Total Value and Sustainable Products

‘‘Yes, but this Other One Looks Better/Works Better’’: How do Consumers Respond to Trade-offs Between Sustainability and Other Valued Attributes?

Michael G. Luchs1 • Minu Kumar2

Received: 23 August 2014 / Accepted: 15 May 2015 / Published online: 28 May 2015

� Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Abstract Consumers are increasingly facing product

evaluation and choice situations that include information

about product sustainability, i.e., information about a pro-

duct’s relative environmental and social impact. In many

cases, consumers have to make decisions that involve a

trade-off between product sustainability and other valued

product attributes. Similarly, product and marketing man-

agers need to make decisions that reflect how consumers will

respond to different trade-off scenarios. In the current re-

search, we study consumer responses across two different

possible trade-off scenarios: one in which consumers face a

trade-off between product sustainability and hedonic value,

and another in which they must trade-off between product

sustainability and utilitarian value. Our results suggest that,

overall, consumers are more likely to trade-off hedonic value

(e.g., esthetics) for sustainability than to trade-off utilitarian

value (e.g., functional performance) for sustainability. In

Studies 1A and 1B, we presented participants with a product

choice task and also measured their anticipatory emotions as

they contemplated their options. The results suggest that

given a trade-off, consumers are more likely to choose a

sustainable product when they have to trade-off hedonic

value than when they have to trade-off utilitarian value.

Further, these studies provide some insight into the emotions

underlying this effect. In Study 2, we use a different

consumer response measure, relative purchase likelihood,

and investigate the effect of trade-off type across categories

that vary in the degree to which hedonic and utilitarian at-

tributes are perceived to be important (referred to as ‘product

type’). Our results suggest that the effect of trade-off type

still holds, yet is moderated by product type such that con-

sumers’ greater willingness to trade-off hedonic value (vs.

utilitarian value) for sustainability is attenuated as the relative

importance of hedonic (vs. utilitarian) attributes increases. In

addition to building on our theoretical understanding of de-

cision making given trade-offs with moral attributes, this

research is also intended to support managers as they define

and choose among various strategic, product development,

and marketing promotion options.

Keywords Sustainability � Attribute trade-offs � Ethical consumption � Sustainable products

Introduction

Based in part on their understanding of consumer needs

and wants, product and marketing managers endow prod-

ucts with different types of benefits and values through the

design and development process (Madhavan and Grover

1998). Once these products are in the market, consumers’

responses are influenced by the various trade-offs often

embodied in the available product options (Bettman et al.

1998). The current research addresses consumer responses

to products—specifically, choice and relative purchase

likelihood—within the context of information about pro-

duct sustainability given the growing interest in sustain-

ability by consumers (BBMG 2011), the growing

importance of sustainability and ethical consumption to

& Minu Kumar [email protected]

Michael G. Luchs

[email protected]

1 The College of William and Mary,

P.O. Box 8795, Williamsburg, VA 23187-8795, USA

2 San Francisco State University, 1600 Holloway Avenue,

San Francisco, CA 94132, USA

123

J Bus Ethics (2017) 140:567–584

DOI 10.1007/s10551-015-2695-0

companies (Boston Consulting Group 2009; Chouinard

et al. 2011; McKinsey & Company 2011), and ongoing

calls by academics for more research (Kotler 2011; Sheth

et al. 2011; Theotokis and Manganari 2014; Vitell 2003).

It is likely that the relevance and importance of research

on sustainability—from both a consumer and a managerial

point of view—will continue to grow as more information

about product sustainability is provided to consumers di-

rectly through labels on products (Parguel et al. 2011) as

well as indirectly through third-party websites (e.g., http://

www.goodguide.com/). However, although many con-

sumers articulate strong support for sustainability, a dis-

proportionately lower number of consumers actually

purchase products identified as more sustainable (UNEP

2005), contributing to their low market share (Peloza et al.

2012). Building on the idea that consumers often infer a

trade-off between sustainability and other product at-

tributes (Lin and Chang 2012; Luchs et al. 2010), the ob-

jective of the current research is to contribute to our

understanding of when and why consumers will respond

favorably to a product that is more sustainable, despite an

explicit trade-off with other valued attributes.

Specifically within the context of trade-offs involving

product sustainability and functional performance, prior

research provides evidence suggesting that consumers tend

to choose products with superior functional performance

over products with superior sustainability characteristics

(Lindgren et al. 2009; Luchs et al. 2012) and antecedent

emotions such as confidence and guilt play an important

role in these choices (Luchs et al. 2012; Stenhaut and

Kenhove 2006; Theotakis and Manganari 2014). Further,

this stream of research demonstrates that this preference for

performance over sustainability is moderated by con-

sumers’ attitude towards sustainability which influences the

degree to which they experience various emotions when

contemplating their choices (Luchs et al. 2012; Steenhaut

and Kenhove 2006). However, prior research has also

demonstrated that different types of product attribute trade-

offs, such as those involving utilitarian and hedonic at-

tributes, can have different emotional and behavioral con-

sequences (Chitturi et al. 2007, 2008). Thus, the current

research builds on prior research addressing trade-offs in-

volving sustainability by investigating consumers’ re-

sponse to products that present a trade-off either between

product sustainability and utilitarian value, or between

product sustainability and hedonic value (henceforth,

‘trade-off type’). More generally, given a trade-off with

product sustainability, does trade-off type matter?; and, if

so, when and how? Beyond the potential theoretical value

of providing insight into these questions, this research is

also intended to support managers as they define and

choose among various strategic and product development

options during the development of relatively more

sustainable products. Further, the findings from this re-

search may help guide managers as they develop posi-

tioning and promotion strategies for these products,

especially when their superior sustainability presents con-

sumers a trade-off, real or perceived, with other valued

attributes.

The remainder of the article is organized as follows. We

begin by developing predictions for consumer response

given these different trade-offs based on the underlying

goals and anticipatory emotions. We also develop predic-

tions for the moderating effects of consumers’ attitudes

towards sustainability and product type, where product

type refers to the degree to which hedonic and utilitarian

attributes are perceived to be relatively important. We then

describe three studies that test our predictions. In Studies

1A and 1B, we present participants with a product choice

task and also measure their anticipatory emotions as they

contemplate their options. In Study 2, we investigate this

effect across categories that vary in the degree to which

hedonic and utilitarian attributes are perceived to be im-

portant. We also use a different consumer response mea-

sure in Study 2: relative purchase likelihood. We conclude

with a discussion of the theoretical contributions and

managerial implications of the findings from these studies.

When and Why Might Consumers Respond More Favorably Towards a Trade-off Between Sustainability and Hedonic value (vs. Utilitarian Value)?

Trade-off Goals, Emotions, and Consumer Response

While our research focus is on consumer responses to

trade-offs involving sustainability, we develop our pre-

dictions by drawing on research that has studied the roles

of goals and emotions in the context of consumer decision

making. For example, choice and the emotional an-

tecedents of choice can be explained in part based on

regulatory fit theory (Higgins 1997) in which behavior can

be understood as goal pursuit and the individual’s desire to

pursue gains, i.e., promotion-oriented goals, or avoid pains,

i.e., prevention-oriented goals. Anticipation and fulfillment

of goals evokes positive emotions, whereas non-fulfillment

of anticipated goals evokes negative emotions (Higgins

1997). Thus, within the current context, we can understand

consumers’ emotional and behavioral responses to products

based on their appraisal of product attributes and the goals

that they can potentially fulfill (Chernev 2004; Chitturi

et al. 2007, 2008).

Others have characterized utilitarian attributes as

relatively more prevention oriented and hedonic attributes

are relatively more promotion oriented (Chernev 2004).

568 M. G. Luchs, M. Kumar

123

According to Higgins (1997), prevention goals are char-

acterized by desires such as ‘behaving in a safe and secure

manner’ or ‘being responsible,’ and promotion goals are

characterized by desires such as ‘looking cool’ or ‘being

sophisticated.’ As such, the choice of utilitarian attributes

has been shown to be a consequence of prevention-oriented

emotions, such as confidence (Chitturi et al. 2007; Higgins

2001; Luchs et al. 2012), whereas compromising utilitarian

attributes is associated with distress (Luchs et al. 2012).

Conversely, the choice of hedonic attributes has been

shown to be a consequence of promotion-oriented emo-

tions; choosing a product with hedonically superior at-

tributes is associated with greater excitement, whereas

compromising hedonic attributes is associated with disap-

pointment (Chitturi et al. 2007; Higgins 2001). Predicting

choice in the current context, however, depends on un-

derstanding what goals might be satisfied (or sacrificed)

when considering a trade-off with sustainability, where

sustainable products have been described as products that

reflect positive moral principles (Irwin and Baron 2001,

2009) related to a variety of social issues, e.g., fair labor

practices, and environmental issues, e.g., avoiding pollu-

tion (Luchs et al. 2010).

Trading-off Sustainability and Utilitarian Value

First, consider the context of a consumer contemplating a

choice of a product with greater utilitarian value, e.g.,

functional performance, over a more sustainable product.

As discussed previously, utilitarian attributes fulfill pre-

vention goals, leading to greater confidence. In addition,

the emotions experienced in this context are also likely to

reflect unfulfilled goals. Prior research has shown that

choosing utilitarian attributes can lead to less guilt, such as

in the context of a trade-off with hedonic attributes (Kivetz

and Simonson 2002), because choosing the former is the

morally superior decision (Chitturi et al. 2007). However,

prior research in this journal (Steenhaut and Kenhove

2006; Theotokis and Manganari 2014) and elsewhere

(Luchs, et al. 2012; Peloza et al. 2012; Tangney et al. 2007)

has shown that not choosing greater sustainability can also

lead to feelings of guilt. Thus, choosing in favor of utili-

tarian value can lead to either less guilt or more guilt de-

pending on what is being traded off. In the current context,

consistent with Luchs et al. (2012), we would expect a

choice of greater utilitarian value over sustainability to lead

to greater feelings of guilt given that choosing utilitarian

value is the morally inferior decision.

