Summary of findings
| Study | Hypothesis/research question | Results |
|---|---|---|
| Study 1 | H1. Consumers’ WTPP differs across sustainability initiatives, such that highly tangible initiatives (e.g. packaging and ingredients) elicit higher WTPP than moderately tangible initiatives (e.g. manufacturing), which in turn elicit higher WTPP than low-tangible initiatives (e.g. logistics and donation) | Supported |
| Study 1 | H2. The relationship between sustainability initiatives and WTPP for sustainable goods is mediated by response efficacy | Supported |
| Study 2 and Study 3 | H3. The relationship between sustainability initiatives and response efficacy is moderated by fatalism and, together, influences consumers’ WTPP for sustainable goods | Supported |
| Study 1 | RQ1. How is consumers’ WTPP for sustainable goods influenced by the nature of sustainability initiatives incorporated in goods? | Supported |
| Study 1 and Study 2 | RQ2. How do sustainability types (i.e. environmental vs. social) explain the relationship between sustainability initiatives and consumers’ WTPP for sustainable goods? | Partially supported |
| Study 1, Study 2 and Study 3 | RQ3. How do factors like response efficacy and fatalism explain the mechanisms underlay consumers’ WTPP for sustainable goods? | Supported |
| Study 3 | RQ4. How does biometric joy explain the relationship between sustainability initiatives and WTPP for sustainable goods, and what are the roles of consumer fatalism and sustainability types? | Supported |
| Study | Hypothesis/research question | Results |
|---|---|---|
| Study 1 | Supported | |
| Study 1 | Supported | |
| Study 2 and Study 3 | Supported | |
| Study 1 | Supported | |
| Study 1 and Study 2 | Partially supported | |
| Study 1, Study 2 and Study 3 | Supported | |
| Study 3 | Supported |
Sharing content requires targeting cookies to be enabled. Please update your cookie preferences to use this feature.