Next Article in Journal
Predictors of Intention to Use a Sustainable Cloud-Based Quality Management System among Academics in Jordan
Previous Article in Journal
Investigations of Performance of Mini-Channel Condensers and Evaporators for Propane
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 14
Issue 21
10.3390/su142114254
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

The Impact of Vertical/Horizontal Individualism and Collectivism on Ethical Consumption

by
Ge-Qi Cui
1,
Jing-Yun Zeng
2 and
Chang-Hyun Jin
2,*
1
School of Management, Henan University of Economics and Law, Zhengzhou 450011, China
2
Department of Business Administration, Kyonggi University, Suwon-si 16227, Korea
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2022, 14(21), 14254; https://doi.org/10.3390/su142114254
Submission received: 8 August 2022 / Revised: 2 September 2022 / Accepted: 8 September 2022 / Published: 1 November 2022
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This study aimed to investigate how cultural values affect ethical consumption behavior. For this purpose, cultural values were divided into the following four groups: vertical individualism, vertical collectivism, horizontal individualism, and horizontal collectivism. Ethical consumption was analyzed across two dimensions: eco-friendly and socioeconomic-oriented consumption. Exploratory factor analysis was conducted using the results of an online survey. Survey links were texted and e-mailed to 938 subjects who responded after being contacted in advance to join consumer panels registered with a marketing research company. Structural equation modeling with EQS 6 was used to test the hypotheses in this study. Vertical individualism was found to have no significant effect on socioeconomic-oriented consumption. Horizontal individualism, horizontal collectivism, and vertical collectivism, however, positively impacted eco-friendly and socioeconomic-oriented consumption. In addition, an exploratory factor analysis of ethical consumption was conducted to construct the variables. This study provides valuable guidelines for further research into ethical consumption behaviors, that is, eco-friendly ethical consumption behaviors and socioeconomic-oriented ethical consumption behaviors. Based on these components, subsequent studies could provide valuable information regarding consumers’ ethical value structures and the identification of causal relationships with prior factors or happiness outcomes. The study implications are discussed in the conclusion.

1. Introduction

Ethical consumption involves the rational use of resources, consideration of environmental impacts, and assertion of consumer rights in modern consumption patterns [1,2,3,4,5,6]. Ethical consumption embodies social responsibility that is driven by an individual’s conscience and broader ethical consciousness. Social responsibility encompasses economic, legal, and sustainable consumption responsibility and responsibility for contemporary humanity. The scope of consumption behavior includes the allocation, purchase, use, and disposal of resources [2,3,5]. Ethical consumption can reduce the negative impact of economic activity on the environment and enable consumers to achieve a measure of happiness [3,7].
Environmental protection and other socially and politically relevant issues provide a basis for understanding what motivates consumers to purchase ethical products and services [8,9,10,11]. The resulting ethical consciousness also helps explain the relationship between the general psychological structure of a consumer [12,13] and consumer perceptions of the environment, and it can be an important factor in explaining post-purchase/post-consumption behavior [8,14]. Thus, it is necessary to recognize consumer values and understand value-related factors that affect consumption behavior.
There are differences in individual values and behaviors within a given country, and different values can promote different consumer behaviors [15,16]. The results of studies on cultural differences in the field of consumer behavior indicate that consumer behavior is greatly influenced by cultural values [17], which comprise one of the most important factors influencing ethical consumption behavior. Therefore, it is important to study ethical consumption behavior in the context of cultural values. This study was based on individualism and collectivism with reference to studies of cultural values conducted at the national level. As the modern social environment changes rapidly and uncertainties increase, it is of utter importance for marketers to understand individual perceptions and psychological factors. This requires examining the notion of personal value to determine whether horizontal or vertical individualism is more suitable for ethical consumption and consumer happiness [18,19,20,21,22]. However, it is impractical to define vertical individualism, vertical collectivism, horizontal individualism, and horizontal collectivism (VI/VC/HI/HC hereinafter) as causal variables. As social interest and the importance of ethical consumption increase, consumers practice ethical consumption more.
Therefore, it is important to study ethical consumption in the context of cultural values, and simultaneously, it is also an important research goal to understand the relationship between these factors and consumer happiness. Based on these considerations, this study investigates the influence of cultural values on ethical consumption behavior and consumer happiness by referencing VI/VC/HI/HC. This study examined the mediating effect of ethical consumption on the relationship between VI/VC/HI/HC and consumer happiness. It suggests ways to encourage ethical consumption and increase consumer happiness through a proper understanding of the role of cultural values in realizing these objectives.

2. Theoretical and Empirical Background

2.1. Cultural Values

Considered abstractly, culture can be defined as a complex assembly of knowledge, faith, art, moral customs, and other abilities and customs shared by members of society [20,21,22]. Cultural value theory is recognized as a useful tool for classifying, conceptualizing, and assessing culture. Hofstede’s cultural dimension theory can be applied in psychology, sociology, management, and other fields [20,21,22]. Culture is a widespread complex of meanings, beliefs, practices, symbols, norms, and values. Dominant values in a given society are the most important characteristics of a culture [16,20,23,24].
Cultural values emphasize individual and group beliefs, actions, and goals. Institutional devices, policies, norms, and everyday practices emphasize the fundamental cultural values of a society [24]. The influence of culture on consumer behavior and marketing continues to attract considerable attention [18,19]. The notion of a value and belief system as an operational definition of culture is regarded as an important tool for understanding consumer behavior [25].
From the perspective of research methodology, Trompenaars, Inglehart, Hofstede, and Schwartz all attempted to establish a framework for incorporating universal values that cut across cultures into a deductive approach by studying sample populations worldwide. However, these research methods have the disadvantage of showing only a cross-section of any given culture.
Individualism and collectivism have a long structural history. Thus, Hofstede, Hui, and Triandis and Singelis et al. provide cultural- and individual-level metrics that can be used to measure individualism and collectivism [16,20,26]. The individualism–collectivism dichotomy characterizes the relationships that individuals form with their respective cultures. In an individualist society, individuals care only or primarily for themselves and their immediate families, whereas in a collectivist culture, individuals enjoy membership in a group that rewards loyalty [16]. However, studies suggest that, at the individual level, individualism and collectivism represent separate cultural dimensions [20,27] because both can exist within the same culture [20]. In particular, a person may simultaneously identify as an individual and as a member of a group [16,28].
Triandis formed a more comprehensive individual–collective framework. Individualism and collectivism are said to come from an equal (horizontal) versus unequal (hierarchical/vertical) relationship [27]. Triandis’s model [20] lists four independent dimensions related to individualism and collectivism, defining them as horizontal–vertical individualism–collectivism (HVIC). Horizontal collectivism (HC) is a cultural orientation in which one is perceived as equal to other group members, and social harmony is highly valued. With vertical collectivism (VC), people are positioned hierarchically within a group that encourages the sacrifice of personal desires for the greater good or group purpose. Horizontal individualism (HI) corresponds to an autonomous self-esteem model, which, in turn, promotes a tendency to value uniqueness and social equality. Vertical individualism (VI) posits an autonomous self that obtains satisfaction through competition and personal achievement [16,26,28].

