, as well as risky behaviors (McCabe and Barnett, 2000).
Environmental issues are generally related to the future. That is, pro-environmental actions
and green behaviors are expected to have long-term, rather than short-term, effects. On the
other hand, previous studies indicate that the importance attached to future outcomes is a
function of both situational (Stern, 1976) and personal factors (Zimbardo and Boyd, 1999).
More specifically, Strathman et al. (1994) found that individuals perceive the immediate
versus delayed consequences of their actions differently. And people with higher scores on
consideration of future consequences scale (Strathman et al.,1994) are more easily
persuaded by the long-term benefits of environmental interventions. This suggests that
future-oriented individuals are more likely to engage in pro-environmental behaviors.
The argument for millennials, however, is slightly more complicated. On the one hand, the
research shows that millennials are more likely to live in the moment and not have as much
concern with the long-term consequences of their choices (Norum, 2008). In fact,
millennials display a lack of patience, often make decisions based on how quickly the
choice can be made rather than careful evaluation and seek instant gratification (Aruna and
Santhi, 2015). On the other hand, research also suggests that millennials are future-
oriented; younger adults generally tend to be more future-oriented than both older adults
(60-86 years old; Webster and Ma, 2013) and younger adolescents (10-16 years old;
Steinberg et al.,2009). As a result, future-oriented millennials would accept delays of
immediate gratification to achieve longer-term better goals, would be willing to invest effort
and resources in current activities that have a distant payoff and would endure unpleasant
current situations that have the potential for positive future outcomes (Zimbardo and Boyd,
1999). Consequently, future orientation could be an important predictor of green
consumption behavior for millennials because they have to live longer with the
consequences of today’s environmental decisions. Therefore, this study examines future
time orientation, which is related to one’s general attitude toward the future rather than a
specific outcome orientation. It is hypothesized that:
PAGE 284 jYOUNG CONSUMERS jVOL. 19 NO. 3 2018
Downloaded by Montana State University Library Bozeman, Doctor Eric Van Steenburg At 13:02 07 January 2019 (PT)
H3. Millennials who are more future-oriented tend to engage in green consumption
behaviors more frequently.
Risk averseness
As they enter the workforce and consider their futures, millennials have become a risk-
averse generation (Henry, 2017). This was not always the case, however, as just prior to The
Great Recession that began in 2009, research showed millennials were less brand loyal and
less risk-averse than Generation X (Reisenwitz and Iyer, 2009). But now, Winograd and Hais
(2014) found 52 per cent of millennials have a majority of their money in cash, whereas other
generations have 23 per cent in cash, suggesting that young adults are reluctant to put
money into the stock market. From a developmental point of view, millennials have seen
parents lose their jobs, homes and equity after two severe economic downturns in the past
15 years. Therefore, this generation is in a perpetual state of considering safety and
security, leading to risk-averse behaviors. In fact, a recent study by Larson et al. (2016)
found a strong connection between millennials’ financial risk-taking and the climate of risk
brought on by the Great Recession that began in 2008.
Generally, the concept of environmental risk (i.e. the risk attached to physical and social
environmental factors) is considered a strong predictor of behavior (Rutter et al.,2001).
Particularly, previous research shows that the more individuals perceive potential risks in
their environment, the more they are motivated to perform green behaviors (Seguin et al.,
1999). However, as Meijinders et al. (2001) argued, understanding the link between
environmental phenomena (e.g. climate changes) and individual behavior (e.g. driving a
SUV everyday) is difficult in the context of large-scale environmental risks, such as the
greenhouse effect. Therefore, the basic challenge is “to convince people that they are at
risk, and that they can and should take action to minimize this risk” (Meijinders et al.,2001,
p. 755).
On the other hand, individuals differ in their risk attitudes (i.e. risk-averse, risk-neutral or risk-
taking). Consequently, risk-averse millennials are expected to have higher motivation to
demonstrate pro-environmental consumption behaviors, which in turn, they hope, will
reduce the risk of living in a deteriorating environment in the future. Based on this, it is
hypothesized that:
H4. Millennials who are risk-averse tend to engage in green consumption behaviors
more frequently.
Method
Sample
A total of 285 students from a large US public university participated in this study in
exchange for course extra credit. Self-administered questionnaires were used and nine
questionnaires were excluded owing to incompleteness, resulting in a final sample of 276
participants (52.9 per cent males). Participants ranged in age from 18 to 30 years (M=
24.44, SD = 5.72), qualifying them as millennials (Gur
au, 2012).