What emotions are likely to be evoked if consumers

instead contemplate choosing the alternative product that

offers superior sustainability, but inferior utilitarian value?

Prior work by Luchs et al. (2012) has shown that con-

sumers who favor a product alternative that offers greater

sustainability but inferior functional performance can ex-

perience feelings of distress because their functional per-

formance needs are being compromised. However,

choosing sustainability over utilitarian value may appeal to

consumers given that it can signal self-identity (Batson and

Shaw 1991). For example, compromising functional per-

formance in favor of sustainability can be perceived as

sacrificing the relatively self-serving short-term goal of

fulfilling functional performance needs in favor of the

greater good of society. Decisions that involve making

personal sacrifice for the greater good of society evoke a

feeling of pride, which has been described as a pleasant

emotion in response to meeting internalized social stan-

dards (Orth et al. 2010; Tracy and Robins 2004). Therefore,

choosing a more sustainable product over a product with

superior functional performance is likely to evoke not only

distress but also pride.

Trading-off Sustainability and Hedonic Value

Next, consider the context of a consumer contemplating the

choice of a product with superior hedonic value, e.g., su-

perior esthetics, over a more sustainable product. As dis-

cussed previously, hedonic attributes can fulfill promotion

goals leading to greater excitement (Chitturi et al. 2007).

However, similar to the context of a trade-off with func-

tional performance, choosing esthetics over sustainability

will also lead to feelings of guilt (Peloza et al. 2012) given

that esthetics is, once again, the morally inferior option.

Considering the alternative situation in which a con-

sumer is contemplating the choice of a product that is more

sustainable over a product with superior hedonic value,

once again we would expect the consumer to feel a sense of

pride given that they are forgoing an option that benefits

them personally in favor of an option whose benefits are

primarily other oriented. In contrast to the prior trade-off

between sustainability and utilitarian value, however, we

expect the primary negative emotion resulting from the

non-fulfillment of the goals attainable through hedonic

value to be disappointment. Although similar in valence to

distress, this disappointment reflects the non-fulfillment of

a fundamentally different goal—self-promotion—which

others have shown to be a consequence of a choice that

compromises on esthetics (Chitturi et al. 2007) and which

we also expect in the unique context of this trade-off be-

tween hedonic value and sustainability.

In summary, we have argued that the emotional conse-

quences of choosing (or trading-off) sustainability depend

on whether consumers are trading-off sustainability for

utilitarian value or hedonic value, as illustrated in Fig. 1.

Next, we address the focal question of our research: does

consumer response, when considering a trade-off with

sustainability, depend on what is being traded off?

‘‘Yes, but this Other One Looks Better/Works Better’’: How do Consumers Respond to Trade-offs… 569

123

Relative Purchase Likelihood and Choice

of Utilitarian Value Over Sustainability Versus

Hedonic Value over Sustainability

Prior research suggests that as conflict in decision making

increases, consumers’ decision process shifts from a focus

on desirability to justifiability (Sela et al. 2009; Shafir et al.

1993). For example, it is easier to justify the choice of a

more utilitarian product over a more hedonic product

(Kivetz and Simonson 2002), in part due to the greater guilt

associated with choosing hedonic value over utilitarian

value (O’Curry and Strahilevitz 2001; Peloza et al. 2012;

Strahilevitz and Myers 1998). We extend this logic to the

current context in which we can consider which type of

attribute value, utilitarian or hedonic, is easier to justify

choosing over sustainability. We propose that it is espe-

cially difficult to justify the choice of hedonic value over

sustainability since hedonics is typically viewed as a

‘‘want,’’ i.e., a luxury, and hedonics, in this context, is more

clearly the morally inferior option. While choosing utili-

tarian value over sustainability can also induce feelings of

guilt, it can be more easily justified given the fulfillment of

a perceived need.

Further, while we would expect consideration of the

more sustainable option to induce feelings of pride in either

trade-off contexts, we would expect the intensity of pride

felt to be greater in the context of choosing sustainability

over hedonics rather than choosing sustainability over

utilitarian value. Recall that pride has been described as a

pleasant emotion in response to meeting internalized social

standards (Tracy and Robins 2004) that can derive from

making personal sacrifice for the greater good of society. In

this case, compromising on hedonics is especially likely to

be viewed as a personal sacrifice since hedonics is

relatively more closely aligned with the consumer’s iden-

tity given the self-promotion goal that it addresses.

Therefore, the greater pride evoked when considering

sustainability in the context of a trade-off with hedonic

value (vs. utilitarian value) also suggests that consumers

are relatively more likely to choose utilitarian value (vs.

hedonic value) over sustainability.

In addition to the joint effect of guilt and pride, it is also

plausible that consumers are more likely to choose utili-

tarian value (vs. hedonic value) over sustainability due to

the greater confidence (and lower distress) experienced

when choosing a relatively more utilitarian product. Con-

sistent with the precedence principle (Berry 1994; Lind-

gren et al. 2009), Chitturi, et al. (2007) demonstrate that

consumers choose utilitarian value over hedonic value due

in part to the greater confidence in an option that satisfies

their prevention goals despite the greater excitement of-

fered by superior hedonics. Similarly, we expect the rela-

tive choice likelihood of superior utilitarian value over

sustainability (vs. superior hedonic value over sustain-

ability) to be influenced by the greater confidence (and

lower distress) offered by superior utilitarian value (vs.

superior hedonic value). Formally, and from the perspec-

tive of consumer response to sustainable products given a

trade-off with either utilitarian value or hedonic value, we

propose the following:

H1 Consumer response depends on trade-off type such

that consumers will respond more (less) favorably to a

product that trades off hedonic value (utilitarian value) for

sustainability.

Next, we have argued that choice in the current context

depends on consumers’ resolution of the competing goals

presented by the different choice options. However, some

goals may be more (or less) important to different con-

sumers. Compared with utilitarian and hedonic value, it is

likely that there is significantly more variance in con-

sumers’ attitude towards sustainability and, therefore,

variance in the relative importance of the competing goals

in the current context. Differences in the degree to which

consumers value the concept of sustainability have been

shown to predict consumers’ responses to firms’ corporate

social responsibility (CSR) activities (Bhattacharya and

Sen 2003), their willingness to pay a premium for

Fig. 1 Consumer response to a trade-off with sustainability

depends on what is being traded

off

570 M. G. Luchs, M. Kumar

123

sustainable products (Trudel and Cotte 2009), and to in-

fluence their product choices (Auger et al. 2008). There-

fore, we might also expect that the aforementioned

predicted greater guilt evoked by the product with superior

hedonic value (vs. superior utilitarian value) would also

depend on consumers’ attitude towards sustainability.

Similarly, while choosing sustainability over hedonics is

likely to evoke feelings of pride, we would also expect the

intensity of pride felt to also depend on consumers’ attitude

towards sustainability given that this emotion depends on

the degree to which the consumer’s identity is associated

with relatively more sustainable choices. Therefore, we

would expect that consumers will experience greater guilt

(pride) when considering a choice of superior hedonic

value (sustainability) over sustainability (hedonic value) as

their attitude towards sustainability becomes more positive,

thus increasing the likelihood of choosing the more sus-

tainable option. We depict this moderating effect of Atti-

tude towards Sustainability in Fig. 2. Formally, we propose

the following:

H2 The effect of trade-off type on consumer response

described in H1 is moderated by consumers’ attitude to-

wards sustainability such that consumers will respond more

favorably to a trade-off with hedonic value (vs. utilitarian

value) as their attitude towards sustainability becomes

more positive.

Finally, just as we have argued that consumers vary in

the degree to which product attribute-related goals are

relatively more or less important, the nature of the product

itself is also likely to have an effect on goal salience.

Specifically, we could expect to find that the salience of

promotion (prevention)-related goals would be higher in

relatively more hedonic (utilitarian) product categories, or

types. Thus, as shown in Fig. 2, we would expect the focal

effect of trade-off type to be moderated by product type

(hedonic vs. utilitarian) since the variance of goal salience

across product types will have an effect on the anticipatory

emotions and subsequent consumer responses described in

H1. Formally, we propose the following:

H3 The effect of trade-off type on consumer response

described in H1 is moderated by product type such that

consumers’ more (less) favorable response to a trade-off

with hedonic value (utilitarian value) is attenuated (am-

plified) as the relative importance of hedonic (utilitarian)

attributes increases.

Next, we proceed with describing a series of three

studies intended to provide evidence relative to these

hypotheses.

Study 1A: Choice Given a Trade-off Between Sustainability and Either Utilitarian Value or Hedonic Value

The primary objective of Study 1 was to demonstrate that

consumer response, in the context of a trade-off with sus-

tainability, depends on the type of attribute value that is

being traded off: hedonic or utilitarian (H1). In this study,

we operationalized consumer response as a forced choice

between two products. We also sought to demonstrate that

the effect of trade-off type on consumer response depends

on consumers’ attitude towards sustainability (H2).

Stimuli and Procedure

One hundred and forty-nine undergraduate students par-

ticipated in an online survey in exchange for course extra

credit. Participants were presented with a choice between

two kitchen blenders that were described as differing along

two dimensions, as shown in Fig. 3. In this study and

subsequent studies, we follow prior precedent in op-

erationalizing utilitarian value as product functional per-

formance, and hedonic value as product esthetics (e.g.,

Chitturi et al. 2007, 2008; Hirschman and Holbrook 1982).