2.2. Ethical Consumption

Many behaviors macroscopically represent ethical consumption. For example, green consumers and environmental movements can be said to practice ethical consumption. Ethical consumption is strongly related to global politics [29] and a sense of justice (e.g., fair trade) [7,9,10].
Ethical consumption involves the purchase of goods and services produced in an environment that meets specific ethical standards [7,29,30,31]. Ethical consumption involves “decision making, purchasing, and other consumption experiences affected by consumer ethical concerns” [9,10,32]. Ethical consumption in the global economy has a clear impact on equity in global consumption. Ethical consumers strive to change what they see as unattractive in the international economic order and alleviate inequality through actions such as the use of fair-trade products. Ethical consumption drives the tendency to purchase products that are environmentally friendly and ecological and do not harm society or the environment. Considering the existing literature, ethical consumption does not harm the environment or humans, and some sales, such as fair-trade purchases, can be regarded as comparable to donations to charity or the environment [9,10].
Other researchers have divided the study of ethical consumption into the following five areas: increased and decreased consumption of ethical purchases, purchase of fair-trade products, boycotts of unethical products and companies, selective shopping through selecting and purchasing only ethical products, and local purchases using local products and services [3,9,10]. Consumers want to satisfy their needs through consumption. Consumption motivations explain why consumption-related behaviors begin, persist, and end [33]. Many previous studies focused on personal characteristics to explain ethical consumption [34]. The ethical consumption motivation measured by Freestone and McGoldrick was classified into the following four factors: positive personal motivation, positive social motivation, personal motivation, and social motivation [34].
Some researchers classify ethical consumption motivations into political, religious, environmental, and individual health motivations (organic products, environmentally friendly products, and ethical products). Ethical consumption has also been classified as environmental, human, and animal, while human-related ethical consumption has been associated with motivations such as creating a sustainable society, encouraging fair trade, focusing on purchasing local goods and services, labor rights, consumption control, and legal responsibilities such as copyright protection, intellectual property protection, and ethical management [3].
Eco-friendly oriented ethical consumption behavior characteristics are created through personal efforts. These characteristics play an important role in having a tendency to separate collections, save the spirit, and pursue a natural diet. Ethical consumption behavioral propensity that has a socioeconomic basis is characterized by emphasizing fair trade or fair travel, social problems, the local economy, local environmental issues, or actions to eradicate unfair behavior. This study conducted an exploratory factor analysis to classify ethical consumption motivations into two types: eco-friendly and socioeconomic-oriented ethical consumption.

2.3. Consumer Happiness

People put considerable effort into being happy, but the concept of happiness is highly subjective. The term “happiness” is used consistently, carrying different meanings; however, it has been given a specific meaning in positive psychology, which explores happiness from a scientific standpoint. To this end, terms such as “subjective well-being” [35,36], “life satisfaction” [29,37], “quality of life,” “immersion experience,” and “psychological well-being” are also used. Recently, the word “happiness” has begun to replace “subjective well-being” in research contexts [38,39]. Happiness can be viewed as a subjective emotion and evaluation of an individual’s entire life [40].
Ryan and Deci argued that consumption, a critical economic activity, is an important factor that brings happiness to consumers [41]. Failure to experience products or brands often creates consumer anger and disappointment [41]. Consumption is an important part of daily life and a basic component of society. The pursuit of happiness is the basis of human life, and it has received increasing attention in consumer research over the past decade [42,43,44].
People consistently evaluate happiness as one of their most important goals [45], permeating their everyday thoughts [46]. In addition, positive experiences can also create pleasure in consumers. People want to have pleasant and enjoyable experiences through spending [47,48,49]. Happiness in these consumption-related areas can be considered consumer happiness [50]. In this study, consumer happiness was set as the research unit to measure the positive moods or emotions caused by ethical consumption.