Measurements
Selfless altruism was measured on six semantic differential items (
a
= 0.820), ranging from
1(never)to7(very often). The items were adapted from the Self-Report Altruism Scale
(SRAS; Rushton et al.,1981) and contextualized for the time and sample of the study. This
scale was used because it measures altruism as an individual’s inherent tendency to
engage in altruistic actions rather than his or her general attitudes and beliefs with regard to
altruism and social responsibility. Sample items include: I have done volunteer work for a
charity and I have let someone borrow an item of some value to me. Frugality (Lastovicka
VOL. 19 NO. 3 2018 jYOUNG CONSUMERS jPAGE 285
Downloaded by Montana State University Library Bozeman, Doctor Eric Van Steenburg At 13:02 07 January 2019 (PT)
et al., 1999) was measured on seven items (
a
= 0.842), ranging from 1 (strongly disagree)
to 7 (strongly agree). Sample items include: Making better use of my personal resources
makes me feel good and I discipline myself to get the most from my money. Future
orientation was also measured on seven items (
a
= 0.846), ranging from 1 (strongly
disagree)to7(strongly agree), which were adapted from the future time orientation
dimension of the Stanford Time Perspective Inventory (Zimbardo and Boyd, 1999). Sample
items include: I make lists of things to do,I am able to resist temptations when I know that
there is work to be done and When I want to achieve something, I set goals and consider
specific means for reaching those goals. Risk averseness was measured on the four-item
risk averseness scale (
a
= 0.672; Burton et al., 1998). The statements, rated on scales from
1(strongly disagree)to7(strongly agree), generally measure the degree to which a
consumer avoids taking risks in life. Sample items include: I have no desire to take
unnecessary chances on thing and Compared to most people I know, I like to gamble on
things (reveres-coded). Finally, covering a wide range of pro-environmental consumption
behaviors (e.g. buying products that are made from recycled materials, can be recycled,
are low in pollutants, or are sold by ecologically responsible companies, buying fruits and
vegetables grown without pesticides and buying high efficiency light bulbs), green
consumption behavior was measured on 11 items (
a
= 0.924) adopted from the scales
developed by Roberts (1996) and Stern et al. (1999). Sample items include: I make every
effort to buy plastic products made from recycled materials,“I try only to buy products that
can be recycled”, and “I do not buy products from ecologically irresponsible companies.”
The items were rated from 1 (never true)to7(always true).
Analysis and results
Before testing the model, confirmatory factor analysis was conducted (Table I), indicating
that all the factor loadings were significant at 0.01 (standardized lambdas range from 0.49
to 0.83). Composite reliabilities range from 0.676 to 0.926, indicating acceptable levels of
reliability (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). Discriminant validity was assessed by calculating the
shared variance between all possible pairs of constructs (U
2
) and verifying that for each
pair the highest shared variance (HSV) is lower than the average variance extracted (AVE)
of each individual respective construct. All pairs pass Fornell and Larcker’s (1981) test
indicating discriminant validity among the constructs.
Structural equation modeling was used to test the hypotheses. As reported in Table II,the
results for absolute, incremental and parsimonious fit indices, as well as other commonly
used fit indices demonstrate the proposed model is well-fitted with the data (chi-square =
1049.40,
x
2
/df = 1.91, GFI = 0.82, CFI = 0.95, IFI = 0.95, NFI = 0.91, RMSEA = 0.057,
SRMR = 0.063). The analysis of the structural equation model (Figure 1) shows that the link
between selfless altruism and green behavior is not significant (
g
=0.08, t=1.00), that
is, selfless altruism is not a significant predictor of green consumption behaviors for
millennials. Therefore, H1 is not supported. The findings also reveal that the path from
frugality to green behavior is positive and significant (
g
= 0.34, t= 4.11). Therefore,
supporting H2, frugality in millennials is a significant antecedent of their intentions to
Table I Convergent and discriminant validity assessment using CFA
CR Altruism Frugality Futurism Risk averseness Green behavior
Altruism 0.820 0.436
Frugality 0.844 0.096 0.449
Futurism 0.848 0.221 0.250 0.449
Risk Averseness 0.676 0.000 0.102 0.068 0.348
Green behavior 0.926 0.012 0.144 0.144 0.006 0.533
Note: The lower diagonal elements are U
2
values, and the diagonal elements (italic) are the AVEs
PAGE 286 jYOUNG CONSUMERS jVOL. 19 NO. 3 2018
Downloaded by Montana State University Library Bozeman, Doctor Eric Van Steenburg At 13:02 07 January 2019 (PT)
engage in green consumption behaviors. In addition, the hypothesized relationship
between future orientation and green behavior is supported, as this path is positive and
significant (
g
= 0.18, t= 2.07). Hence, future orientation characteristics of millennials
significantly influence their pro-environmental consumption behaviors, supporting H3.
Finally, the results show that no significant relationship exists between risk averseness and
green behavior (
g
=0.07, t=0.95). Therefore, millennials’ attitudes toward risk (here,
risk avoidance) does not play a significant role in their intentions (or lack thereof) to engage
in green consumption practices, indicating a lack of support for H4.