In the first condition, one product was superior (inferior)

with respect to its sustainability (product performance),

whereas the other was superior (inferior) with respect to its

product performance (sustainability). In the second

Fig. 2 Model of consumer response given a trade-off

between sustainability and

utilitarian value/hedonic value

‘‘Yes, but this Other One Looks Better/Works Better’’: How do Consumers Respond to Trade-offs… 571

123

condition, participants were presented with a similar trade-

off with sustainability; however, instead of a trade-off with

product performance, the trade-off was described as a

choice between superior sustainability and superior esthetic

design. Participants were instructed to assume that the

kitchen blenders did not differ with respect to their cost or

esthetic design/product performance, depending on the

condition. Further, the order of presentation of the two

blender scorecards was counterbalanced on the left versus

right of the screen, and all manipulations were conducted

between subjects. Therefore, this study used a 2 (trade-off

type: utilitarian vs. hedonic) 9 2 (order: superior utilitar-

ian/hedonic option on the left {right}, superior sustain-

ability on the right {left}) between-subjects design.

After reviewing the information about their respective

choice scenarios, participants were asked to imagine that

they were leaning towards choosing Blender A and were

instructed to indicate the intensity with which they were

Trade-off between Sustainability and Product Performance First, you will be reviewing third-party information about the two kitchen blenders. Both of these third-parties are trustworthy and knowledgeable sources of information. For the purposes of this study, you will not be shown any information about the specific brands of these blenders.

You will be provided with information about the "product performance" of the blenders. The rating of product performance (which addresses features and performance) is based on research conducted by "Consumer Reports".

You will also review information about the “sustainability” of the blenders, where sustainability refers to how well each blender manufacturer addresses a variety of environmental issues (e.g. energy use, resource use, pollution) and social issues (e.g. factory safety, labor practices, community service). The sustainability rating is based on research conducted by the online rating agency "Good Guide".

Trade-off between Sustainability and Aesthetics First, you will be reviewing third-party information about the two kitchen blenders. Both of these third-parties are trustworthy and knowledgeable sources of information. For the purposes of this study, you will not be shown any information about the specific brands of these blenders.

You will be provided with information about the "aesthetic design" of the blenders. The rating of aesthetic design (appearance) is based on a survey of consumers conducted in 2010 by Good Housekeeping.

You will also review information about the “sustainability” of the blenders, where sustainability refers to how well each blender manufacturer addresses a variety of environmental issues (e.g. energy use, resource use, pollution) and social issues (e.g. factory safety, labor practices, community service). The sustainability rating is based on research conducted by the online rating agency "Good Guide".

Fig. 3 Study 1A stimuli

572 M. G. Luchs, M. Kumar

123

feeling six different emotions, presented in random order:

pride, guilt, confidence, distress, excitement, and disap-

pointment. Participants rated the intensity of these emo-

tions on a 1 (not at all) to 9 (very high) scale. These ratings

reflect participants’ self-assessed anticipatory emotions,

i.e., emotions that are caused by the decision problem itself

(Loewenstein and Lerner 2003; Pfister and Bohm 2008).

After providing their ratings for Blender A, participants

provided similar ratings assuming that they were leaning

towards choosing Blender B (see Chitturi et al. 2007 for a

similar protocol).

After rating their anticipatory emotions, participants

were asked to make a choice between the two blenders.

Finally, participants rated the degree to which they agreed

with the following three statements, on a scale of 1

(strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree): ‘‘The issue of

corporate social responsibility is important to me (e.g.,

factory safety, fair labor practices, community service),’’

‘‘The issue of corporate environmental responsibility is

important to me (e.g., recycling, energy efficiency,

minimizing pollution),’’ and ‘‘It is important to me that

companies maintain high ethical standards in general.’’

These three measures were intended to collectively serve as

our measure of consumers’ attitude towards sustainability

(Luchs et al. 2012).

Results

Data Preparation

Prior to the analyses, given that the placement of the

blenders had been counterbalanced on the left versus right,

all of the product ratings were converted such that the

blender with superior product performance (or esthetics)

was always anchored at the low end of the scale (-4) and

the blender with superior sustainability was always an-

chored at the high end of the scale (?4), with zero as the

neutral point.

With respect to the measures of emotions, correlation

analysis confirmed that our three pairs of emotions—pride

and guilt, confidence and distress, excitement and disap-

pointment—were related as expected (all pairs were in-

versely related, p \ 0.0001). In this study and the next study, we combine these inversely related emotion pairs,

i.e., treating each pair as opposing ends of a continuum of

emotion experienced based on the fulfillment/non-fulfill-

ment of the same goal (e.g., the fulfillment/non-fulfillment

of a prevention goal related to utilitarian value leading to

confidence/distress, respectively). This approach is con-

sistent with Luchs et al. (2012) and follows the logic of a

dimensional view of emotions (Fontaine et al. 2007; Smith

and Ellsworth 1985), whereby related emotions, such as

pride and guilt, can be differentiated based in part on their

opposing valence. Therefore, we created three new vari-

ables, each representing the difference between two in-

versely related emotions: pride–guilt, confidence–distress,

and excitement–disappointment (for simplicity, we refer to

these subsequently by their positively valenced anchor, i.e.,

pride, confidence, and excitement).

Product Choice and the Effect of Trade-off Type

Next, we used a series of logistic regression models to

analyze choice likelihood, initially within each condition,

and then choice likelihood across conditions. Within the

utilitarian trade-off condition, significantly more par-

ticipants chose utilitarian value over sustainability (68:7),

v2 = 32.81 p \ 0.0001. However, there was no significant difference in choice likelihood when the choice was be-

tween superior hedonic value and superior sustainability

(42:32), v2 = 1.34, p [ 0.10, suggesting that participants were relatively more willing to trade-off hedonic value for

sustainability than to trade-off utilitarian value for sus-

tainability. Next, we analyzed choice between conditions,

employing contrast codes for each condition, and con-

firmed that choice depends on trade-off type, v2 = 18.84, p \ 0.0001. This result supports our focal hypothesis, H1, which predicts that consumer response—given a trade-off

with sustainability—depends on the type of trade-off such

that consumers will respond relatively more favorably to a

product that trades off hedonic value (vs. utilitarian value)

for sustainability.

In an effort to gain some insight into this effect, we

performed a mediation analysis to identify which emotions

mediated the effect of trade-off type on choice. A boot-

strapped parallel mediation analysis, per Hayes (2013),

suggested that of the three emotion pairs, only confidence

mediated the effect of trade-off type on choice at the 95 %

confidence level (mean indirect effect = 0.2488, bias cor-

rected and accelerated lower CI 0.0132, upper CI 0.6689;

5000 samples). In other words, participants were more

likely to choose the product with superior utilitarian value

(vs. hedonic value) due to the greater confidence (and

lower distress) that it evoked relative to the more sustain-

able product.

The Effect of Consumers’ Attitude Towards Sustainability

Next, we sought to understand whether these results de-

pended on consumers’ attitude towards sustainability. A

correlation analysis confirmed that the three questions

about attitude towards sustainability were significantly

correlated, Cronbach a = 0.88; they were subsequently averaged to create a measure of attitude towards sustain-

ability (AtS). Then, using logistic regression, we regressed

choice on the trade-off type, AtS and their interaction.

‘‘Yes, but this Other One Looks Better/Works Better’’: How do Consumers Respond to Trade-offs… 573

123

There was a simple effect of AtS on Choice, v2 = 10.12, p \ 0.01, such that the likelihood of choosing the more sustainable product increased as AtS increased. While

trade-off type did not have a simple effect, v2 = 2.33, p [ 0.10, it did significantly interact with AtS to predict choice, v2 = 5.41, p = 0.02, in support of H2. To illustrate this effect, we created two groups based on a median split

of AtS and analyzed the choice likelihoods within each

group and condition. 1

As illustrated in Fig. 4, choice was

biased against the sustainable option in three of the four

cells (all v2 [ 12.00, p \ 0.001); however, choice was biased in favor of the sustainable option among participants

with relatively higher AtS scores, but only within the su-

perior hedonic value trade-off condition, v2 = 5.41, p = 0.02.

Given this significant interaction, we sought to under-

stand which emotion(s) mediated this joint effect of trade-

off type and AtS on choice. In other words, we sought to

understand why the effect of trade-off type on choice

depended on AtS. We began by inspecting the pattern of

emotions, illustrated in Fig. 4, which appear to show a

unique pattern of emotion within the hedonic trade-off

condition when the score for attitude towards sustain-

ability is relatively high, consistent with the aforemen-

tioned results with respect to choice. A bootstrapped

moderated parallel mediation analysis, per Hayes (2013),

suggested that the moderated effect of trade-off type on

choice by AtS was due to both confidence and excitement.

On the one hand, there were no significant indirect effects

within the functional performance trade-off condition; in

other words, the emotional outcomes were similar for all

participants, regardless of AtS, when confronted with a

trade-off between functional performance and sustain-

ability. However, inspection of the conditional indirect

effects suggested that within the hedonic value trade-off

condition, confidence was a significant mediator of the

effect of AtS on choice at the 95 % confidence level

(mean indirect effect = 0.1911, bias corrected and accel-

erated lower CI 0.0115, upper CI 0.4917; 5000 samples)

as was Excitement (mean indirect effect = 0.2378, bias

corrected and accelerated lower CI 0.0371, upper CI

0.5866; 5000 samples). Pride was not found to be a sig-

nificant mediator, however.