3. Hypotheses and Theoretical Model

3.1. Hypotheses

Relationshipbetween vertical/horizontal individualism, collectivism, and ethical consumption behavior.
The literature on individualism, collectivism, and ethical consumption has clearly shown the difference between the effects of individualism and collectivism on ethical consumption. The nature of individualism and collectivism suggests that they may be related in a different way than is suggested by the propensity to engage in eco-friendly behavior [26]. Individualism also promotes “comparative relationships” based on the principle of exchange [51]. Individualism tends to focus on the immediate benefits related to costs. Collectivist tendencies often focus on group interests, although the benefits are not immediate. Traditionally, individualism leads one to focus on oneself and emphasizes an individual’s right to work. When determining behavior, cost–benefit analysis is emphasized [27]; that is, individualistic people place greater importance on the relationship between their behavior and their needs than on what their actions mean to others [52]. This personality type can be said to create negative effects of individualism on environmental behavior. Some scholars have noticed that Hofstede’s individualism is a powerful and important factor in ethical consumption behavior [53,54,55,56].
The tendency toward collectivism or individualism at the human level seems to affect the motivation to participate in environmentally conscious behavior [57]. Collectivists are more likely to be involved in recycling because they are more cooperative than individualistic people and tend to help others and emphasize collective goals to a greater extent than individualistic people. In contrast, individualists tend to view recycling as less important [57]. Dunlap, Van Liere, and Mertg found that individualistic values are negatively related to beliefs in resource conservation [58]. Collectivism tends to lead to eco-friendly behavior through a specific attitude toward nature [57,59]. Therefore, in this study, individualism is expected to affect ethical consumption behavior based on eco-friendly values.
Individualism and collectivism reflect many national and cultural factors, whereas HI, VI, HC, and VC are based on individual characteristics. Similar to individualistic people, those in the HI/VI category can have different influences on the pursuit of eco-friendly values. People in the HI category have positive attitudes toward self-identification with others, market prices, quality, freedom, and a democratic social orientation [60,61].
Those who embrace HI are strongly independent because they want to be distinguished from group identities and rely on themselves to do their own work [26,27]. Cho et al. found a positive relationship between HI and environmental attitude [62]. In addition, the characteristics of members of a group that pursue HI tend to be similar. People in this group consider homogeneity to be very important in forming a social consensus. Therefore, members of the group that embrace HI feel that they can personally benefit from practicing eco-friendly behavior. Most characteristics of those embracing HI are traditionally based on collectivism. Therefore, the status of people with HI can be more heavily biased toward collectivist values. Therefore, it can be predicted that the HI value system will positively affect those seeking eco-friendly values.
People who embrace VI value differences between themselves and others, market pricing, authority, and freedom, while caring little about equality or market democracy [60,61]. VI people enjoy competition because those who embrace VI want to compete for higher positions in society [26,27]. Some scholars have studied the effects of individualism and collectivism on ethical decision-making. Individual egos not only lead individuals to think that others are different, but they also tend to highly value their personal interests. Those who pursue VI have a strong need for achievement and tend to value individual rights with minimal interference [63,64,65].
For those embracing VI, social, environmental, and animal welfare are not conducive to environmental friendliness because they are not the first consideration. Dunlap, Van Liere, and Mertig found that traditional American values are negatively related to beliefs in resource conservation [58]. People with a VI orientation are particularly interested in comparing themselves to others. They believe that competition is a law of nature; therefore, it is natural to compete for status.
People embracing VI tend to exhibit risk tolerance, autonomy, and aggression, which they apply to their relationships [26,27,64]. They also aspire to achievement and success [65]. Therefore, VI consumers are more likely to form relativistic perceptions of consumption behavior and accept more suspicious consumption behavior. In addition, consumers with VI orientation tend to engage in unethical consumption. Therefore, it can be predicted that the VI value system will affect the pursuit of eco-friendly values.
Hypothesis 1 (H1). 
Vertical individualism(H1-1),horizontal individualism(H1-2), verticalcollectivism (H1-3),and horizontalcollectivism(H1-4) positively affect eco-friendly ethical consumption behavior.
Relationship between cultural values and socioeconomic-based consumption behavior.
According to previous studies, people with HC cultural tastes prefer brands that symbolize pro-social values, while those with VI cultural tastes prefer status-related brands [66]. At the individual level, self-improvement values (e.g., power and achievement) contribute to individual interests, while transcendence values (e.g., universalism and pride) contribute to collective interests [63,67]. Therefore, strongly collectivistic people focus on self-transcendence values because they are strongly interested in their group and focus on collective goals. Moreover, collectivists tend to emphasize less personal and self-oriented interests; thus, collectivism is negatively related to self-reinforcement values. Therefore, self-reinforcement and self-transcendent values are contrasting motivational objectives, promoting the welfare of others and nature versus promoting selfish interests, that tend to affect environmental attitudes among consumers [68,69,70].
According to Griskevicius, Tybur, and Van den Bergh, consumers who pursue social status are similar to those who embrace VI. They tend to purchase pro-social products and more expensive products than non-social products when they consume them in public [71]. In other words, consumers seeking higher social positions tend to purchase pro-social products. Thus, companies will benefit from providing opportunities to show that consumers are ready to purchase a product and can bear additional costs.
Among the characteristics of a person embracing VC, internal group solidarity is considered very important [60,61]. This is because VC-oriented people believe that group decisions and goals have a higher status and value than personal goals [64], although those who embrace VC value personal interests very much. In addition, VC-oriented people believe that family values are more important than personal interests. Therefore, those who embrace VC think they are different from others, but they still see themselves based on group identity. Those who embrace VC value systems obey group norms and are willing to sacrifice themselves to achieve the group’s goals. They tend to emphasize integrity within a group [65].
VC-oriented people are more likely to patronize familiar retailers or service providers in their communities than those with other cultural orientations. Some studies indicate that consumers with VC cultural values tend to be eco-friendly [72]. Those who embrace VC values are willing to sacrifice personal group goals and avoid competition within and outside the group. Retailers and service providers that operate in a group’s region are often considered part of their group. Therefore, they tend to hold higher ethical standards for consumption behavior. This study thus predicts that a VC-oriented value system positively affects embracing nature-friendly values.
HC-oriented people emphasize common goals and rely on each other to achieve them [64]. In contrast, consumers who embrace HC culture are interested in cause-related marketing [73,74]. Some scholars suggest that collectivism has a great influence on green product purchase behavior because collectivists value cooperation, help, and group goal consideration when compared to individualists [70]. It is argued that HC and VC have positive effects on environmental attitudes and that these positive attitudes stem from the environmental protection obligations felt by collectivists [62]. Therefore, in this study, it can be said that the HC value system positively affects the embracement of eco-friendly values.
Hypothesis 2 (H2). 
Vertical individualism(H2-1),horizontal individualism(H2-2), verticalcollectivism (H2-3),andhorizontalcollectivism(H2-4) positively affect socioeconomic-oriented ethical consumption behavior.
Relationship between ethical consumption behavior and consumer happiness.
Many consumers recognize that material and economic goods are by no means the only sources of consumer happiness and are increasingly making material sacrifices to protect the environment [7]. Consumers who make this choice move away from their interest in material acquisition and focus on non-material quality-of-life problems; however, they spend less time in the economic system [3,9,10].
Some scholars have argued that ethical consumption can reduce the negative effects of economic activities and is closely related to subjective well-being [7]. Ottman found that consumers no longer ignore environmental quality or make consumption choices to maximize satisfaction [75]. Eco-friendly or ethical consumers are willing to reduce consumption and compromise on price, brand, convenience, or product performance to ensure that they make purchase decisions that match their principles [3,9,10,76]. This contributes to their utility, even if it reduces the absolute level of consumption.
The results of a study on sustainability and consumption indicate that consumers in wealthy countries believe that charity or aid increases their happiness [77]. Consumers believe that charity and aid are effective in reducing consumption inequality. It has been found that materialism can amplify the extent to which wealthy consumers or societies limit consumption. The path to a sustainable future is to mobilize informed self-interest on the part of consumers and businesses to promote appropriate consumption and spending on green technologies.
Some studies on sustainable development have also proven that ethical consumption does not appear to take specific forms, such as environmental, political, social, or economic spending [78,79,80]. Ethical consumption also enhances individual satisfaction, personal welfare, internal motivation, and psychological recovery. Gardner and Prugh stressed that a society that practices sustainable behavior should be a happy society, at least one that values the achievement of such a psychological state [81]. Therefore, happiness must be considered when analyzing the impact of environmental behavior and is judged to be a positive result [81]. Therefore, this study predicts that ethical consumption behavior positively affects consumer happiness.
Hypothesis 3 (H3). 
Eco-friendly (H3-1)and socioeconomic-oriented ethical consumption behavior(H3-2) will positively affect consumer happiness.

3.2. Research Model

The research model for this study was designed based on the factors in which individualism and collectivism cultural values influence ethical consumption behavior based on the above discussion. Hypotheses 1 and 2 were established to understand how cultural values affect consumers’ ethical consumption behavior. Hypothesis 3 was established to understand the effect of ethical consumption behavior on consumer happiness. To verify the purpose and conform to the hypotheses of this study, a research model was constructed, as shown in Figure 1.

4. Research Methodology

4.1. Operational Definitions and Measurement of Variables

This study focuses on two cultural value systems, namely, individualism and collectivism. To analyze the differences between individualism and collectivism, an existing taxonomy was applied, comprising VI, VC, HI, and HC [20,64,82]. Based on existing comparative cultural studies, a total of 32 items were adopted to measure these variables: eight items for VI, eight items for HI, eight items for VC, and eight items for HC [20,82]. Appendix A presents the measurement tools.
Ethical consumption behavior is defined as decision-making, purchasing, and other consumption experiences that are influenced by ethical concerns [3,9,10,31]. To subdivide ethical consumption behavior into types, this study used exploratory factor analysis to measure eco-friendly and socioeconomic-oriented consumption behavior. After factor analysis, eco-friendly consumption behavior consisted of 5 items, and socioeconomic-oriented consumption behavior consisted of 11 items after factor analysis [3,9,10,31].
In this study, consumer happiness was defined as the level of positive emotions and subjective well-being induced by consumers from the overall experience of consumption [29,37,83]. Four items adapted from the relevant literature were modified and supplemented to suit this study.