General discussion
A variety of pro-environmental purchase and consumption behaviors are investigated in this
study. This work shows that, as predicted, frugality, which is a rational and self-oriented
motive, is a significant driver of green consumption among college age millennials. As
discussed, millennials’ resources, both financial and physical, are limited, as most of them
are in their early stages of financial independence. In addition, they have been raised
during two of the worst economic recessions in the history (2001 and 2008). As a result, it is
Table II Structural equation modeling results
Structural links Coefficient t-value
H1. Altruism !Green Behavior 0.08 1.00 Not supported
H2. Frugality !Green Behavior 0.34 4.11** Supported
H3. Futurism !Green Behavior 0.18 2.07* Supported
H4. Risk averseness !Green Behavior 0.07 0.95 Not supported
Diagnostic statistics
Chi-square (
x
2
) 1049.40
Degrees of freedom (df) 550
x
2
/df 1.91
RMSEA 0.057
SRMR 0.063
IFI 0.95
CFI 0.95
NFI 0.91
NNFI 0.95
GFI 0.82
AGFI 0.79
Notes: *Statistical significance at the 0.05 level; **statistical significance at the 0.001 level
Figure 1 Proposed model tested in the study
VOL. 19 NO. 3 2018 jYOUNG CONSUMERS jPAGE 287
Downloaded by Montana State University Library Bozeman, Doctor Eric Van Steenburg At 13:02 07 January 2019 (PT)
hardly surprising to see that millennials have extended such defensive, saving-oriented
mind-sets in protecting their own resources to the environment in which they live.
This investigation also reveals that, as expected, having a future-oriented mind-set in
millennials is a significant predictor of green consumption. Environmental impacts, whether
conserving or harmful, are more salient in the long term. This idea explains why future
orientation generally plays a significant role in the context of environmental conservation. In
the case of millennials, however, there are conflicting views about whether they truly are
future-oriented. Such wide disagreements could explain why some studies have described
millennials as an environmentalist cohort of consumers (Henrichs, 2008; Rosenburg, 2015),
while others have questioned this generalization (Diamantopoulos et al., 2003;Grønhøj and
Thøgersen, 2009;Johnson et al., 2004).
Further, while millennials are described as a risk-averse generation, the results here show
this characterization does not translate into pro-environmental actions. This could be
because in the context of environmental conservation, risks that may directly impact an
individual are generally shorter in scope compared to those that may impact the
environment. Therefore, study participants did not perceive their green consumption
behaviors as endeavors that reduce the potential risk on themselves. Future research,
however, needs to examine this possibility.
The final, and perhaps most interesting, finding of this study is the lack of a significant
relationship between selfless altruism and pro-environmental consumption. Altruism, as an
indicator of helping and caring for others, does not lead millennials to engage in
environmentally friendly consumption. This finding questions the generalizability of the
findings in previous studies that show altruism is a predictor of pro-environmental behavior
in general samples (Clark et al.,2003;de Groot and Steg, 2009), but could support the
results of Wray-Lake et al. (2010) who saw a trend by young people to place the
responsibility for environmental conservation on the government and other consumers
rather than themselves. A possible explanation is that millennials’ altruistic actions are
driven from their genuine concern for the well-being of others, as the empathy–altruism
hypothesis suggests (Batson, 1991), while their engagement in green behaviors mainly
stem from self-directed motives. In other words, millennials do not seem to perceive pro-
environmental behaviors as pro-social actions that directly improve the well-being of others.
It appears millennials tend to “go green” only when the benefits to themselves outweigh the
costs, thus creating a disconnect between their selfless altruistic actions and their green
consumption behaviors. Another plausible explanation for these findings could be the way
altruism was measured in this study (SRAS scale). While this scale has been widely used in
social psychology research to measure an individual’s inherent tendencies to help others, it
is not the most commonly used scale to measure altruism in connection with green
behavior. For instance, the nine-item scale used by Clark et al. (2003) was constructed
based on the Schwartz (1977) norm-activation model to measure altruistic attitudes.
However, a closer look at the scale items reveals that the scale actually measures general
attitudes and beliefs with regard to altruism and social responsibility rather than the
individual’s inherent tendency to engage in altruistic actions. In addition, three items directly
measure pro-environmental attitudes and beliefs, which may have caused the correlation
between altruism and green behavior (I worry about conserving energy only when it helps to
lower my utility bills,Households like mine should not be blamed for environmental
problems caused by energy production and use and “Use of renewable energy is the best
way to combat global warming).