These results seem to imply that Pride did not play a

role in the current context which is somewhat surprising

-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5

-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5

-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5

-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5

Confidence-Distress

Excitement-Disappointment

Pride-Guilt

Confidence-Distress

Excitement-Disappointment

Pride-Guilt

Confidence-Distress

Excitement-Disappointment

Pride-Guilt

Confidence-Distress

Excitement-Disappointment

Pride-Guilt

Low Attitude towards Sustainability

High Attitude towards Sustainability

Trade-off between Functional Performance

and Sustainability

Trade-off between Aesthetics

and Sustainability

Superior Functional

Performance Superior

Sustainability Choice

33:4 Superior

Functional Performance

Superior Sustainability

Choice 35:3

Superior Aesthetics

Superior Sustainability

Choice 32:8

Superior Aesthetics

Superior Sustainability

Choice 10:24

Fig. 4 Choice likelihood and differences in relative emotion intensities depend on trade-off type and attitude towards sustainability (Study 1A)

1 We used a median split to enable a simple illustration of the effect

in Fig. 4. A separate analysis conducted using Hayes’ (2013)

PROCESS algorithm found that the moderator value defining the

Johnson–Neyman significance region for the interaction was 6.3,

suggesting that a median split, at a value of 7, is appropriate.

574 M. G. Luchs, M. Kumar

123

given the apparent difference in Pride within the hedonic

trade-off condition when attitude towards sustainability is

relatively high, as shown in Fig. 4. Indeed, a post hoc

analysis suggested that pride might have indirectly played

a significant role on choice through its effect on confi-

dence and excitement. To explore this possibility, we

performed a bootstrapped serial mediation analysis, per

Hayes (2013). This analysis enables an examination of

various possible causal relationships among multiple me-

diators, in this case the three potential emotional mediators

of the effect of AtS on choice. As shown in Fig. 5, three

indirect path models were found to be significant by virtue

of the range of effect estimates (lower CI to upper CI)

having a consistent sign (i.e., not including an estimate of

zero) at a 95 % confidence level: paths 2, 3, and 4. All

three of these effect paths are consistent in suggesting that

the level of anticipatory pride felt affects the levels of

confidence and excitement felt, which in turn affect

choice. While these results are not definitive since we did

not experimentally manipulate Pride, and therefore cau-

sation cannot be firmly established, they are consistent

with our argument that differences in anticipatory pride

and guilt may have an important, albeit indirect, role to

play in the current context involving trade-offs between

sustainability and other valued attributes.

The results from Study 1A suggest that in the context of

a trade-off with sustainability, the type of trade-off—u-

tilitarian value or hedonic value—does indeed affect choice

(H1). Our results also suggest that this effect is moderated

by consumers’ attitude towards sustainability (H2). In the

context of a trade-off between utilitarian value and sus-

tainability, our results suggest that consumers are more

likely to choose the product with greater utilitarian value

regardless of their attitude towards sustainability. However,

in the context of a trade-off between sustainability and

hedonic value, choice likelihood depends on consumers’

attitude towards sustainability such that consumers are

relatively more likely to choose the more sustainable pro-

duct as their attitude towards sustainability becomes more

positive. Further, our analyses provide some insight into

the goal-derived, emotion-based mechanism underlying

these effects.

While Study 1A provides substantial evidence in sup-

port of our hypotheses, several questions remain. First,

Study 1A employed a forced choice scenario. It is likely

that some participants would not have chosen either of the

options and that this might have influenced the results,

especially given that the choice task itself and the way the

options are structured is likely to have evoked emotions

(Luce et al. 1997; Theotokis and Manganari 2014). Second,

the context of Study 1A was limited to kitchen blenders,

which is a relatively utilitarian product category. The

purpose of Study 1B was to provide additional support for

our first two hypotheses as well as to study these effects

across product categories that vary with respect to their

perceived relative hedonic/utilitarian value.

Fig. 5 In Study 1A, pride (guilt) had an indirect effect on choice through both excitement (disappointment) and confidence (distress). * Significant indirect effects paths (2, 3, and 4) noted in bold (confidence level = 95 %, 5000 samples)

‘‘Yes, but this Other One Looks Better/Works Better’’: How do Consumers Respond to Trade-offs… 575

123

Study 1B: Extending Findings to a Non-forced Choice Context and an Initial Investigation of the Effect of Product Type

The primary objectives of Study 1B were to provide repli-

cation of our key findings from Study 1 in a choice context

that allowed participants to ‘‘opt out,’’ as well as across pro-

duct categories that differ in the degree to which they are

perceived to offer relatively more utilitarian or hedonic value.

Stimuli and Procedure

Two hundred and forty-seven undergraduate students par-

ticipated in this online study in exchange for course extra

credit. Participants were presented with a choice scenario

similar to the one presented in Study 1A in which two

products were described as differing along two dimensions.

The same scorecard format was used, and the products

were described as being superior with respect to either

product performance/esthetic design, or superior with re-

spect to sustainability. Two different product categories

were used this time; we chose calculators and digital audio

players in an effort to represent products that are relatively

more utilitarian or hedonic in nature, respectively, given

prior research on the effect of this product dimension on

choice (Dhar and Wertenbroch 2000). Further, Study 1B

employed a non-forced choice scenario, enabling par-

ticipants to ‘‘opt out’’ if they did not want to choose either

products. Once again, the order of presentation of the two

product scorecards was counterbalanced on the left versus

right of the screen and all manipulations were conducted

between subjects. Therefore, Study 1B used a 2 (trade-off

type: utilitarian vs. hedonic) 9 2 (product type: utilitarian

vs. hedonic) 9 22 (order: superior utilitarian/hedonic op-

tion on the left {right}, superior sustainability on the right

{left}) between-subjects design. Participants were once

again instructed to assume that the products did not differ

with respect to their cost or product performance/esthetic

design, depending on the condition.

The same procedure was used in Study 1B, as in Study

1A, to measure the relative intensity of participants’

emotions when considering either options. After rating

their emotions, participants were asked to make a choice

between the two products, or to indicate instead ‘‘neither.’’

They also indicated how likely it was that they would ac-

tually purchase a product in the focal product category (i.e.,

‘‘in the prior 5 years or next 5 years’’) from 1 (very un-

likely) to 7 (very likely), and they rated all three product

categories used in both Studies 1A and 1B (kitchen blen-

ders, calculators, and digital audio players) using four

items from Voss et al. (2003) hedonic/utilitarian scale

(from 1 to 7): ‘‘impractical–practical,’’ ‘‘not fun–fun,’’ ‘‘not

helpful–helpful,’’ ‘‘dull–exciting.’’ Finally, they responded

to the same three questions using Study 1A in order to

measure their attitude towards sustainability.

Results

Data Preparation

Prior to the analysis, all of the product ratings were con-

verted such that the product with superior product perfor-

mance (or esthetics) was always anchored at the low end of

the scale (-4) and the product with superior sustainability

was always anchored at the high end of the scale (?4), with

zero as the neutral point. Correlation analysis once again

confirmed that the three pairs of emotions—pride and guilt,

confidence and distress, excitement and disappointment—

were related as expected (all pairs were inversely related,

p \ 0.0001) and we created three new variables, each representing the difference between the pairs of inversely

related emotions (once again referred to subsequently as

pride, confidence, and excitement for simplicity).

Next, we created a single measure for each product

category’s relative hedonic versus utilitarian value by

subtracting the scores for ‘‘practical’’ and ‘‘helpful’’ from

the scores for ‘‘fun’’ and ‘‘exciting.’’ A series of t-tests

confirmed that the average composite score for digital au-

dio players (MDig = 2.17) was significantly higher than the

mid-point of zero, F(1, 246) = 171.29, p \ 0.0001, sug- gesting that digital audio players are a relatively hedonic

product category. The average composite score for calcu-

lators (MCalc = -6.75) was significantly lower than the

mid-point of zero, F(1, 246) = 965.56, p \ 0.0001, sug- gesting that calculators are a relatively utilitarian product

category. As a reference, the average composite score for

the kitchen blender category (MKitch = -4.26), used in

Study 1A, was also significantly lower than the mid-point

of zero, F(1, 246) = 299.44, p \ 0.0001.

Opt Out

Of the 247 participants in this study, only 22 chose the

‘‘neither product’’ option. Using contrast codes within a

logistic regression to represent the ‘‘neither’’ option versus

choosing one of the products, we determined that the

measure of how likely participants were to purchase a

product in the identified category was a significant pre-

dictor, v2 = 7.45, p \ 0.01, suggesting that choosing to opt out was based on a lack of interest or perceived need for

the product and was not, therefore, an unintended conse-

quence of the study stimuli or choice task. Thus, these

participants were dropped from subsequent analyses (hav-

ing made no choice), leaving 225 participants for analysis.

576 M. G. Luchs, M. Kumar

123

Product Choice and the Effect of Trade-off Type

Once again, we used a series of logistic regression

models to analyze choice likelihood, initially within each

trade-off type condition, and then choice likelihood

across trade-off type conditions. Within the utilitarian

trade-off condition, significantly more participants chose

utilitarian value over sustainability (108:8), v2 = 50.45, p \ 0.0001. However, consistent with our results in Study 1A, there was no significant difference in choice likeli-

hood when the choice was between hedonic value and

sustainability (60:49), v2 = 1.11, p [ 0.10. Our analysis of choice across conditions, employing contrast codes for

each condition, confirmed that choice depended on the

trade-off type, v2 = 33.62, p \ 0.0001, such that sus- tainability is relatively more likely to be chosen in the

context of a trade-off with hedonic value than in a trade-

off with utilitarian value. This result is consistent with

our analysis in Study 1A, and provides additional support

for H1.