4.2. Survey Procedure and Data Collection

As shown in Appendix A and Appendix B, operational definitions and measurement items for variables related to cultural values, ethical behavior, and consumer happiness support were arranged according to attributes based on questionnaires used in previous studies. The survey measures were based on 5-point Likert scales, where 1 = very negative, 3 = neutral, and 5 = very positive. In other words, the higher the score, the more positive the answer. First, basic demographic data were measured using four items: sex, age, education, and income.
The sample was randomly extracted from a list of consumer panels registered with a global research company. In general, to accurately define the nature of a population, it is necessary to clearly determine various factors, such as the subject, scope, and time of the study. Therefore, the sampling method used in this study is simple random sampling. The total survey period was approximately 1 month, from 1 March to 30 June 2021. The total number of valid participants was 938. The SPSS statistical package was used for data analysis, and SEM with EQS6 was used for hypothesis testing.

5. Results

5.1. Descriptive Statistics

The final sample consisted of 463 men and 475 women who filled out 938 questionnaires. Respondents’ average monthly income was approximately USD 3000. Almost all, or 80% of the respondents, had earned college-level degrees. In the survey, those between the ages of 20 and 30 years occupied the largest share, representing 40% of the sample. In Table 1, the demographic distribution for the survey is reported.

5.2. Measurement Validity

We tested the scales for dimensionality, reliability, and validity using exploratory factor analysis (EFA) before assessing the hypothesized relationships shown in Figure 1. Cronbach’s alpha values were higher than 0.7 for all variables. The results of factor loading, communality, and Cronbach’s alpha are provided in the following tables. As shown in Table 2, Table 3 and Table 4, the factor loadings of the items in the measures range from 0.524 to 0.918, demonstrating convergent validity at the item level.
As shown Table 3, the results of the factor analysis confirmed the discriminant validity of ethical consumption for the entire sample. The results of factor analysis show that the 21 items used to measure ethical consumption fall along two dimensions: Factor 1, “eco-friendly ethical consumption,” and Factor 2, “socioeconomic-oriented ethical consumption.” The two factors extracted for ethical consumption were shown to explain 52.5% of the total variance.
As shown in Table 4, discriminant validity was assessed by comparing the correlations of the components with the average variance extracted (AVE). The AVE values range between 0.613 and 0.693, and the means of the squares of the correlation coefficients range between 0.010 and 0.341, indicating that AVE is higher than the means of the squares of the correlation coefficients (r2). This also satisfies the requirement of discriminant and convergent validity for research hypothesis model verification.

6. Hypothesis Testing

To test the structural relationships in the model, the hypothesized causal paths were estimated. The results are shown in Table 5 and Figure 2, and they indicate that VI as a component of cultural values did not affect socioeconomic-oriented ethical consumption (γ = 0.016, p = 0.621). However, VI as a component of cultural values has positive effects on eco-friendly ethical consumption (γ = 0.016, p = 0.621). Thus, H2-1 was rejected, but H1-1 was supported. These results indicate that vertical/horizontal individualism and collectivism were shown to be significantly positively associated with eco-friendly and socioeconomic-oriented ethical consumption. Thus, H1-2, 1-3, 1-4. 2-2, 2-3, and 2-4 were supported. Eco-friendly-driven and socioeconomic-oriented ethical consumption have positive effects on consumer happiness. Thus, H3 and H4 were supported.

Comparison between Groups

As seen Table 6, the classification of individualism and collectivism into sub-groups was reclassified into four groups by comparing the average values of the variables. The same average values were excluded from the final analysis. Eco-friendly ethical consumption behavior was highest in the group with an HC tendency, while it was lowest in the group with a VI tendency. Socioeconomic-oriented consumption behavior was highest in the VC group and lowest in the HI group.

7. Conclusions and Discussion

This study attempted to understand how cultural values affect ethical consumption behavior. We found that VI did not have a statistically significant effect on eco-friendly consumption behavior. It can be said that a group with VI tendencies aims for an autonomous self that obtains satisfaction through competition and personal achievement. Moreover, this group’s cultural values cannot explain eco-friendly ethical consumption behavior based on a culture that values competition and obtains satisfaction through personal achievements. In other words, eco-friendly ethical consumption behavior through personal effort has a tendency to consume a natural diet but may have little effect in a culture that obtains satisfaction through achievement or competition.
HI was found to positively affect eco-friendly consumption behavior. Horizontal individualistic cultures tend to value uniqueness and social equality and emphasize individual autonomy. This cultural value system seems to play an important role in consumers’ tendency to consume natural diets. VC positively affected eco-friendly consumption behavior. People who emphasize VC culture tend to sacrifice their personal desires for superior purposes within the group. They also placed themselves in their own hierarchy within the group. This cultural value system seems to play an important role in consumers’ tendency to consume natural diets. HC was found to positively affect eco-friendly consumption behavior. HC is a culture in which one is perceived as equal to other group members, and social harmony is highly valued. This cultural value system seems to play an important role in consumers’ tendency to consume natural diets. VI had no significant effect on socioeconomic-based consumption behavior. A propensity for ethical consumption behavior based on socioeconomic considerations also emphasizes fair trade, fair travel, social problems, the local economy, local environmental issues, and actions to eradicate unfair behavior. It can be said that there is no significant effect of VI culture that obtains satisfaction through achievement or competition.
HI was found to positively affect socioeconomic-based consumption behavior. An HI culture tends to emphasize uniqueness, social equality, and individual autonomy, and it is closely related to forming socioeconomic-based ethical consumption behavioral tendencies (e.g., fair trade or fair travel, social issues, local economy, local environmental issues, or actions to eradicate unfair behavior). VC was found to positively affect socioeconomic-based consumption behavior. There is a tendency to sacrifice personal desires for the ideal purpose of a group, thus emphasizing this cultural value system. Individuals with VC also place themselves in their own hierarchies within the group. This cultural value system can be said to be closely related to the formation of socioeconomic-based ethical consumption behavioral tendencies. HC was found to positively affect socioeconomic-based consumption behavior. In a group that embraces these cultural values, there is a culture that is perceived as treating every member as equal to other group members and in which social harmony is highly valued. HC can be said to play an important role in forming socioeconomic-based ethical consumption behavioral tendencies.
Ethical consumption behavior based on eco-friendly and socioeconomic-oriented consumption was found to positively affect consumer happiness. In two respects, ethical consumption behavior itself is an important factor that makes consumers feel happy. According to the results of the analysis of cultural value systems, the group with the strongest tendency toward HC exhibited strong eco-friendly ethical consumption behavior. Next, VC, HI, and VI cultures were found to be related to eco-friendly consumption behavior. In the case of VC groups, there is a tendency to sacrifice personal desires for the ideal purpose of the group, thus emphasizing the cultural value system. Members of VC groups also place themselves in their own hierarchy within the group, showing a strong propensity to engage in consumption behavior based on socioeconomic foundations. In the group with strong HI tendencies, consumption behavior based on socioeconomic foundations was the lowest.
The four types of classification framework used in this study refer to the characteristics of dominant thinking by the situation. It is an excessive simplification to regard the culture of a particular country as an individualist and collectivist culture and to regard the characteristics of various actions and thoughts accordingly. The culture of the country has various subcultures, and various norms are applied differently depending on the situation and layer of people. The two-dimensional cultural framework used in this study is useful in that it helps to understand this diversity.
In addition, this study shows cultural value as a leading factor in ethical consumption behavior, and that cultural value plays a significant role as a leading variable of ethical consumption behavior. A country’s cultural value is judged to be an essential variable in predicting and explaining consumers’ ethical consumption behavior in its culture.
Ethical consumption trends now call for changes in marketing and the corporate environment. For sustainable growth, companies should make active efforts to protect the environment and produce products based on social responsibility and ethical factors. Modern consumers need to recognize the importance of their ethical consumption behavior to solve various problems in consumer society.
It is useful to recognize responsible social behavior that starts with the perception of how consumers’ own consumption choices lead to consequences for their society, regionally and globally, for the economy, society, culture, politics, and natural ecology.