Based on these results, it may be concluded that rational and self-oriented motives are
more important in predicting college age millennials’ commitment to act environmentally
friendly. This conclusion is in line with previous research showing that self-oriented motives
such as concern for self-image, status-seeking and need for admiration significantly
motivate pro-environmental actions in young consumers (Griskevicius et al.,2010;Lee,
PAGE 288 jYOUNG CONSUMERS jVOL. 19 NO. 3 2018
Downloaded by Montana State University Library Bozeman, Doctor Eric Van Steenburg At 13:02 07 January 2019 (PT)
2008;Naderi and Strutton,2014, 2015). Indeed, there exists a strong belief that
“environmental change will happen only when it is in people’s self-interest” (Twenge and
Campbell, 2009, p. 268).
Practical implications
The findings of this study have implications for environmental advocates, policymakers and
green marketers. As consumers look for tangible green benefits, economic rationality is still
a significant player in this field, particularly for millennials who have not only limited financial
resources but also experienced one of the worst global economic recessions in 2008. The
recent recession has changed consumer criteria for eco-friendly products. While some
consumers may be willing to pay more for green products, millennials’ financial constraints
could pose a challenge. Therefore, green brands will have to reconcile this changing
mindset with products that have historically commanded a price premium. Additionally,
environmental regulators and lawmakers should continue their efforts to provide economic
incentives such as tax cuts and zero-interest loans to encourage pro-environmental
purchases among this cohort.
Further, because frugality was shown to influence millennials’ behavior related to green
products, marketers must demonstrate the value of the product or brand to win millennials’
favor. In general, products that are environmentally friendly are considered to be more
expensive (Chen and Chai, 2010;Muralidharan and Xue, 2016) but of lower quality. Thus,
millennials who consider their financial capabilities when making pro-environmental
purchases must be made aware of the complete value of the product. However, as
previously mentioned, the value cannot be an environmental one alone. Playing to
millennials’ frugality, marketers must communicate cost savings to millennial shoppers over
time. For example, marketing for an LED light bulb or a water usage-reducing showerhead
must include messages communicating savings on the monthly electric or water bill. In this
way, millennials will understand the financial benefits to themselves, thus touching on the
findings that frugality does motivate millennial pro-environmental consumption behavior.
Altruism in this research was not a significant predictor of green behavior among
millennials, which contradicts the findings of previous studies in this domain for general
samples (Clark et al., 2003;de Groot and Steg, 2009). Therefore, using only “other-
oriented” marketing messages in this context may not be the most effective way to promote
green products among millennials. In other words, messages with an emphasis on the
importance of improving the environment for the well-being of society may not strongly
influence millennials’ green behavior. This, however, does not also imply that green
marketers should unquestionably pursue “self-directed” targeting strategies to attract this
generation of consumers.
Moreover, because the Western culture is dominantly future-oriented (Karniol and Ross,
1996), an emphasis on future outcomes of acting environmentally friendly could be an
effective strategy for promoting green consumption. Future-oriented millennials tend to set
goals and make lists of things to do, resist temptations when there is work to be done and
consider specific means for reaching their goals. A natural implication for green marketers
and policymakers is to clearly communicate how taking small steps today leads to
significant outcomes tomorrow. For instance, how much money they can save in long term
(e.g. next 5 or 10 years) by switching to high-efficiency LED lamps or how driving electric
vehicles could have long-term societal and economic impact in their country (e.g. on GDP
or air quality). Finally, using risk attached to acting irresponsibly toward the environment as
the main appeal of the promotional message may not be an effective strategy in persuading
this generation to behave greenly unless the direct link between the promoted product and
its ecological consequences is shown and emphasized clearly.
VOL. 19 NO. 3 2018 jYOUNG CONSUMERS jPAGE 289
Downloaded by Montana State University Library Bozeman, Doctor Eric Van Steenburg At 13:02 07 January 2019 (PT)
Limitations and future research
This study provides some new insights into the factors that may encourage or hinder pro-
environmental behaviors among millennials. However, as with any study, this research is
subject to certain limitations. First, a convenience sample of college students was used in this
study and the only screening factor to qualify them as millennials was their age. Therefore, the
findings are not generalizable to the entire millennial population. While millennials as a
generation are often identified according to their age or life-state (Gur
au, 2012), other factors
such as lifestyle and interests may also be used to better define this group of consumers.
Future research should further explore these factors using more representative samples.
Second, empirical support was not found for the hypothesized effects of altruism and risk
aversion on green behavior; it would be interesting to see if these findings could be replicated
using other scales to measure altruism and risk aversion. Third, green behavior is normally
regarded as “socially desirable.” While self-administered questionnaires were used for data
collection and every effort was made to ensure anonymity and confidentiality of responses,
social desirability bias could influence the way participants reported their green behaviors.
Finally, this work was a cross-sectional study and thus could not provide a causal inference.