Once again, in an effort to gain insight into this effect,

we performed a bootstrapped parallel mediation analysis,

per Hayes (2013). The results were consistent with those

found in Study 1A. Specifically, only confidence mediated

the effect of trade-off type on choice at the 99 % confi-

dence level (mean indirect effect = 0.6876, bias corrected

and accelerated lower CI 0.2601, upper CI 1.3252; 5000

samples).

The Effect of Consumers’ Attitude Towards Sustainability

A correlation analysis confirmed that ratings for the three

questions about attitude towards sustainability were sig-

nificantly correlated, Cronbach a = 0.81; they were sub- sequently averaged to create a measure of AtS. Then, using

logistic regression, we regressed choice on trade-off type,

AtS and their interaction. While there were no simple ef-

fects of either AtS or trade-off type, v2 = 0.10, p [ 0.10 and v2 = 0.43, p [ 0.10, respectively, once again their interaction was significant, v2 = 4.11, p \ 0.05. Specifically, and providing additional support for H2,

choice likelihood of the sustainable option was higher in

the context of a trade-off with hedonic value (vs. utilitarian

value) as consumers’ attitude towards sustainability be-

came more positive.

We repeated the set of emotion mediation analyses

conducted in Study 1A and found the same pattern of re-

sults. Specifically, a bootstrapped moderated parallel me-

diation analysis, per Hayes (2013), suggested that within

the hedonic trade-off condition, confidence was a sig-

nificant mediator of the effect of AtS on choice at the 95 %

confidence level (mean indirect effect = 0.3006, bias cor-

rected and accelerated lower CI 0.0073, upper CI 0.7460;

5000 samples). Similar to Study 1A, there were no sig-

nificant indirect effects within the utilitarian value trade-off

condition; in other words, the emotional outcomes and

consequences were similar for all participants, regardless

of their attitude towards sustainability, when confronted

with a trade-off between utilitarian value and sustain-

ability. Likewise, we repeated the bootstrapped serial me-

diation analysis performed in Study 1A, per Hayes (2013),

to better understand the mediation of the effect of AtS on

Choice. As shown in Fig. 6, and consistent with Study 1A,

three indirect path models were found to be significant:

paths 2, 3, and 4. This suggests, once again, that the level

of anticipatory Pride felt affects the levels of confidence

and excitement felt, which in turn affects choice.

The Effect of Product Type

We conducted a final analysis to determine whether the

effect of trade-off type on consumer response was mod-

erated by product type, as predicted in H3. Using contrast

codes to represent the Hedonic and Utilitarian Product

Types, a logistic regression suggested that choice did not

depend on product type, v2 = 0.42, p [ 0.10, nor on the interaction of product type and trade-off type. This result

seems to suggest that the effect of trade-off type on con-

sumer response holds regardless of whether the product is

perceived to be relatively more hedonic (or utilitarian) in

nature. However, it is plausible that the measurement scale

we used to categorize our intended hedonic category

(digital audio players) and utilitarian category (calcula-

tors)—Voss et al. (2003) hedonic/utilitarian scale—did not

sufficiently reflect the relative hedonic/utilitarian nature of

the attributes within these categories. Specifically, it is

plausible that despite being identified as a relatively he-

donic product category, digital audio players might not be

an appropriately representative hedonic category given that

product performance might still be deemed relatively more

important than esthetics in this category (i.e., consumers

may be more likely to sacrifice good looks before giving up

on clear audio). Further, a plausible alternative explanation

of the results supporting H1 thus far is that we have used

product categories in which utilitarian attributes are

deemed more important than hedonic attributes and,

therefore, that our results simply reflect the relatively

greater importance placed on utilitarian attributes in these

categories. 2

Thus, we proceed with Study 2 to address this

potential alternative explanation as well as to further in-

vestigate the effect of product type described in H3.

2 We thank an anonymous reviewer for these observations and for

proposing an appropriate design to test them, which inspired Study 2.

‘‘Yes, but this Other One Looks Better/Works Better’’: How do Consumers Respond to Trade-offs… 577

123

Study 2: The Effects of Trade-off Type and Product Type Given Explicit Differences in Attribute Importance

The primary objective of Study 2 was to better understand

the role and effect of product type (hedonic vs. utilitarian)

relative to our focal effect of trade-off type, as described in

H3. Further, Study 2 was also intended to address a po-

tential alternative explanation for the effect of trade-off

type on consumer response. Specifically, it is plausible that

the effect of trade-off type is simply due to a difference in

the perceived relative importance of performance and es-

thetic attributes in the product categories studied thus far,

whereby consumers place more importance on perfor-

mance attributes and, therefore, are less willing to trade-off

performance (vs. esthetics) for sustainability. Therefore, in

Study 2, we used product categories that explicitly differ

with respect to the relative importance of hedonic and

utilitarian attributes to ensure that hedonic (utilitarian) at-

tributes are perceived to be more important than utilitarian

(hedonic) attributes within our representative categories.

Based on a pretest, we chose wristwatches and sunglasses

to represent relatively more hedonic product categories,

and coffee makers to represent relatively more utilitarian

product categories. Beyond the pretest, we also measured

perceived attribute importance within the current study to

ensure the appropriateness of our stimuli. A final objective

of this study was to demonstrate the effect of trade-off type

with a different consumer response measure—relative

purchase likelihood—in order to demonstrate the general-

izability of our findings.

Stimuli and Procedure

One hundred and forty-one undergraduate students par-

ticipated in this online study in exchange for course extra

credit. Participants’ first task was to choose one of the three

product categories—watches, sunglasses, or coffee mak-

ers—based on whether they purchased a product from

within the category in the last year or were likely to do so

in the future. 3

This was done to increase the personal

relevance of the product context for the balance of the

survey. These categories were chosen to represent the two

product types, hedonic (watches and sunglasses) and uti-

litarian (coffee makers). Next, to enable subsequent

validation of the appropriateness of our stimuli and to ex-

plicitly consider attribute importance in our analyses, par-

ticipants rated the importance of the various product

attribute types within their chosen category on a scale from

1 (not at all important) to 7 (extremely important). In ad-

dition to providing importance ratings for ‘aesthetics’ and

‘performance,’ they also provided ratings for other attribute

types, such as ‘cost’ and ‘reliability.’ These additional

Fig. 6 In Study 1B, pride (guilt) had an indirect effect on choice through both excitement (disappointment) and confidence (distress). * Significant indirect effects paths (2, 3, and 4) noted in bold (confidence level = 95 %, 5000 samples)

3 We intentionally over-represented the hedonic product type given

the categories used in the prior studies and the objectives of the

current study.

578 M. G. Luchs, M. Kumar

123

ratings provided some context and were intended to mini-

mize the possibility that participants would infer the pur-

pose of the study.

Next, after participants completed an unrelated filler

task, they were presented with the focal rating task. Par-

ticipants were randomly assigned to one of two trade-off

type conditions. In the utilitarian trade-off condition, par-

ticipants were presented with two product scorecards, each

on a separate screen. Each scorecard, similar to the ones

used in Study 1A and 1B, indicated the product’s ratings

for performance and sustainability on a scale of 0 (poor) to

10 (excellent). One scorecard indicated a trade-off in favor

of product performance (a rating of nine for performance

and five for sustainability), and the other indicated a trade-

off in favor of sustainability (a rating of five for perfor-

mance and nine for sustainability). After viewing each

individual scorecard, participants rated their purchase

likelihood from 1 (very unlikely) to 9 (very likely). Each

scorecard was presented and rated on its own, with the

order of presentation randomized. The hedonic trade-off

condition was identical except that the product perfor-

mance rating was replaced by a product esthetics rating.

Therefore, this study used a 2 (product type: hedonic vs.

utilitarian) 9 2 (trade-off type: utilitarian vs. hedonic)

between-subjects design.

Results

Replicating the Main Effect of Trade-off Type

Our analysis began by first addressing our focal effect of

trade-off type on consumer response, i.e., independent of

the potential effect of product type. We began by calcu-

lating our focal dependent measure of participants’ relative

purchase likelihood by subtracting their purchase likeli-

hood rating for the product with a superior sustainability

rating (and average esthetics/performance) from their pur-

chase likelihood rating for the product with superior es-

thetics/performance (and average sustainability). This

Relative Purchase Likelihood (RPL) reflects the degree to

which participants are more likely to purchase a product

with superior performance (or esthetics) versus one with

superior sustainability. Thus, a positive (negative) score

indicates a higher (lower) purchase likelihood when trad-

ing-off sustainability for greater performance/esthetics

relative to trading-off performance/esthetics for greater

sustainability.

In aggregate, participants’ mean RPL was 2.72 when

trading-off sustainability for performance, but only 1.17

when trading-off sustainability for esthetics. A t test of mean

difference confirmed that RPL was significantly higher

when trading-off sustainability for performance versus

trading-off sustainability for esthetics, t(1, 139) = 3.05,

p \ 0.01. Thus, participants were especially unlikely to trade-off performance (vs. esthetics) for sustainability. Im-

portantly, this result was found despite the intentional over-

representation of hedonic products in Study 2. Further, in

aggregate, there was no difference in the attribute impor-

tance ratings for performance (MPerf = 5.87) and esthetics

(MAesth = 5.89), t(1, 140) = 0.10, p [ 0.50, implying that the effect of product type on RPL could not have been

simply due to a difference in relative attribute importance.