Implications

The results of this study have diverse academic and practical implications. First, the study provides an opportunity to understand tendencies toward ethical consumption behaviors in new respects by applying existing cultural theory to types of ethical consumption behavior. The study is also significant in that it establishes latent variables by conducting an exploratory factor analysis of ethical consumption behavior. Valuable guidelines can be provided for follow-up studies in that they are divided into eco-friendly ethical consumption behavior and socioeconomic ethical consumption behavior. Based on these components, follow-up studies could provide valuable information about the system of ethical consumption values and the causal relationship between the preceding factors and outcomes of consumer happiness.
This study’s implications are divided into two categories. First, regarding academic implications, this study analyzed cultural values by identifying four cultural groups favoring vertical or horizontal individualism and collectivism to understand the relationship between ethical consumption behavior and consumer happiness. This study aimed to suggest ways to improve ethical consumption and consumer happiness by focusing on cultural values. As social interest in or the importance of ethical consumption increases, the number of consumers who practice ethical consumption behavior is also growing. As a result of reviewing previous studies that investigated why ethical consumption behavior occurs, most studies have been limited to testing motivations for purchasing specific products. If ethical consumption behavior is defined as a comprehensive concept rather than being limited to purchasing specific products, it is necessary to examine why ethical consumption behavior takes place. The findings of this study are significant in that they provide valuable information that can be used to understand ethical consumption behavioral tendencies using a cultural approach.
In a situation where consumer demand for and interest in ethical products is on the rise, the following theoretical and practical implications of this study’s results are presented. Cultural values play a significant role as leading variables that drive ethical consumption behavior. A country’s cultural values are considered essential for predicting and explaining ethical consumption behavior in a given culture. These findings provide important academic implications for studies investigating the relationship between consumers’ rational and emotional consumption activities or social and cultural trends, such as ethical consumption and civil society, to explain these relationships. It is necessary to increase explanatory power by developing a wider range of cultural values and introducing additional variables, as in Hofstede’s theory of cultural value.
The results of this study support the use of several indicators. First, analyzing ethical consumption behavior from various angles and understanding the relationship between these reconstructed concepts, cultural value systems, ethical consumption behavior types, and consumer happiness will help marketers identify the antecedents of consumer happiness.
The results of this study can be of practical significance because they present types of ethical consumption behavior associated with social beliefs or mature civic consciousness. The various cultural values that consumers embrace should be established while considering that they play an important role in determining ethical consumption behavioral tendencies. This cultural value system, ethical consumption behavior, and identification of the relationship with consumer happiness provide guidelines on how companies’ marketing and consumer strategies should change. In the future, companies need to understand the cultural value systems that consumers embrace and focus on developing ethical consumer products or services based on natural friendships or a socioeconomic foundation, as consumer happiness can be realized in this manner.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, G.-Q.C. and C.-H.J.; methodology, J.-Y.Z.; software, validation, G.-Q.C., J.-Y.Z. and C.-H.J.; formal analysis, investigation, resources, data curation, and writing—original draft preparation, C.-H.J.; project administration All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This Research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The studies involving human participants were reviewed and approved by the Ethics Committee of the Kyonggi University of Korea.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets generated and analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Appendix A. Statistics of the Construct Items for Individualism and Collectivism

ConstructSurvey Measures
Horizontal IndividualismI prefer to be direct and forthright when I talk with people.
One should live one’s life independently of others.
I often do my own thing.
I am a unique individual.
I like my privacy.
When I succeeded‚ it was usually because of my abilities.
What happens to me is my own doing.
I enjoy being unique and different from the others in many ways.
Vertical IndividualismWinning is everything.
It annoys me when other people perform better than I do.
It is important for me that I do my job better than the others.
I enjoy working in situations involving competition with others.
Competition is a law of nature.
When another person does better than I do‚ I get tense and aroused.
Without competition, it is impossible to have a good society.
Some people emphasize winning; I am not one of them (reverse).
Horizontal CollectivismMy happiness depends very much on the happiness of those around me.
I like sharing little things with my neighbors.
The well-being of my co-workers is important to me.
It is important for me to maintain harmony within my group.
If a relative were in financial difficulty‚ I would help within my means.
If a co-worker receives a prize, I would feel proud.
To me, pleasure is spending time with others.
I feel good when I cooperate with others.
Vertical CollectivismI would do what would please my family.
I usually sacrifice my self-interest for the benefit of my group.
We should keep our aging parents with us at home.
Children should feel honored if their parents receive a distinguished award.
Children should be taught to place duty before pleasure.
I would sacrifice an activity that I enjoy very much if my family did not approve of it.
I hate to disagree with others in my group.
Before making a major trip‚ I consult with most members of my family and many friends.

Appendix B. Statistics of the Construct Items for Ethical Consumption

ConstructSurvey Measures
Eco-friendly-oriented ethical consumption (5 items)I try to keep the things that I have right now and use them for a long time.
In order not to generate waste, I write down the necessary items and purchase only what I need.
Garbage is collected separately.
I prefer to use a shopping cart rather than a disposable plastic bag when purchasing a product.
I prefer to eat simply with a healthy diet rather than buy a lot of food.
Social-economic oriented ethical consumption (11 items)I prefer fair travel, so even if I go on a trip, my money goes back to the area.
I tend to choose products that are sold by companies or institutions for fair trade.
I prefer to take walking tours that do not harm the environment when I travel.
I buy fair-trade products, such as chocolate or coffee, so that producers can receive fair compensation for their work.
I do not drink coffee from companies that buy and sell beans from local peasants for a low price.
I do not use products from companies that have caused environmental or social problems.
I do not buy unfair business products.
I prefer to first purchase small- and medium-sized products produced locally if their functions are the same.
I use traditional markets rather than large distribution stores to help the local economy.
I prefer to eat vegetables rather than meat to prevent global warming.
I buy vegetables or fruits that are produced in the local area, even for the same food.
Consumer HappinessI feel happy when buying it.
I am happier now than before buying it.
I think buying makes people happy.
I think I used my money well in buying the product.

