Misleading Consumers with Green Advertising? An Affect–Reason–Involvement Account of Greenwashing Effects in Environmental Advertising

Figures & data

FIG. 1. Theoretical model of greenwashing effects. All direct effects and control variables were included in the model but omitted from depiction for the sake of clarity.

TABLE 1 Confirmatory Factor Analysis: Factor Loadings (Standardized, Unstandardized), Correlations, Variance Extracted, Model Fit

	Factor
	Study 1				Study 2
Statements	Perceived Greenwashing		Virtual Nature Experience		Perceived Greenwashing		Virtual Nature Experience
Brand X makes me feel close to nature	1.00		.93		1.00		.95
Brand X makes me think of nature, fields, forests, and mountains	.95		.91		.93		.83
Brand X evokes the sensation of being in nature	.95		.92		.96		.89
This ad misleads with words in its environmental features	1.00		.92		1.00		.84
This ad misleads with visuals or graphics in its environmental features	1.01		.90		1.00		.78
This ad possesses a green claim that is vague	.86		.76		1.00		.80
This ad exaggerates what the product's green functionality actually is	.92		.85		1.01		.84
This ad masks important information, which makes the green claim sound better than it is	.91		.82		.91		.80
This ad uses information about environmental features that is false	.91		.85		1.01		.87
This ad does not tell the truth about the product's green functionality	.96		.87		.82		.71
Correlations
Virtual nature experience	−.48		−.17		−.67		−.26
Average variance extracted	.73		.85		.65		.79

Note. Study 1: Model fit: CFI = .98, TLI = .98, SRMR = .03, RMSEA = .05; Study 2: Model fit: CFI = .97, TLI = .95, SRMR = .04, RMSEA = .07.

TABLE 2 Study 1: Path Analysis, Maximum Likelihood Estimation

	Perceived Greenwashing		Virtual Nature Experience		Ad Attitude		Brand Attitude
Variables	b	SE	b	SE	b	SE	b	SE
Age	−.02^***	.01	.00	.01	.01	.00	−.00	.00
Gender	.12	.14	.03	.14	−.14	.10	−.04	.05
Education	.01	.05	.03	.05	−.10^**	.03	.01	.02
Race	−.06	.07	.01	.10	.02	.06	.02	.03
EC	−.05	.11	.20	.16	.07	.04	.01	.02
EK	−.01	.12	.16	.14	.02	.04	.03	.02
Social desirability	.25^***	.07	.46^***	.07	.12^*	.05	.05	.03
False claim	.85^***	.20	−.09	.22	.04	.16	.11	.08
Comb. false claim	.62^**	.21	.73^***	.22	−.05	.14	.07	.07
Vague claim	.33	.22	−.07	.24	−.20	.15	.08	.08
Comb. vague claim	.34	.22	.60^**	.23	−.29	.17	.03	.08
False claim × EC	.10	.16	.18	−.21
Comb. false claim × EC	.24	.16	.03	.18
Vague claim × EC	.07	.15	.05	.20
Comb. vague claim × EC	−.01	.17	−.03	.21
False claim × EK	.33^*	.16	−.08	.18
Comb. false claim × EK	−.29	.18	.11	.17
Vague claim × EK	.07	.19	−.13	.20
Comb. vague claim × EK	−.04	.20	−.07	.21
Perceived greenwashing					−.14^***	.04	−.05^*	.02
Virtual nature experience					.53^***	.04	.01	.02
Ad attitude							.84^***	.04
Explained variance	.13		.26		.50		.85

Note. EC = environmental concern; EK = environmental knowledge; comb. = combined. Model fit: χ² (16) = 13.81, p = .61; CFI = 1.00; TLI = 1.00; RMSEA = .00 [.00, .04], p = 1.00; SRMR = .01.

*** p < .001;

** p < .01;

* p < .05.

FIG. 2. Overview of hypotheses.

TABLE 3 Study 2: Path Analysis, Maximum Likelihood Estimation

	Perceived Greenwashing		Virtual Nature Experience		Ad Attitude		Brand Attitude
Variables	b	SE	b	SE	b	SE	b	SE
Age	.01	.01	−.01	.01	−.01	.01	−.00	.00
Gender	.18	.17	−.08	.19	−.06	.13	−.01	.10
Education	.02	.03	.00	.03	−.00	.02	−.00	.02
EC	−.06	.13	.24	.16	.03	.05	.20^***	.04
EK	.15	.13	.01	.12	−.03	.06	−.11^*	.04
Social desirability	−.06	.09	.41^***	.11	.04	.07	−.05	.06
PANAS	.21^***	.05	.13	.07	.06	.05	−.07	.04
False claim	.67^*	.25	−.24	.30	−.10	.21	−.30	.16
Comb. false claim	.93^**	.26	1.36^***	.29	−.34	.23	−.58^**	.18
Vague claim	.16	.25	−.45	.29	.34	.21	−.25	.16
Comb. vague claim	.40	.25	1.33^***	.27	−.29	.22	−.60^**	.17
False claim × EC	.01	.22	.05	.25
Comb. false claim × EC	.00	.22	−.04	.25
Vague claim × EC	.20	.16	−.08	.22
Comb. vague claim × EC	−.01	.19	−.05	.20
False claim × EK	.03	.21	−.31	.19
Comb. false claim × EK	.20	.27	.13	.23
Vague claim × EK	.01	.18	−.22	.20
Comb. vague claim × EK	.22	.21	−.04	.19
Perceived greenwashing					−.29^***	.06	−.11^*	.04
Virtual nature experience					.35^***	.05	.08	.04
Ad attitude							.56^***	.07
Explained variance	.15	.28	.37	.60

Note. EC = environmental concern; EK = environmental knowledge; comb. = combined. Model fit: χ² (16) = 22.36, p = .13; CFI = .99; TLI = .94; RMSEA = .04 [.00, .07], p = .72; SRMR = .01.

*** p < .001;

** p < .01;

* p < .05.