Indeed, using contrast codes, we regressed RPL on trade-off

type while including attribute importance ratings for per-

formance and esthetics as covariates; we found the same

effect as before, as indicated by a significant effect of trade-

off type in the expected direction, F(1, 137) = 8.52,

p \ 0.01. Overall, these results provide evidence that the focal effect of trade-off type on consumer response, as de-

scribed in H1 and demonstrated in Studies 1A and 1B, is not

simply due to a difference in relative attribute importance.

Further, the use of a different response measure—relative

purchase likelihood—helps to demonstrate the generaliz-

ability of our findings. Next, we explore the effect of trade-

off type further while more explicitly considering the dif-

ference in relative attribute importance reflected in the dif-

ferent product types.

The Moderating Role of Product Type

While these results replicate our focal main effect, it is still

plausible—and indeed likely—that differential attribute

importance at the product category level would also in-

fluence consumer response given attribute trade-offs. As-

suming so, we could then expect to find that the net effect

of trade-off type would depend upon the type of product

category. The question, however, is whether differential

attribute importance explains the erstwhile effect of trade-

off type, or instead whether it might moderate the effect, as

predicted in H3. Thus, we proceed with an analysis of the

joint effects of product type (Hedonic vs. Utilitarian) and

trade-off type on RPL.

Participants’ choice of product category was relatively

evenly distributed across the three categories, with forty-

one choosing watches, sixty-two choosing sunglasses, and

thirty-eight choosing coffee makers. Our first step was to

confirm that each category had the expected relative at-

tribute importance. We calculated each category’s relative

attribute importance by subtracting the importance rating

for performance from the importance rating for esthetics.

Thus, a positive (negative) relative attribute importance

score indicates a greater relative importance of esthetics

(performance) within the given category. As expected, the

mean score for watches (MWatch = 0.68) and sunglasses

(MSun = 0.77) was both significantly greater than zero

(both p \ 0.001). Thus, we combined the data for watches

‘‘Yes, but this Other One Looks Better/Works Better’’: How do Consumers Respond to Trade-offs… 579

123

and sunglasses to represent the Hedonic Product Type. 4

As

expected, the mean score for coffee makers (MCof-

fee = -1.94) was significantly less than zero (p \ 0.0001); therefore, we used this category to represent the utilitarian

product type. The average attribute importance ratings for

these two product types are illustrated in Fig. 7, Panel A.

Next, using contrast codes, we regressed RPL on trade-

off type, product type and their interaction. Consistent with

H1, we found that the simple effect of trade-off type was

still significant, F(1, 137) = 32.75, p \ 0.0001, such that participants were less likely to trade-off performance (vs.

esthetics) for sustainability. However, we also found that

the effect of trade-off type on RPL depends on product

type, as indicated by a statistically significant interaction

effect, F(1, 137) = 30.38, p \ 0.0001. To better interpret these results, we investigated the mean RPL as a function

of both product type and trade-off type, as illustrated in

Fig. 7, Panel B. With the utilitarian product type, we see

the expected pattern of a significantly higher RPL when

trading-off performance (vs. esthetics) for sustainability,

i.e., participants are less likely to trade-off performance

(consistent with the pattern shown in Fig. 7, Panel A {right

side}). On the other hand, with the hedonic product type,

there is no difference in RPL between each trade-off type,

as shown in Fig. 7, Panel B (left side). These results sug-

gest that the effect of trade-off type is moderated by pro-

duct type, such that the effect is stronger (weaker) within

utilitarian (hedonic) product categories, thereby supporting

H3. Had there been no effect of trade-off type within the

hedonic product type, we would have expected to see the

same pattern of results as shown in Fig. 7, Panel A (left

side), whereby participants would have been relatively less

willing to trade-off esthetics, given that esthetics was rated

as more important within the hedonic product type. Instead,

we see in Fig. 7, Panel B (left side) that there is no dif-

ference in RPL within the hedonic product type. In other

words, even in categories in which hedonic value is sig-

nificantly more important than utilitarian value, consumers

may not be more willing to trade-off performance (vs.

esthetics) for sustainability. While this is consistent with

H1, it also demonstrates an important boundary condition

described in H3: the effect of trade-off type on consumer

response is attenuated (amplified) as the relative impor-

tance of hedonic (utilitarian) attributes increases.

General Discussion

Sheth et al. (2011) emphasize the need for researchers to

understand how consumers make choices involving sus-

tainability attributes, i.e., how consumers engage in

‘‘mindful consumption.’’ Understanding consumers’ pro-

duct evaluations and choices is, in turn, critical for product

and marketing managers, who must define what product

options are available to consumers in the first place, ideally

informed by an understanding of the trade-offs that con-

sumers may be relatively more willing to accept. Towards

that end, the current research studied consumer responses,

including product choice, in the context of a trade-off be-

tween a product’s sustainability and either its utilitarian

value (e.g., functional performance) or its hedonic value

(e.g., esthetics).

Across three studies, six product categories, and two

different measures of consumer response, we provide evi-

dence for our central thesis that consumer responses given

a trade-off with, or in favor of, product sustainability de-

pend on what being traded off (H1). Specifically, our re-

sults in Studies 1A and 1B suggest that consumers are more

likely to choose a product that trades off hedonic value

Fig. 7 Panel A attribute importance for hedonic versus. Utilitarian products (Study 2). Panel B relative purchase likelihood by product

type (Study 2). Relative purchase likelihood reflects the difference in

purchase likelihood between a product with superior esthetics/

performance (and average sustainability rating) versus a similar

product with a superior sustainability rating (and average esthetics/

performance)

4 We combined these categories to simplify the exposition of the

results. The pattern of results subsequently described, as well as the

statistical significance of the results, remains the same when

analyzing each category on its own.

580 M. G. Luchs, M. Kumar

123

(e.g., esthetics) for sustainability as opposed to one that

trades off utilitarian value (e.g., performance) for sustain-

ability. More simply, our results suggest that sustainability

is relatively more likely to be chosen in the context of a

trade-off with hedonic value than in the context of a trade-

off with utilitarian value. Our results in Study 2 provide

additional support for H1 and address a potential alterna-

tive explanation for our findings. Specifically, the results

from Study 2, which used product categories that vary in

the degree to which consumers explicitly rate hedonic at-

tributes as more (or less) important than utilitarian at-

tributes, suggest that these results are not simply due to

differences in attribute importance.

We also provided evidence to support H2 and H3, in

which we predicted that the effect of trade-off type is

moderated by both individual- and category-specific char-

acteristics. With respect to individual characteristics, our

results in Studies 1A and 1B demonstrate that the effect of

trade-off type depends on the degree to which consumers

value sustainability attributes, as described in H2. Thus, the

individual difference in consumers’ attitude towards sus-

tainability is an important boundary condition of the effect

of trade-off type, relevant to both theory and managerial

practice—both of which we address subsequently. In ad-

dition, studying the effect of consumers’ attitude towards

sustainability was important given our emphasis on the

commensurate underlying variance in goal importance and

anticipatory emotions as the theoretical basis for the effects

studied in our research. With respect to category charac-

teristics and the predicted moderating effect of product

type, our results from Study 1B seemed to imply that the

effect of trade-off type (H1) would hold regardless of the

relative hedonic versus utilitarian nature of the product

itself. However, in Study 2, we used additional product

categories and a more stringent definition of product type,

based on explicit differences in attribute importance, to

demonstrate that the effect of trade-off type does depend on

product type (H3). Specifically, our results from Study 2

suggest that consumers’ more (less) favorable response to a

trade-off with hedonic value (utilitarian value) is attenuated

(amplified) as the relative importance of hedonic (utilitar-

ian) attributes increases. In other words, our results from

Study 2 demonstrate how the focal effect of trade-off type

acts in concert with differential attribute importance to

influence consumers’ overall response given a trade-off

with sustainability.

Theoretical Contributions

Within the context of ongoing calls for more research on

ethical consumption (Vitell 2003) and recent calls for the

continued development of sustainable consumption-related

theory (Kotler 2011; Mick et al. 2012; Sheth et al. 2011),

our research contributes primarily to the domain of deci-

sion making and, more specifically, attribute trade-off re-

search (e.g., Chitturi et al. 2007, 2008; Okada 2005).

Although preliminary, our results also provide some insight

into the role of emotions in decision making (e.g., Luce

et al. 1997; Pham 1998) specifically in the context of trade-

offs with sustainability.

With respect to attribute trade-off research, prior re-

search has studied trade-offs between utilitarian and he-

donic product attributes (e.g., Dhar and Wertenbroch 2000;

Shiv and Fedorikhin 1999) and has demonstrated that

choice and its emotional antecedents can be explained in

part by regulatory focus theory (Higgins 1997). Our results

contribute to this research stream by extending prior

demonstrations of the principle of precedence (Berry

1994), which suggests that utilitarian value is often chosen

over hedonic value since ‘‘people feel obliged to fulfill

functional needs first before attempting to fulfill hedonic

wants (p. 706)’’ (Chitturi et al. 2007). However, as opposed

to presenting consumers with a direct trade-off between

hedonic and utilitarian value, we show that utilitarian value

is relatively more likely than hedonic value to be chosen in

a trade-off with sustainability. Thus, our work extends and

integrates research on attribute trade-offs with the growing

body of research on sustainable consumption (Phipps et al.

2013; Prothero et al. 2011). We also provide evidence of

the important role of emotions in this context, which we

elaborate on subsequently.