Therefore, future experimental studies are required to examine whether priming or
manipulating altruism, frugality, future-orientation and risk attitudes encourage
millennials to engage in green behavior more often.
Concluding remarks
Millennials grasp the environmental consequences of their actions and have the education,
motivation and social awareness to participate in the green movement. However, they have
not truly begun to fully integrate their beliefs and actions. In fact, millennial consumers could
show comparable behaviors for entirely different reasons. For instance, one may buy and
drive a hybrid car to save money on gasoline, while the other may drive an electric car to
showcase his/her interest in environmental conservation in the hope of enhancing his/her
social status. As eco-friendly product claims become more tangible to consumers, brands
have an opportunity to grow green portfolios by segmenting their customers who seek
green products for different reasons, such as health, sustainability and cost. The present
study was an initial attempt to address this issue, and future research should examine other
motivations for green consumption among this specific generation of young consumers.
References
Anvar, M. and Venter, M. (2014), “Attitudes and purchase behavior of green products among generation
Y consumers in South Africa”, Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, Vol. 5, pp. 183-194.
Aruna, S. and Santhi, P. (2015), “Impulse purchase behavior among generation-Y”, IUP Journal of
Marketing Management, Vol. 14, pp. 21-38.
Bamberg, S. (2003), “How does environmental concern influence specific environmentally related
behaviors? a new answer to an old question”, Journal of Environmental Psychology, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 21-32.
Batson, C.D. (1991), The Altruism Question: Toward A Social-psychological Answer, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.
Bekin, C., Carrigan, M. and Szmigin, I. (2007), “Beyond recycling: ‘commons-friendly’ waste reduction at
new consumption communities”, Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Vol. 6 No. 5, pp. 271-286.
Burton, S., Lichtenstein, D.R., Netemeyer, R.G. and Garretson, J.A. (1998), “A scale for measuring
attitude toward private label products and an examination of its psychological and behavioral
correlations”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 293-306.
Casal
o, L.V. and Escario, J.J. (2016), “Intergenerational association of environmental concern: evidence
of parents’ and children’s concern”, Journal of Environmental Psychology, Vol. 48, pp. 65-74.
Casimir, G. and Dutilh, C. (2003), “Sustainability: a gender studies perspective”, International Journal of
Consumer Studies, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 316-325.
PAGE 290 jYOUNG CONSUMERS jVOL. 19 NO. 3 2018
Downloaded by Montana State University Library Bozeman, Doctor Eric Van Steenburg At 13:02 07 January 2019 (PT)
Chan, R.Y.K. (2001), “Determinants of Chinese consumers’ green purchase behavior”, Psychology &
Marketing, Vol. 18No. 4, pp. 389-413.
Chen, T.B. and Chai, L.T. (2010), “Attitude towards the environment and green products: consumers’
perspective”, Management Science and Engineering, Vol. 24,pp. 27-39.
Clark, C.F., Kotchen, M.J. and Moore, M.R. (2003), “Internal and external influences on pro-environmental
behavior: participation in a green electricity program”, Journal of Environmental Psychology,Vol.23
No. 3, pp. 237-246.
Cramer, P. (2011), “Young adult narcissism: a 20 year longitudinal study of the contribution of parenting
styles, preschool precursors of narcissism, and denial”, Journal of Research in Personality,Vol.45No.1,
pp. 19-28.
de Groot, J.I.M. and Steg, L. (2009), “Mean or green: which values can promote stable pro-environmental
behavior?”, Conservation Letters, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 61-66.
DeYoung, R. (1986), “Encouraging environmentally appropriate behavior: the role of intrinsic motivation”,
Journal of Environmental Systems, Vol.15, pp. 281-291.
Diamantopoulos, A., Schlegelmilch, B.B., Sinkovics, R.R. and Bohlen, G.M. (2003), “Can socio-
demographics still play a role in profiling green consumers? A review of the evidence and an empirical
investigation”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 56 No. 6,pp. 465-480.
Fischer, D., Bo
¨hme, T. and Geiger, S.M. (2017), “Measuring young consumers’ sustainable
consumption behavior: development and validation of the YCSCB scale”, Young Consumers,Vol.18
No. 3, pp. 312-326.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.G. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables
and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol.18, pp. 39-50.
Frame, B. and Newton, B. (2007), “Promoting sustainability through social marketing: examples from New
Zealand”, International Journal of Consumer Studies, Vol. 31 No. 6, pp. 571-581.
Franzen, A. (2003), “Environmental attitudes in international comparison: an analysis of the ISSP surveys
1993 and 2000”, Social Science Quarterly, Vol. 84 No. 2, pp. 297-308.
Geller, E.S. (1995), “Actively caring for the environment: an integration of behaviorism and humanism”,
Environment & Behavior, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 184-195.