References

  1. Aschemann-Witzel, J.; Aagaard, E. Elaborating on the attitude-behaviour gap regarding organic products: Young Danish consumers and in-store food choice. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2014, 38, 550–558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Carrington, M.J.; Neville, B.A.; Whitwell, G.J. Lost in translation: Exploring the ethical consumer intention–behavior gap. J. Bus. Res. 2014, 67, 2759–2767. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Clark, D.; Unterberger, R. The Rough Guide to Shopping with a Conscience; Rough Guides: New York, NY, USA; London, UK, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  4. Johnstone, M.L.; Tan, L.P. Exploring the Gap Between Consumers’ Green Rhetoric and Purchasing Behavior. J. Bus. Ethics 2014, 132, 311–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Lee, H.M.; Cheon, H.J. Exploring Korean Consumers’ Attitudes toward Ethical Consumption Behavior in the Light of Affect and Cognition. J. Int. Consum. Mark. 2018, 30, 98–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Zhang, J.; Nelson, M.R.; Mao, E. Beyond de Tocqueville: The roles of vertical and horizontal individualism and conservatism in the 2004 US presidential election. J. Consum. Psychol. 2009, 19, 197–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Ganglmair-Wooliscroft, A.; Wooliscroft, B. Well-being and Everyday Ethical Consumption. J. Happiness Stud. 2019, 20, 141–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Newholm, T.; Harrison, R.; Shaw, D. The Ethical Consumer; Sage Publications Ltd.: London, UK, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  9. Oh, J.C.; Yoon, S.J. Theory based approach to factors affecting ethical consumption. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2014, 8, 278–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Wesley, S.C.; Lee, M.Y.; Kim, E.Y. The role of perceived consumer effectiveness and motivational attitude on socially responsible purchasing behavior in South Korea. J. Glob. Mark. 2012, 25, 29–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Bagozzi, R.P.; Dholakia, U. Goal setting and goal striving in consumer behavior. J. Mark. 1999, 63, 19–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Berger, I.E.; Corbin, R.M. Perceived consumer effectiveness and faith in others as moderators of environmentally responsible behaviors. J. Public Policy Mark. 1992, 11, 79–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Biswas, A.; Licata, J.W.; McKee, D.; Pullig, C.; Daughtridge, C. The recycling cycle: An empirical examination of consumer waste recycling and recycling shopping behaviors. J. Public Policy Mark. 2000, 19, 93–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Zollo, L.; Faldetta, G.; Pellegrini, M.; Ciappei, C. Ethical Consumption and Consumers’ Decision Making: The Role of Moral Intuition. Manag. Decis. 2017, 56, 692–710. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Hofstede, G. Empirical Models of Cultural Differences. In Contemporary Issues in Cross-Cultural Psychology; Bleichrodt, N., Drenth, P.J.D., Eds.; Swets & Zeitlinger Publishers: Washington, DC, USA, 1991; pp. 4–20. [Google Scholar]
  16. Hofstede, G. Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions and Organizations across Nations; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  17. Schutte, H.; Ciarlante, D. Consumer Behavior in Asia; Macmillan Business Press: London, UK, 1998. [Google Scholar]
  18. Gürhan-Canli, Z.; Sarial-Abi, G.; Hayran, C. Consumers and brands across the globe: Research synthesis and new directions. J. Int. Mark. 2018, 26, 96–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Soares, A.M.; Farhangmehr, M.; Shoham, A. Hofstede’s dimensions of culture in international marketing studies. J. Bus. Res. 2007, 60, 277–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Singelis, T.M.; Triandis, H.C.; Bhawuk, D.P.; Gelfand, M.J. Horizontal and vertical dimensions of individualism and collectivism: A theoretical and measurement refinement. Cross-Cult. Res. 1995, 29, 240–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Steenkamp, J.B.E. The role of national culture in international marketing research. Int. Mark. Rev. 2001, 18, 30–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Sivakumar, K.; Nakata, C. The stampede toward Hofstede’s framework: Avoiding the sample design pit in cross-cultural research. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 2001, 32, 555–574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Inglehart, R.; Klingemann, H.D. Genes, Culture, Democracy, and Happiness. In Culture and Subjective Well-Being; Diener, E., Suh, E.M., Eds.; The MIT Press: Boston, MA, USA, 2000; pp. 165–183. [Google Scholar]
  24. Schwartz, S.H. A theory of cultural values and some implications for work. Appl. Psychol. 2006, 48, 23–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Sojka, J.; Tansuhaj, P.S. Cross-cultural consumer research: A twenty-year review. ACR N. Am. Adv. 1995, 22, 461–474. [Google Scholar]
  26. Hui, C.H.; Triandis, H.C. Individualism-collectivism: A study of cross-cultural researchers. J. Cross-Cult. Psychol. 1985, 17, 225–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Triandis, H.C. Individualism and Collectivism: Past, Present, and Future. In The Handbook of Culture and Psychology; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2001; pp. 35–50. [Google Scholar]
  28. Trafimow, D.; Triandis, H.C.; Goto, S.G. Some tests of the distinction between the private self and the collective self. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1991, 60, 649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Cherrier, H.; Munoz, C.L. A reflection on consumer’s happiness: The relevance of care for others, spiritual reflection, and financial detachment. J. Res. Consum. 2007, 12, 1–19. [Google Scholar]
  30. Harper, G.C.; Makatouni, A. Consumer perception of organic food production and farm animal welfare. Br. Food J. 2002, 104, 287–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Michaelidou, N.; Hassan, L.M. The role of health consciousness, food safety concern and ethical identity on attitudes and intentions towards organic food. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2008, 32, 163–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Crane, A.; Matten, D.; Moon, J. Stakeholders as citizens? Rethinking rights, participation, and democracy. J. Bus. Ethics 2004, 53, 107–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Solomon, R. Consumer Behavior: Buying, Having and Being; Taihong, L.; Xiaoyan, Y., Translators; China Renmin University Press: Beijing, China, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  34. Freestone, O.; McGoldrick, P. Motivations of the Ethical Consumer. J. Bus. Ethics 2008, 79, 445–467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Argyle, M. The Psychology of Happiness; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  36. Veenhoven, R. Conditions of Happiness; D. Reidel Publiching Company: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1984. [Google Scholar]
