Table 7

Hypotheses summary and main results of OLS regression for each sample

HypothesisSampleEffect size [95% CI] (p-value)Interpretation
H1a: When given an ambiguous risk probability of occurrence (as opposed to a non-ambiguous one), purchasing managers are more likely to choose the more sustainable product optionPurchasing managers0.019 [−0.04, 0.07] (ns)not supported
Students0.000 [−0.10, 0.10] (ns)not supported
H1b: The effect in H1a is stronger for females than for malesPurchasing managers−0.111** [−0.22, −0.00] (0.044)not supported (statistically significant effect opposite to our hypothesis found)
Students0.119 [−0.08, 0.31] (ns)not supported
H2a: When given a specific (as opposed to ambiguous) social consequence associated with the product choice, purchasing managers are more likely to choose the sustainable product optionPurchasing managers0.016 [−0.04, 0.07] (ns)not supported
Students0.049 [−0.05, 0.15] (ns)not supported
H2b: The effect in H2a is stronger for males than for femalesPurchasing managers0.048 [−0.06, 0.16] (ns)not supported
Students0.0160 [−0.18, 0.21] (ns)not supported
Post hoc test: impact of gender on sustainable product selectionPurchasing managers0.058 ** [0.03, 0.12] (0.040)Females in both sample groups chose the sustainable product more often than males
Students0.102** [0.00, 0.20] (0.034)

Note(s): *p-value <0.10; **p-value <0.05; ***p-value <0.01; ****p-value <0.001

Source(s): Authors’ own work

or Create an Account

Close Modal
Close Modal