Griskevicius, V., Tybur, J.M. and Van den Bergh, B. (2010), “Going green to be seen: status, reputation,
and conspicuous conservation”, Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, Vol. 98, pp. 392-404.
Grønhøj, A. and Thøgersen, J. (2009), “Like father, like son? Intergenerational transmission of values,
attitudes, and behaviours in the environmental domain”, Journal of Environmental Psychology,Vol.29
No. 4, pp. 414-421.
Gur
au, C. (2012), “A life-stage analysis of consumer loyalty profile: comparing generation X and millennial
consumers”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 103-113.
Head, L.A. (2013), Millennials are greener! Really?, Shelton Group, Knoxville, TN (accessed 17 January
2016).
Henry, L. (2017), “Are young people becoming more risk averse? An analysis of factors contributing to
the rise of precautionary savings among young adults”, Business Economics, Vol. 52 No. 1, pp. 32-40.
Horton, R.S. and Tritch, T. (2014), “Clarifying the links between grandiose narcissism and parenting”,
Journal of Psychology, Vol. 148 No. 2, pp. 133-143.
Horton, R.S., Bleau, G. and Drwecki, B. (2006), “Parenting narcissus: what are the links between
parenting and narcissism?”, Journal of Personality, Vol. 74 No. 2, pp. 345-376.
Jain, S.K. and Kaur, G. (2004), “Green marketing: an attitudinal and behavioral analysis of Indian
consumers”, Global Business Review, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 187-205.
Jain, S.K. and Kaur, G. (2006), “Role of socio-demographics in segmenting and profiling green
consumers: an exploratory study of consumers in India”, Journal of International Consumer Marketing,
Vol. 18, pp. 107-117.
Jang, Y.J., Kim, W.G. and Bonn, M.A. (2011), “Generation Y consumers’ selection attributes and
behavioral intentions concerning green restaurants”, International Journal of Hospitality Management,
Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 803-811.
VOL. 19 NO. 3 2018 jYOUNG CONSUMERS jPAGE 291
Downloaded by Montana State University Library Bozeman, Doctor Eric Van Steenburg At 13:02 07 January 2019 (PT)
Johnson, C.Y., Bowker, J.M. and Cordell, H.K. (2004), “Ethnic variation in environmental belief and
behavior: an examination of the new ecological paradigmin a social psychological context”,Environment
and Behavior, Vol.36 No. 2, pp. 157-186.
Kanchanapibul, M., Lacka, E., Wang, X. and Chan, H.K. (2014), “An empirical investigation of green
purchase behaviour among the young generation”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 66, pp. 528-536.
Karniol, R. and Ross, M. (1996), “The motivational impact of temporal focus: thinking about the future and
the past”, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 47, pp. 593-620.
Kilbourne, W.E. and Beckmann, S.C. (1998), “Review and critical assessment of research on marketing
and the environment”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 14 No. 6,pp. 513-532.
Kollmuss, A. and Agyeman, J. (2002), “Mind the gap: why do people act environmentally and what are the
barriers to pro-environmental behavior? ”, Environmental Education Research,Vol.8No.3,pp.239-260.
Lappa
¨nen, J.M., Haahla, A.E., Lensu, A.M. and Kuitunen, M.T. (2012), “Parent-child similarity in
environmental attitudes: a pairwise comparison”, The Journal of Environmental Education,Vol.43No.3,
pp. 162-176.
Laroche, M., Bergeron, J. and Barbaro-Forleo, G. (2001), “Targeting consumers who are willing to pay
more for environmentally friendly products”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 6, pp. 503-520.
Larson, L.R.L., Eastman, J.K. and Bock, D.E. (2016), “A multi-method exploration of the relationship
between knowledge and risk: the impact on millennials’ retirement investment decisions”, Journal of
Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 72-90.
Lastovicka, J.L., Bettencourt, L.A., Shaw Hughner, R. and Kuntze, R.J. (1999), “Lifestyle of the tight and
frugal: theory and measurement”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 85-98.
Lee, K. (2008), “Opportunities for green marketing: young consumers”, Marketing Intelligence &
Planning, Vol. 26 No. 6, pp. 573-586.
Lee, J.D., Bahl, A., Black, G.S., Duber-Smith, D.C. and Vowles, N.S. (2016), “Sustainable and non-
sustainable consumer behavior in young adults”, Young Consumers, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 78-93.
Li, L.Y. (1997), “Effect of collectivist orientation and ecological attitude on actual environmental
commitment: the moderating role of consumer demographics and product involvement”, Journal of
International Consumer Marketing, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 31-53.
McCabe, K. and Barnett, D. (2000), “First comes work, then comes marriage: future orientation among
African American young adolescents”, FamilyRelations, Vol. 49 No. 1, pp. 63-70.