  37. Nicolao, L.; Julie, R.I.; Joseph, K.G. Happiness for Sale: Do Experiential Purchases Make Consumers Happier than Material Purchases? J. Consum. Res. 2009, 36, 188–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Brulde, B. Happiness Theories of the Good Life. J. Happiness Stud. 2007, 8, 15–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Hahn, J.; Oishi, S. Psychological needs and emotional well-being in older and younger Koreans and Americans. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2006, 40, 689–698. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Dolan, P. Cost-Happiness Analysis: A New and Improved Form of Economic Appraisal? Is Happiness Measurable and What Do those Measures Mean for Policy? In Proceedings of the International OECD Conference, Rome, Italy, 25–28 April 2007. [Google Scholar]
  41. Ryan, R.M.; Deci, E.L. Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. Am. Psychol. 2000, 55, 68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Mogilner, C.; Aaker, J.; Kamvar, S.D. How happiness affects choice. J. Consum. Res. 2012, 39, 429–443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  43. Li, D.; Atkinson, L. The role of psychological ownership in consumer happiness. J. Consum. Mark. 2020, 37, 629–638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Duan, J.; Dholakia, R.R. Posting purchases on social media increases happiness: The mediating roles of purchases’ impact on self and interpersonal relationships. J. Consum. Mark. 2017, 34, 404–413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Myers, D.G.; Diener, E. Who is happy? Psychol. Sci. 1995, 6, 10–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Freedman, J.L. Happy People: What Happiness Is, Who Has It, and Why; Harcourt Brace Jovanovich: New York, NY, USA, 1978. [Google Scholar]
  47. Van Boven, L. Experientialism, Materialism, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 2005, 9, 132–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Lyubomirsky, S.; Sheldon, K.M.; Schkade, D. Pursuing happiness: The architecture of sustainable change. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 2005, 9, 111–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  49. Kahneman, D.; Krueger, A.B.; Schkade, D.; Schwarz, N.; Stone, A.A. Would you be happier if you were richer? A focusing illusion. Science 2006, 312, 1908–1910. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Desmeules, R. The impact of variety on consumer happiness: Marketing and the tyranny of freedom. Acad. Mark. Sci. Rev. 2002, 12, 1–18. [Google Scholar]
  51. Sinha, J.B.P.; Verma, J. Structure of Collectivism. In Growth and Progress in Cross-Cultural Psychology; Kagitcibasi, C., Ed.; American Psychology Association: Washington, DC, USA, 1987; pp. 123–129. [Google Scholar]
  52. Leung, K.; Bond, M.H. The impact of cultural collectivism on reward allocation. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1984, 47, 793–804. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Wood, J.A.; Longenecker, J.G.; McKinney, J.A.; Moore, C.W. Ethical attitudes of students and business professionals: A study of moral reasoning. J. Bus. Ethics 1988, 7, 249–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Oyserman, D.; Coon, H.M.; Kemmelmeier, M. Rethinking individualism and collectivism: Evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-analyses. Psychol. Bull. 2002, 128, 3–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Cohen, J.R.; Pant, L.W.; Sharp, D.J. A methodological note on cross-cultural accounting ethics research. Int. J. Account. 1996, 31, 55–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Smith, A.; Hume, E.C. Linking culture and ethics: A comparison of accountants’ ethical belief systems in the individualism/collectivism and power distance contexts. J. Bus. Ethics 2005, 62, 209–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. McCarty, J.A.; Shrum, L.J. The influence of individualism, collectivism, and locus of control on environmental beliefs and behavior. J. Public Policy Mark. 2001, 20, 93–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  58. Dunlap, R.E.; Van Liere, K.D.; Mertig, A.G.; Jones, R.E. New trends in measuring environmental attitudes: Measuring endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: A revised NEP scale. J. Soc. Issues 2000, 56, 425–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Kim, Y.; Choi, S.M. Antecedents of green purchase behavior: An examination of collectivism, environmental concern, and PCE. Adv. Consum. Res. 2005, 32, 592–599. [Google Scholar]
  60. Fiske, A.P. The four elementary forms of sociality: Framework for a unified theory of social relations. Psychol. Rev. 1992, 99, 689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Rokeach, M. Change and Stability in American Value Systems, 1968–1971. Public Opin. Q. 1973, 38, 222–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Cho, Y.N.; Thyroff, A.; Rapert, M.I.; Park, S.Y.; Lee, H.J. To be or not to be green: Exploring individualism and collectivism as antecedents of environmental behavior. J. Bus. Res. 2013, 66, 1052–1059. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Schwartz, S.H. Universals in the Content and Structure of Values: Theoretical Advances and Empirical Tests in 20 Countries. In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1992; Volume 25, pp. 1–65. [Google Scholar]
  64. Hui, C.H.; Triandis, H.C.; Yee, C. Cultural differences in reward allocation: Is collectivism the explanation? Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 1991, 30, 145–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Gouveia, V.V.; Clemente, M.; Espinosa, P. The horizontal and vertical attributes of individualism and collectivism in a Spanish population. J. Soc. Psychol. 2003, 143, 43–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Torelli, C.J.; Shavitt, S. Culture and concepts of power. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 2000, 99, 703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  67. Oishi, S.; Diener, E.; Suh, E.; Lucas, R.E. Value as a moderator in subjective well-being. J. Personal. 1999, 67, 157–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Cameron, D.R.; Ranis, G.; Zinn, A. Globalization and Self-Determination: Is the Nation-State Under Siege? Routledge: London, UK, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  69. Karp, D.G. Values and their effect on pro-environmental behavior. Environ. Behav. 1996, 28, 111–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Kim, Y.; Choi, S.M.; Rifon, N. A cross-cultural study of value structure and environmental consumerism: The case of Korean and United States consumers. Korean J. Mark. 2009, 10, 35–64. [Google Scholar]