Our findings are also conceptually consistent with re-

search by Berens et al. (2007) who show that poor product

quality cannot be compensated by a positive CSR assess-

ment. Although product quality is not the same as product

performance, they are both relatively more utilitarian (vs.

hedonic) in nature and therefore may contribute to similar

emotional and behavioral consequences. Further, we show

that in the context of a trade-off with sustainability it is

important to consider individual differences such as con-

sumers’ attitude towards sustainability. This individual

difference factor is analogous to prior research that has

demonstrated that consumers also vary in the degree to

which their responses to products are influenced by visual

product esthetics (Bloch et al. 2003). Importantly, we also

provide evidence that the effect of individual differences in

the current context may be limited to certain types of trade-

offs. In the context of a trade-off with utilitarian value,

even a relatively positive attitude towards sustainability

may not have an effect on consumer response. In other

words, it seems as though consumers may be unwilling to

trade-off performance for sustainability, regardless of their

attitudes towards sustainability.

Our findings also provide some insight into the emotions

underlying the effects we have studied. In particular, the

pattern of emotions shown in Fig. 4 is consistent with the

‘‘Yes, but this Other One Looks Better/Works Better’’: How do Consumers Respond to Trade-offs… 581

123

logic presented in our hypothesis development. Simply put,

consumers may be more likely to trade-off hedonic value

(vs. utilitarian value) for sustainability given that choosing

hedonic value over sustainability would induce even less

pride and less confidence than choosing utilitarian value

over sustainability—especially as their attitude towards

sustainability becomes more positive. 5

Specifically, par-

ticipants’ higher anticipatory pride felt towards the more

sustainable product appeared to be greatest among par-

ticipants with a highly positive attitude towards sustain-

ability, but only in the context of a trade-off with hedonic

value, not utilitarian value. This pattern of emotions was

consistent with our findings with respect to product choice,

yet our analysis suggested that the difference in confidence

was the dominant mediator of the effects demonstrated in

our studies, and not pride. However, post hoc analyses

from Study 1A and Study 1B provided an intriguing pos-

sibility about the role of pride. Specifically, those analyses

suggest that while confidence appeared to be the dominant

emotion dimension, most proximal to choice in the current

context, its effect may itself be dependent on pride and

excitement. In other words, the effect of pride may have

been indirect. This finding is consistent with the Appraisal

Tendency Framework, or ATF (Han et al. 2007) which

posits that emotions result from people’s cognitive ap-

praisals of a situation (Lazarus 1991; Smith and Ellsworth

1985) and the resulting emotions can influence subsequent

behaviors, such as judgment and choice. Winterich et al.

(2010) extended the ATF by demonstrating that the emo-

tions elicited by the appraisals can, in turn, influence sub-

sequent emotional responses and behaviors. In other words,

they demonstrate how the experience of one emotion can

affect subsequent emotional responses and, ultimately,

subsequent behaviors (see also Neumann et al. 2001).

Specifically, Winterich et al. (2010) demonstrated that

sadness can thwart the subsequent experience of anger, an

effect that they refer to as ‘‘emotional blunting.’’ Our

demonstration of an analogous blunting effect of pride on

excitement and on confidence is consistent with this ex-

tended model of ATF. This interpretation of our results is

somewhat speculative and more research is needed, how-

ever, especially in light of some prior research suggesting

that guilt appeals in particular may have a limited effect on

consumer behavior (Bennett 1998; Peloza et al. 2012;

Thøgersen 2005). Nonetheless, we believe that these results

provide some important insight into our focal effects and

they substantiate our theoretical reasoning. Further, they

present very promising opportunities for future research on

sustainable consumption which is needed given the

inherent complexity and conflicting emotions experienced

within this unique context (Phipps et al. 2013).

Managerial Implications

Our findings have important implications for product de-

sign and development, marketing strategy, and marketing

promotion decisions. With respect to product design and

development, our results supporting H1 suggest that

products that achieve superior sustainability at the expense

of utilitarian value are more likely to be at a disadvantage

than those that trade-off hedonic value for sustainability.

While trade-offs between sustainability and other product

attributes are not given, trade-offs are typical in the design

process, and trade-offs with sustainability are even as-

sumed by consumers within some types of product cate-

gories (Luchs et al. 2010). Thus, our findings provide some

guidance to managers and project teams as they make

trade-off decisions in the early stages of a project. In a

related sense, understanding the trade-off effect is also

important from a strategic perspective as firms consider

resource and capability investments. If a company or brand

is especially interested in promoting its concern for sus-

tainability as a market differentiator, our results suggest

that they should be focused on developing or acquiring a

very strong technical capability, as opposed to over-relying

on a superior industrial design capability.

Importantly, our findings supporting H2 qualify the ef-

fect of trade-off type, suggesting that it is stronger (weaker)

as consumers’ attitude towards sustainability becomes

more (less) positive and, per H3, as the relative importance

of utilitarian attributes within the product category in-

creases (decreases). Thus, our findings are important from a

marketing strategy perspective as managers and teams

make decisions about product–market selection, as well as

consumer segmentation and targeting. Our results suggest

that beyond targeting appropriate market segments, brands

that promote sustainability should also consider the im-

portance of hedonic and utilitarian attributes within the

category relative to their capability to mitigate product

attribute trade-offs. For example, it would be especially

important for such a brand to have strong technical ex-

pertise, versus industrial design expertise, when pursuing a

product market such as running shoes, in which the per-

ceived importance of performance is likely greater than the

perceived importance of esthetics. However, having strong

technical expertise is not sufficient; it also needs to be

actively promoted. Indeed, one of the reasons cited for the

limited success of Nike’s pro-sustainability ‘Considered’

product line was that they did not sufficiently promote the

high performance of the shoes (Rice 2013).

This does not mean, however, that product esthetic de-

sign is unimportant in this context; instead, our findings can

5 For simplicity, we refer to each of the three emotion dimensions

(pride–guilt, confidence–distress, and excitement–disappointment) by

its positively valenced anchor.

582 M. G. Luchs, M. Kumar

123

give companies some latitude in reconsidering specifically

how esthetic design contributes to the successful marketing

of sustainable products. Relatively recent research has

demonstrated that consumers may be motivated to pur-

chase pro-environmental products because doing so is a

costly signal associated with status and thus creates social

value (Green and Peloza 2011; Griskevicius et al. 2010).

For this signal to be effective, the product must be inten-

tionally designed to be visually differentiated from main-

stream products. While designing a product to appear

visually distinct can be risky, our research suggests that

companies do indeed have some latitude to pursue a dif-

ferentiated esthetic design strategy in this context. Even if

the product is viewed as being somewhat esthetically in-

ferior to competing products, our research suggests that this

is a trade-off that may not deter consumers who especially

value sustainability.

Beyond optimizing a product’s design to improve its

market acceptance, companies can also benefit from the

current research by considering the role of emotions in

consumers’ decision process. In addition to addressing

potential deficits in consumer confidence faced by sus-

tainable products, the results from our post hoc analyses of

Study 1A and Study 1B provide preliminary evidence

suggesting that focusing on pride may also be fruitful.

Specifically, rather than relying exclusively on a defensive

strategy to counter the sustainable product’s shortcomings,

an offensive strategy that promotes pride in purchasing the

sustainable product may blunt the erstwhile emotional

benefits provided by competing products. For example,

within the context of a very competitive market, Toms

Shoes has successfully promoted pride through their ‘‘One

for One movement (which) is about people making ev-

eryday choices that improve the lives of children’’ (Toms

Shoes 2012).

While we believe that the current research provides

some important guidance for firms interested in developing

and promoting relatively more sustainable products, there

is still much to learn. Our hope is that the current research

inspires new research focused on developing an even better

understanding of how consumers respond to sustainability

in the context of the increasingly information-rich con-

sumer marketplace.

Acknowledgments The authors thank Charles Noble and Jacob Brower for their helpful comments on an earlier version of this

manuscript.

References

Auger, P., Devinney, T. M., Louviere, J. J., & Burke, P. F. (2008). Do

social product features have value to consumers? International

Journal of Research in Marketing, 25(3), 183–191.

Batson, D. C., & Shaw, L. L. (1991). Evidence for altruism: Toward a

pluralism of prosocial motives. Psychological Inquiry, 2(2),

107–122.

BBMG. (2011). Unleashed: How new consumers will revolutionize

brands and scale sustainability. Available at http://bbmg.com/

what/.

Bennett, R. (1998). Shame, guilt and responses to non-profit and

public sector advertisements. International Journal of Advertis-

ing, 17(4), 483–499.

Berens, G., van Riel, C. B. M., & van Rekom, J. (2007). The CSR-

quality trade-off: When can corporate social responsibility and

corporate ability compensate each other? Journal of Business

Ethics, 74(3), 233–252.

Berry, C. J. (1994). The idea of luxury: A conceptual and historical

investigation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bettman, J. R., Luce, M. F., & Payne, J. W. (1998). Constructive

consumer choice processes. Journal of Consumer Research,

25(3), 187–217.

Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. (2003). Consumer-company identifi-

cation: A framework for understanding consumers’ relationships

with companies. Journal of Marketing, 67(2), 76–88.

Bloch, P. H., Brunel, F. F., & Arnold, T. J. (2003). Individual differences

in the centrality of visual product aesthetics: Concept and

measurement. Journal of Consumer Research, 29(4), 551–565.

Boston Consulting Group Report. (2009). Capturing the green

advantage for consumer companies. Available at http://www.

bcg.com/documents/file15407.pdf.

Chernev, A. (2004). Goal-attribute compatibility in consumer choice.

Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14(1 & 2), 141–150.

Chitturi, R., Raghunathan, R., & Mahajan, V. (2008). Delight by

design: The role of hedonic and utilitarian benefits. Journal of

Marketing, 72(3), 48–63.

Chitturi, R., Raghunathan, R., Mahajan, V., Raghunathan, R., &

Mahajan, V. (2007). Form versus function: How the intensities

of specific emotions evoked in functional versus hedonic

tradeoffs mediate product preferences. Journal of Marketing

Research, 44(4), 702–714.

Chouinard, Y., Ellison, J., & Ridgeway, R. (2011). The sustainable

economy. Harvard Business Review, 89(10), 52–62.

Dhar, R., & Wertenbroch, K. (2000). Consumer choice between

hedonic and utilitarian goods. Journal of Marketing Research,

37(1), 60–71.

Fontaine, J. R. J., Scherer, K. R., Roesch, E. B., & Ellsworth, P.

(2007). The world of emotions is not two-dimensional. Psycho-

logical Science, 18(2), 1050–1057.

Green, T., & Peloza, J. (2011). How does corporate social respon-

sibility create value for consumers? Journal of Consumer

Marketing, 28(1), 48–56.

Griskevicius, V., Tybur, J. M., & Van den Bergh, B. (2010). Going

green to be seen: Status, reputation, and conspicuous conservation.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(3), 392–404.

Han, S., Lerner, J. S., & Keltner, D. (2007). Feelings and consumer

decision making: The appraisal-tendency framework. Journal of

Consumer Psychology, 17(3), 158–168.

Hayes, A. F. (2013). An introduction to mediation, moderation, and

conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach.

New York: Guilford Press.

Higgins, T. E. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American

Psychologist, 52(12), 1280–1300.

Higgins, T. E. (2001). Promotion and prevention experiences:

Relating emotions to nonemotional motivational states. In J.

P. Forgas (Ed.), Handbook of affect and social cognition (pp.

186–211). London: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Hirschman, E. C., & Holbrook, M. B. (1982). Hedonic consumption:

Emerging concepts, methods and propositions. Journal of

Marketing, 46(3), 92–101.

‘‘Yes, but this Other One Looks Better/Works Better’’: How do Consumers Respond to Trade-offs… 583

123

Irwin, J. R., & Baron, J. (2001). Response mode effects and moral

values. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process-

es, 84(2), 177–197.

Irwin, J. R., & Naylor, R. W. (2009). Ethical decisions and response

mode compatibility: Weighting of ethical attributes in consid-

eration sets formed by excluding versus including product

alternatives. Journal of Marketing Research, 46(2), 234–246.

Kivetz, R., & Simonson, I. (2002). Self-control for the righteous:

Toward a theory of precommitment to indulgence. Journal of

Consumer Research, 29(2), 199–217.

Kotler, P. (2011). Reinventing marketing to manage the environmen-

tal imperative. Journal of Marketing, 75(4), 132–135.

Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Progress on a cognitive-motivational-relational

theory of emotion. American Psychologist, 46(8), 819–834.

Lin, Y. C., & Chang, C. C. A. (2012). Double standard: The role of

environmental consciousness in green product usage. Journal of

Marketing, 76(5), 125–134.

Lindgreen, A., Antioco, M., Harness, D., & Van der Sloot, R. (2009).

Purchasing and marketing of social and environmental sustain-

ability for high-tech medical equipment. Journal of Business

Ethics, 85, 445–462.

Loewenstein, G., & Lerner, J. S. (2003). The role of affect in decision

making. In R. Davidson, K. Scherer, & H. Goldsmith (Eds.),

Handbook of affective science (pp. 619–642). New York: Oxford

University Press.

Luce, M. F., Bettman, J. R., & Payne, J. W. (1997). Choice processing

in emotionally difficult decisions. Journal of Experimental

Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 23(2), 384–405.

Luchs, M. G., Brower, J., & Chitturi, R. (2012). Product choice and

the importance of aesthetic design given the emotion-laden

trade-off between sustainability and functional performance.

Journal of Product Innovation Management, 29(6), 903–916.

Luchs, M. G., Brower, J., Chitturi, R., Naylor, R. W., Irwin, J. R., &

Raghunathan, R. (2010). The sustainability liability: Potential

negative effects of ethicality on product preference. Journal of

Marketing, 74(5), 18–31.

Madhavan, R., & Grover, R. (1998). From embedded knowledge to

embodied knowledge: New product development as knowledge

management. Journal of Marketing, 62(4), 1–12.

McKinsey & Company. (2011). The business of sustainability:

McKinsey global survey results. Available at http://www.

mckinseyquarterly.com/The_business_of_sustainability_McKin

sey_Global_Survey_results_2867.

Mick, D. G., Pettigrew, S., Pechmann, C., & Ozanne, J. L. (2012).

Origins, qualities, and envisionments of transformative consumer

research. In D. G. Mick, S. Pettigrew, C. Pechmann, & J.

L. Ozanne (Eds.), Transformative consumer research for personal

and collective well-being (pp. 3–24). New York: Routledge.

Neumann, R., Seibt, B., & Strack, F. (2001). The influence of mood

on the intensity of emotional responses: Disentangling feeling

and knowing. Cognition and Emotion, 15(6), 725–747.

O’Curry, S., & Strahilevitz, M. (2001). Probability and mode of

acquisition effects on choices between hedonic and utilitarian

options. Marketing Letters, 12(1), 37–49.

Okada, E. M. (2005). Justification effects on consumer choice of

hedonic and utilitarian goods. Journal of Marketing Research,

42(1), 43–53.

Orth, U., Robins, R. W., & Soto, C. J. (2010). Tracking the trajectory

of shame, guilt, and pride across the life span. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 99(6), 1061–1071.

Parguel, B., Benoı̂t-Moreau, F., & Larcenaux, F. (2011). How sustainability

ratings might deter ‘greenwashing’: A closer look at ethical corporate

communication. Journal of Business Ethics, 102(1), 15–28.

Peloza, J., White, K., & Shang, J. (2012). Good and guilt free: The

role of self-accountability in influencing preferences for products

with ethical attributes. Journal of Marketing, 77(1), 104–119.

Pfister, H. R., & Bohm, G. (2008). The multiplicity of emotions: A

framework of emotional functions in decision making. Judgment

and Decision Making, 3(1), 5–17.

Pham, M. T. (1998). Representativeness, relevance, and the use of

feelings in decision-making. Journal of Consumer Research,

25(2), 144–159.

Phipps, M., Ozanne, L. K., Luchs, M. G., Subrahmanyan, S., Kapitan,

S., Catlin, J. R., et al. (2013). Understanding the inherent

complexity of sustainable consumption: A social cognitive

framework. Journal of Business Research, 66(8), 1227–1234.

Prothero, A., Dobscha, S., Freund, J., Kilbourne, W. E., Luchs, M. G.,

Ozanne, L. K., & Thøgersen, J. (2011). Sustainable consump-

tion: Opportunities for consumer research and public policy.

Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 30(1), 31–38.

Rice, J. (2013). Why green product brands fail. Available at http://

www.sustainablebrands.com/news_and_views/communications/

why-green-product-brands-fail.

Sela, A., Berger, J., & Liu, W. (2009). Variety, vice, and virtue: How

assortment size influences option choice. Journal of Consumer

Research, 35(6), 941–951.

Shafir, E., Simonson, I., & Tversky, A. (1993). Reason-based choice.

Cognition, 49(1), 11–36.

Sheth, J. N., Sethia, N. K., & Srinivas, S. (2011). Mindful

consumption: A consumer-centric approach to sustainability.

Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39(1), 21–39.

Shiv, B., & Fedorikhin, A. (1999). Heart and mind in conflict: The

interplay of affect and cognition in consumer decision-making.

Journal of Consumer Research, 26(3), 278–292.

Smith, C. A., & Ellsworth, P. C. (1985). Patterns of cognitive

appraisal in emotion. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 48(4), 813–838.

Steenhaut, S., & Kenhove, P. V. (2006). The mediating role of

anticipated guilt in consumers’ ethical decision-making. Journal

of Business Ethics, 69(3), 269–288.

Strahilevitz, M., & Myers, J. G. (1998). Donations to charity as purchase

incentives: How well they work may depend on what you are

trying to sell. Journal of Consumer Research, 24(4), 434–446.

Tangney, J. P., Stuewig, J., & Mashek, D. J. (2007). Moral emotions

and moral behavior. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 345–372.

Theotokis, A., & Manganari, E. (2014). The impact of choice

architecture on sustainable consumer behavior: The role of guilt.

Journal of Business Ethics. doi:10.1007/s10551-014-2287-4.

Thøgersen, J. (2005). How may consumer policy empower consumers

for sustainable lifestyles? Journal of Consumer Policy, 28(2),

143–178.

Toms Shoes. (2012). One for one movement. Available at http://

www.toms.com/our-movement.

Tracy, J. L., & Robins, R. W. (2004). Putting the self into self-

conscious emotions: A theoretical model. Psychological Inquiry,

15(2), 103–125.

Trudel, R., & Cotte, J. (2009). Does being ethical pay? Available at

http://www.WSJ.com.

United Nations Environment Programme. (2005). Talk the walk:

Advancing sustainable lifestyles through marketing and com-

munications. Available at http://www.unep.fr/shared/publica

tions/pdf/DTIx0763xPA-TalkWalk.pdf.

Vitell, S. J. (2003). Consumer ethics research: Review, synthesis and

suggestions for the future. Journal of Business Ethics, 43(1/2),

33–47.

Voss, K. E., Spangenberg, E. R., & Grohmann, B. (2003). Measuring

the hedonic and utilitarian dimensions of consumer attitude.

Journal of Marketing Research, 40(3), 310–320.

Winterich, K., Han, S., & Lerner, J. S. (2010). Now that I’m sad, it’s

hard to be mad: The role of cognitive appraisals in emotional

blunting. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(11),

1467–1483.

584 M. G. Luchs, M. Kumar

123