McKenzie-Mohr, D. (2000), “Promoting sustainable behavior: an introduction to community-based social
marketing”, Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 56 No. 3, pp. 543-554.
Mainieri, T., Barnett, E.G., Valdero, T.R., Unipan, J.B. and Oskamp, S. (1997), “Green buying: the influence
of environmental concern on consumer behavior”, Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 137 No. 2, pp. 189-204.
Meeusen, C. (2014), “Concern: the influence of parents and communication patterns within the family”,
The Journal of Environmental Education, Vol. 45 No. 2, pp. 77-90.
Meijinders, A.L., Midden, C.J.H. and Wilke, H.A.M. (2001), “Communications about environmental risks
and risk-reducing behavior: the impact of fear on information processing”, Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 754-777.
Moisander, J. (2007), “Motivational complexity of greenconsumerism”, International Journal of Consumer
Studies, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 404-409.
Muralidharan, S. and Xue, F. (2016), “Personal networks as a precursor to a green future: a study of
“green” consumer socialization among young millennials from India and China”, Young Consumers,
Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 226-242.
Naderi, I. and Strutton, D. (2014), “Can normal narcissism be managed to promote green product
purchases? Investigating a counterintuitive proposition”, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 44
No. 5, pp. 375-391.
Naderi, I. and Strutton, D. (2015), “I support sustainability but only when doing so reflects fabulously on
me: can green narcissists be cultivated? ”, Journal of Macromarketing, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 70-83.
Newman, G.E., Gorlin, M. and Dhar, R. (2014), “When going green backfires: how firm intentions shape
the evaluation of socially beneficial product enhancements”, Journal of Consumer Research,Vol.41
No. 3, pp. 823-839.
PAGE 292 jYOUNG CONSUMERS jVOL. 19 NO. 3 2018
Downloaded by Montana State University Library Bozeman, Doctor Eric Van Steenburg At 13:02 07 January 2019 (PT)
Nielsen (2015) “The sustainability imperative” (accessed 18 January 2016).
Norum, P.S. (2008), “The role of time preference and credit card usage in compulsive buying behavior”,
International Journal of ConsumerStudies, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 269-275.
Olli, E., Grendstad, D. and Wollebark, D. (2001), “Correlates of environmental behaviors: bringing back
social context”, Environment & Behavior, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 181-208.
Ottman, J.A., Stafford, E.R. and Hartman, C.L. (2006), “Avoiding green marketing myopia: ways to improve
consumer appeal for environmentally preferable products”, Environment, Vol. 48 No. 5, pp. 22-36.
Otto, S. and Kaiser, F.G. (2014), “Ecological behavior across the lifespan: why environmentalism
increases as people grow older”, Journal of Environmental Psychology, Vol. 40, pp. 331-338.
Peattie, K. (2001), “Golden goose or wild goose? The hunt for the green consumer”, Business Strategy &
Environment, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 187-199.
Peattie, K. (2010), “Green consumption: behavior and norms”, Annual Review of Environment and
Resources, Vol. 35No. 1, pp. 195-228.
Pew Research Center. (2011), The generation gap and the 2012 election: Domestic and foreign policy
views. Pew Research Center,Washington, DC (accessed 19 January 2016).
Pritchard, M.E., Myers, B.K. and Cassidy, D.J. (1989), “Factors associated with adolescent saving and
spending patterns”,Adolescence, Vol. 24 No. 95, pp. 711-723.
Reisenwitz, T.H. and Iyer, R. (2009), “Differences in generation X and generation Y: implications for the
organization and marketers”, Marketing Management Journal, Vol. 19, pp. 91-103.
Roberts, J.A. (1996), “Green consumers in the 1990s: profile and implications for advertising”, Journal of
Business Research, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 217-231.
Rosenburg, J (2015), “Millennials green up American consumerism” (accessed 19 January 2016).
Rushton, J.P., Chrisjohn, R.D. and Fekken, G.C. (1981), “The altruistic personality and the self-report
altruism scale”, Personality & Individual Difference, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 293-302.
Rutter, M., Robin, M. and Pickles, A. (2001), “Testing hypotheses on specific environmental causal
effects on behavior”,Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 127No. 3, p. 291.
Schaefer, A. and Crane, A. (2005), “Addressing sustainability and consumption”, Journal of
Macromarketing, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 76-92.
Schawbel, D. (2015), “10 new findings about the millennial consumer” (accessed 11 January 2016)
Schwartz, S. (1977), “Normative influences on altruism”, Advances in Experimental Social Psychology,
Vol. 10, pp. 222-279.
Schwepker, C.H.J. and Cornwell, T.B. (1991), “An examination of ecologically concerned consumers and
their intention to purchase ecologically packaged products”, Journal of Public Policy & Marketing,
Vol. 10, pp. 77-101.
Seguin, C., Pelletier, L.G. and Hunsley, J. (1999), “Predicting environmental behaviors: the influence of
self-determined motivation and information about perceived environmental health risks”, Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 29 No. 8, pp. 1582-1604.
Seitz, M.A. and Peattie, K. (2004), “Meeting the closed-loop challenge: the case of remanufacturing”,
Californial Management Review, Vol. 46No. 2, pp. 74-89.
Shrum, L.J., McCarty, J.A. and Lowrey, T.M. (1995), “Buyer characteristics of the green consumer and
their implications for advertising strategy”,Journal of Advertising, Vol. 24 No. 2,pp. 71-82.
Steinberg, L., Sandra, G., o’Brien, L., Woolard, J., Cauffman, E., Banich, M. and Marie, (2009), “Age
differences in future orientation and delay discounting”, Child Development, Vol. 80 No. 1, pp. 28-44.
Stern, P.C. (1976), “Effect of incentives and education on resource conservation decisions in a simulated
common dilemma”, Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, Vol.34 No. 6, pp. 1285-1292.
Stern, P.C., Dietz, T., Abel, T., Guagnano, G.A. and Kalof, L. (1999), “A value-belief-norm theory of
support for social movements: the case of environmentalism”, Human Ecology Review, Vol. 6, pp. 81-97.
Strathman, A., Gleicher, F., Boninger, D.S. and Edwards, C.S. (1994), “The consideration of future
consequences: weighing immediate and distant outcomes of behavior”, Journal of Personality & Social
Psychology, Vol. 66 No. 4, pp. 742-752.
VOL. 19 NO. 3 2018 jYOUNG CONSUMERS jPAGE 293
Downloaded by Montana State University Library Bozeman, Doctor Eric Van Steenburg At 13:02 07 January 2019 (PT)
Straughan, R.D. and Roberts, J.A. (1999), “Environmental segmentation alternatives: a look at green
consumer behavior in the new millennium”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 16No. 6, pp. 558-575.
Twenge, J.M. (2006), Generation Me: Why Today’s Young Americans are More Confident, Assertive,
Entitled, and More Miserable than Ever Before, Free Press, New York, NY.
Twenge, J.M. and Campbell, W.K. (2009), The Narcissism Epidemic: Living in the Age of Entitlement,
Free Press, New York, NY.
Twenge, J.M. and Foster, J.D. (2010), “Birth cohort increases in narcissistic personality traits among
American college students, 1982-2009”, Social Psychological & Personality Science,Vol.1No.1,
pp. 99-106.
US Census Bureau (2015) “Millennials outnumber Baby Boomers and are far more diverse” (accessed 15
January 2016)
Uyeki, E. and Holland, L. (2000), “Diffusion of pro-environmental attitudes?”, American Behavioral
Scientist, Vol. 43No. 4, pp. 646-662.
Webster, J.D. and Ma, X. (2013), “A balanced time perspective in adulthood: well-being and
developmental effects”, Canadian Journal on Aging, Vol. 32 No. 4,pp. 433-442.
Winograd, M. and Hais, M. (2014) “How Millennials could upend Wall Street and Corporate America”
(accessed 17 January 2016).
Wray-Lake, L., Flanagan, C.A. and Osgood, D.W. (2010), “Examining trends in adolescent
environmental attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors across three decades”, Environment and Behavior,
Vol.42No.1,pp.61-85.
Zimbardo, P.G. andBoyd, J.N. (1999), “Putting time in perspective: a valid, reliable individual-differences
metric”, Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, Vol. 77 No. 6, pp. 1271-1288.
Further reading
Brown, D. and Hayes, N. (2008), Influencer Marketing: Who Really Influences Your Customers?,
Butterworth-Heinemann, Burlington, MA.
D’Souza, C., Taghian, M., Lamb, P. and Peretiatko, R. (2007), “Green decisions: demographics and
consumer understanding of environmental labels”, International Journal of Consumer Studies,Vol.31
No. 4, pp. 371-376.
Mangold, W.G. and Smith, K.T. (2014), “Selling to millennials with online reviews”, Business Horizons,
Vol. 55 No. 2, pp. 141-153.
Roberts, J.A. and Bacon, D.R. (1997), “Exploring the subtle relationships between environmental
concern and ecologically conscious consumer behavior”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 40 No. 1,
pp. 79-89.
Sago, B. (2010), “The influence of social media message sources on millennial generation consumers”,
International Journal of Integrated Marketing Communications, Vol. 2,pp. 7-18.
PAGE 294 jYOUNG CONSUMERS jVOL. 19 NO. 3 2018
Downloaded by Montana State University Library Bozeman, Doctor Eric Van Steenburg At 13:02 07 January 2019 (PT)