  71. Griskevicius, V.; Tybur, J.M.; Van den Bergh, B. Going green to be seen: Status, reputation, and conspicuous conservation. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 2010, 98, 392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  72. Waylen, K.A.; Fischer, A.; McGowan, P.J.; Milner-Gulland, E.J. Interactions between a collectivist culture and buddhist teachings influence environmental concerns and behaviors in the Republic of Kalmykia. Russia. Soc. Nat. Resour. 2012, 25, 1118–1133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Wang, S.T. Consumer characteristics and social influence factors on green purchasing intentions. Mark. Intell. Plan. 2014, 32, 738–753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Wong, J.; Newton, J.D.; Newton, F.J. Effects of power and individual-level cultural orientation on preferences for volunteer tourism. Tour. Manag. 2014, 42, 132–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Ottman, J.A.; Stafford, E.R.; Hartman, C.L. Avoiding green marketing myopia: Ways to improve consumer appeal for environmentally preferable products. Environ. Sci. Policy Sustain. Dev. 2006, 48, 22–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. McDonald, S.; Oates, C.; Thyne, M.; Alevizou, P.; McMorland, L.A. Comparing sustainable consumption patterns across product sectors. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2009, 33, 137–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Huang, M.H.; Rust, R.T. Sustainability and consumption. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2011, 39, 40–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Kasser, T. Psychological need satisfaction, personal well-being, and ecological sustainability. Ecopsychology 2009, 1, 175–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Iwata, O. Attitudinal determinants of environmentally responsible behavior. Soc. Behav. Personal. Int. J. 2001, 29, 183–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Hartig, T.; Kaiser, F.G.; Bowler, P.A. Psychological restoration in nature as a positive motivation for ecological behavior. Environ. Behav. 2001, 33, 590–607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Gardner, G.; Prugh, T. Seeding the Sustainable Economy. In State of the World; Starke, L., Ed.; W.W. Norton & Company: New York, NY, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  82. Sivadas, E.; Bruvold, N.T.; Nelson, N.R. A reduced version of the horizontal and vertical individualism and collectivism scale: A four-country assessment. J. Bus. Res. 2008, 61, 201–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Van Boven, L.; Gilovich, T. To Do or to Have? That Is the Question. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 2003, 85, 1193–1202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 14 14254 g001 550
Figure 1. Suggested research model.
Figure 1. Suggested research model.
Sustainability 14 14254 g001
Sustainability 14 14254 g002 550
Figure 2. Path analysis.
Figure 2. Path analysis.
Sustainability 14 14254 g002
Table
Table 1. Sample characteristics.
Table 1. Sample characteristics.
Index (n = 938)Frequency%
SexMale46349.4
Female47550.6
Years20–29 years37540.0
30–3919020.3
40–4918820.0
Over 50 years18519.7
Education LevelHigh school level26828.6
College students899.5
College level48751.9
Graduate school level9410.0
Monthly IncomeBelow USD 200040843.5
USD 2000–300017218.3
USD 3000–400015416.4
USD 4000–5000939.9
Over USD 500011111.8
Table
Table 2. Results of factor analysis for cultural values.
Table 2. Results of factor analysis for cultural values.
Variables (Cronbach’s Alpha)ItemsCommunalityFactor
1234
VIVI10.5340.717
−0.745VI20.6540.633
VI30.6340.759
VI40.6490.729
VI50.5620.688
VI60.6920.614
VI70.7870.524
VI80.6560.538
HIHI10.642 0.647
−0.802HI20.65 0.642
HI30.628 0.594
HI40.632 0.741
HI50.541 0.721
HI60.56 0.705
HI70.535 0.648
HI80.602 0.714
VCVC10.621 0.603
−0.777VC20.69 0.782
VC30.684 0.635
VC40.583 0.691
VC50.516 0.763
VC60.614 0.672
VC70.561 0.632
VC80.614 0.711
HCHC10.623 0.623
−0.822HC20.588 0.618
HC30.584 0.745
HC40.557 0.713
HC50.573 0.612
HC60.682 0.549
HC70.535 0.669
HC80.609 0.699
Eigenvalues6.3124.2663.0111.804
% of Variance14.21312.44311.9829.465
Total variance extracted14.21326.65538.63748.102
KMO = 0.801, Bartlett’s Sphericity Test χ2 = 13428.1 (df = 496, p = 0.000)
Note: VI: vertical individualism, VC: vertical collectivism, HI: horizontal individualism, HC: horizontal collectivism.
Table
Table 3. Results of factor analysis for ethical consumption.
Table 3. Results of factor analysis for ethical consumption.
VariablesItemsCommunalityFactor
12
Ethical consumption (0.958)Eco-friendly (0.748)EFO 10.5530.708
EFO 20.5420.710
EFO 30.5220.696
EFO 60.5110.700
EFO 70.5490.580
Socioeconomic-oriented (0.907)SEO 80.594 0.678
SEO 90.602 0.704
SEO 100.566 0.681
SEO 110.648 0.734
SEO 150.631 0.754
SEO 160.870 0.543
SEO 170.884 0.533
SEO 180.619 0.783
SEO 190.612 0.765
SEO 200.601 .743
SEO 210.637 0.795
Eigenvalues6.4211.985
% Variances40.13412.406
Total variance extracted40.12452.540
KMO = 0.872, Bartlett’s Sphericity Test χ2 = 7939.957 (df = 120, p = 0.000)
Note: EFO: Eco-friendly ethical consumption, SEO: socioeconomic-oriented ethical consumption.
Table
Table 4. Discriminant and convergent validity.
Table 4. Discriminant and convergent validity.
Factor1234567
VI0.635
VC0.094 **0.695
HI0.065 **0.014 **0.613
HC0.031 **0.023 **0.341 ***0.621
Eco-friendly0.012 **0.064 **0.152 ***0.106 **0.598
Socioeconomic0.018 **0.018 **0.131 ***0.187 ***0.165 ***0.682
Happiness0.010 *0.040 **0.076 **0.116 ***0.175 ***0.253 ***0.693
Note: *** p < 0.001, ** p < 0.05, * p < 0.07, VI: vertical individualism, VC: vertical collectivism, HI: horizontal individualism, HC: horizontal collectivism, AVE: Average Variance Extracted, r2: correction coefficient, C.V (Convergent validity): AVE > 0.50, D.V (Discriminant validity): (AVE/r2 > 1).
Table
Table 5. Results of Path Analysis.
Table 5. Results of Path Analysis.
HPathsCoefficients
H1-1VI → Eco-friendly0.060 * (0.056)/z = 1.791, p = 0.072
H1-2HI → Eco-friendly0.214 *** (0.221)/z = 6.941
H1-3VC → Eco-friendly0.307 ** (0.351)/z = 8.401
H1-4HC → Eco-friendly0.123 ** (0.140)/z = 3.403
H2-1VI → Socioeconomic0.016 (0.019)/z = 0.494, p = 0.621
H2-2HI → Socioeconomic0.060 ** (0.071)/z = 1.987, p = 0.049
H2-3VC → Socioeconomic0.160 *** (0.208)/z = 4.375
H2-4HC → Socioeconomic0.328 *** (0.427)/z = 9.098
H3Eco-friendly → Consumer Happiness0.256 *** (0.296)/z = 8.604
H4Socioeconomic → Consumer Happiness0.399 *** (0.405)/z = 13.297
Goodness of Fit: χ2 = 12316.3, df = 946, p = 0.000, CFI = 0.931, GFI = 0.887, AGFI = 0.857, NFI = 0.908, NNFI = 0.909, RMSEA = 0.059
Note: *** p < 0.001, ** p < 0.05, * p < 0.08 (marginally significant).
Table
Table 6. Results based on differences between groups.
Table 6. Results based on differences between groups.
VariablesVI (63)HI (365)VC (170)HC (340)FDuncan Test
Eco-friendlyM3.5843.7403.8553.8786.01 ***4 > 3 > 2 > 1
(3 ≠ 4)
S0.6020.6030.7470.561
SocioeconomicM3.1693.0803.3833.18116.19 ***3 > 1 > 4 > 2
(1 ≠ 2, 2 ≠ 3)
S0.1030.0380.0540.034
Note: *** p < 0.001.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Cui, G.-Q.; Zeng, J.-Y.; Jin, C.-H. The Impact of Vertical/Horizontal Individualism and Collectivism on Ethical Consumption. Sustainability 2022, 14, 14254. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142114254

AMA Style

Cui G-Q, Zeng J-Y, Jin C-H. The Impact of Vertical/Horizontal Individualism and Collectivism on Ethical Consumption. Sustainability. 2022; 14(21):14254. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142114254

Chicago/Turabian Style

Cui, Ge-Qi, Jing-Yun Zeng, and Chang-Hyun Jin. 2022. "The Impact of Vertical/Horizontal Individualism and Collectivism on Ethical Consumption" Sustainability 14, no. 21: 14254. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142114254

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop