Efficacy beliefs regarding purchases of environmentally friendly products on holiday

ABSTRACT

This study focuses on the relative importance of different facets of efficacy beliefs in explaining the purchasing of products with environmentally friendly attributes. These facets differed based on whether they addressed individual versus collective action, in addition to whether they focused on behavioural execution versus goal attainment. Separate explanatory models were tested for organic food, refillable products, and bio-degradable food, each including goal attractiveness as a covariate. Behavioural self-efficacy was significantly associated with all types of purchases, but behavioural collective efficacy and goal self-efficacy showed only significant associations with purchases of bio-degradable food. Goal collective efficacy and goal attractiveness did not explain additional variance in any of the purchases considered. These findings align with past literature suggesting that efficacy beliefs can have a part in explaining purchasing behaviour, though stressing that the predictive value of specific facets may not generalize across different product types. Future research could investigate these beliefs for other forms of exerting influence as a consumer and/or in respect to social and economic issues related to sustainable development.

KEYWORDS:

• Sustainable tourism
• purchasing behaviour
• self-efficacy
• collective efficacy
• goal attractiveness

Introduction

In the study of environmental challenges, and individual responses to them, different facets of efficacy beliefs can be distinguished (Koletsou & Mancy, 2011). This can include whether individuals feel confident in being able to carry out a specific behaviour, such as choosing organic food, and/or to achieve desired goals by doing so, such as supporting producers who avoid using environmentally harmful pesticides.¹ When circumstances are such that the attainment of desirable outcomes cannot be accomplished by individual action alone, similar perceptions and expectations can be formed in consideration of collective performances (Koletsou & Mancy, 2011). This may pertain to the entities’ perceived ability to carry out specific behaviours, like boycotting food products associated with negative impacts on the environment, and/or to anticipations of outcomes from collectively performing these behaviours, like incentivising the food industry to transform their value chains to reduce environmental impacts. Following the terminology proposed by Hamann and Reese (2020), we refer to these different facets of efficacy beliefs as behavioural self- (vs. collective) efficacy and goal self- (vs. collective) efficacy.²

Literature on the subject provides empirical evidence to support the suggested distinction in different facets of efficacy beliefs. Examples for this may range from broader assessments about the ways in which individuals can help mitigate climate change in their role as citizens (Bostrom et al., 2019) to perceptions that pertain to more narrowly defined domains such as energy saving (Verschoor et al., 2020). Other studies found that different efficacy facets provide unique contributions to explaining public-sphere behaviours such as attending rallies and protests calling for action against climate change (Doherty & Webler, 2016), community responses to deal with local environmental problems (Bonniface & Henley, 2008; Thaker et al., 2016), and personal engagement to lower energy consumption (Choi & Hart, 2021; Gregersen et al., 2021). These findings complement research that has addressed one or several of the described efficacy facets in relation to consumer decisions, including the purchasing of products with environmentally and socially benign qualities (Gupta & Ogden, 2009; Hanss et al., 2016; Hanss & Böhm, 2010; Lee et al., 2014; Lin & Hsu, 2015).

Efficacy beliefs have furthermore gained increasing recognition within the literature on sustainable tourism, including yet not limited to beliefs that reflect assumptions about goal attainment. Doran et al. (2015) found that people were more likely to pay extra for environmental protection in relation to their travelling if they believed that their actions make a difference. These beliefs explained more variance in willingness to pay than attitudes towards environmental protection, especially when they concerned perceptions about the effectiveness of acting together as a group. Doran et al. (2017) investigated similar perceptions for a larger variety of tourism choices, such as spending additional travelling time or paying extra for eco-friendly alternatives. Perceptions about the group’s (‘we as tourists’) ability to achieve a desired outcome were an important predictor of the intention to choose eco-friendly travel options, explaining more variance than most other psychological variables considered. Other studies have linked beliefs about one’s ability to make a difference with motives to travel for participating in ecological restoration projects (Strzelecka et al., 2018) and to engage in environmentally responsible behaviour at the destination (Xu et al., 2019).

Research aims

Our overview of the literature stresses the role of efficacy beliefs for understanding individual responses to environmental issues, yet studies distinguishing different facets of efficacy beliefs in a tourism context remain scarce. Against this backdrop, the present study distinguishes subjective estimates about the individual (i.e. single tourist) versus collective (i.e. all tourists) ability to buy environmentally friendly products on holiday from beliefs regarding whether individual versus collective product purchases can make a difference in terms of environmental preservation.³ The reported analyses focus on how well these different facets explain purchases of environmentally friendly products on holiday, specifically for situations when this would impose extra costs (financial, time) on consumers. We deemed this emphasis on extra costs important, in line with research showing that people are less likely to engage in ethical behaviours on holiday when they expect that these behaviours require increased effort or commitment (Ganglmair-Wooliscroft & Wooliscroft, 2016, 2017). While it was assumed that purchases of environmentally friendly products can at least partly be explained by the efficacy facets described above, there were no specific hypotheses concerning the relative importance of each specific facet across the different product categories.

Method

Participants

Participants (N = 577) were recruited among individuals who volunteered to fill out a survey while they were travelling as tourists. The mean age was 42.14 years (SD = 16.44, n = 3 missing), and the sample consisted of 327 women and 250 men. Roughly 90 percent reported being international tourists; the most frequently represented nationalities were the United Kingdom, Germany, and the United States. Most participants resided in hotels (n = 228) or on cruise ships (n = 128), some in camping facilities (n = 58), private pensions (n = 44), or an HI-hostel (n = 41); n = 78 not specified or missing. After socio-demographic information, the participants responded to items addressing various aspects of being a tourist, part of which concerned the construct measures described in Table 1.

Table 1. Items and answer scales

Purchasing behaviour (1 = Never, 7 = Always)

I purchase organic food.^a

I purchase refillable products.^a

I purchase bio-degradable products.^a

Goal attractiveness (1 = Strongly disagree, 7 = Strongly agree)

I would like to reduce negative environmental impacts that result from my personal behaviour as a tourist.^b

Tourists should do more in order to help preserve the environment.^b

Environmental preservation should not be a priority for tourists at this time.^b†

Behavioural self-efficacy (1 = Strongly disagree, 7 = Strongly agree)

I can purchase organic food, although this might take more time.

I am confident that I can buy refillable products, despite the fact that these alternatives could be more expensive.

I can buy bio-degradable products, even if this would take more of an effort than buying conventional alternatives.

Behavioural collective efficacy (1 = Strongly disagree, 7 = Strongly agree)

We as tourists can purchase organic food, although this might take more time.

I am confident that we as tourists can buy refillable products, despite the fact that these alternatives could be more expensive.

We as tourists can buy bio-degradable products, even if this would take more of an effort than buying conventional alternatives.

Goal self-efficacy (1 = Strongly disagree, 7 = Strongly agree)

If I purchase organic food, then I can make a significant contribution towards protecting the environment.

By buying refillable products, I can make an important contribution in mitigating environmental problems.

By buying bio-degradable products, I can contribute meaningfully to help preserve the environment.

Goal collective efficacy (1 = Strongly disagree, 7 = Strongly agree)

If we as tourists purchase organic food, then we can together make a significant contribution towards protecting the environment.

By buying refillable products, we as tourists can together make an important contribution in mitigating environmental problems.

By buying bio-degradable products, we as tourists can together contribute meaningfully to help preserve the environment.

^a Adopted from Miao and Wei (2013).

^b Adapted from Carrico and Riemer (2011).

†Excluded from the reported analyses.

Measures

A broader selection of items was piloted to identify the behaviours considered in this study; for a list of these items, see Miao and Wei (2013). For the pilot study, we approached a sample of tourists (N = 78) that was then asked about the effort required (‘Overall, how much effort (including time, money, inconveniences etc.) would it take for you to perform each of the following behaviours?’, 1 = Low effort, 7 = High effort), and expected outcomes related to the behaviour in question (‘Overall, how much would you say you can contribute to environmental protection (e.g., reducing greenhouse gas emissions, reducing waste, saving energy) by performing each of the following behaviours?’, 1 = Very little, 7 = Very much). Purchasing behaviour (organic food, refillable products, and bio-degradable products) were rated to contribute to environmental protection (M = 4.66, SD = 1.54, n = 2 missing) and require some effort (M = 3.59, SD = 1.62) at the same time.

Participants were initially surveyed about their purchasing behaviour and then asked to answer questions pertaining to efficacy beliefs. For example, after asking how often they buy organic food on holiday, further items were specific to beliefs about the ability to carry out, or outcomes of, these purchases. For each type of behaviour, each efficacy facet was measured by one single item. As a further covariate, the analyses controlled for the extent to which individuals value the goal of environmental preservation in general terms, which has been referred to as goal attractiveness (Carrico & Riemer, 2011). Goal attractiveness was initially measured by three items (α = .49), but one reverse scored item was excluded to improve internal consistency (α = .88). The two remaining items were compiled into a composite score; for a detailed overview of means and standard deviations for each construct measure, see Table 2.

Table 2. Means and standard deviations.

	Organic food				Refillable products				Bio-degradable products
Efficacy facets	n	M	SD	95% CI	n	M	SD	95% CI	n	M	SD	95% CI
Purchasing behaviour	546	3.20	1.68	[3.06, 3.34]	543	3.54	1.76	[3.39, 3.69]	540	3.30	1.66	[3.16, 3.44]
Goal attractiveness	537	5.66	1.29	[5.56, 5.77]	537	5.66	1.29	[5.56, 5.77]	537	5.66	1.29	[5.56, 5.77]
Behavioural self-efficacy	529	3.99	1.53	[3.86, 4.13]	530	4.15	1.53	[4.02, 4.29]	529	3.98	1.53	[3.85, 4.11]
Behavioural collective efficacy	509	4.24	1.49	[4.11, 4.37]	508	4.34	1.46	[4.22, 4.47]	508	4.28	1.47	[4.16, 4.41]
Goal self-efficacy	529	4.50	1.63	[4.36, 4.64]	532	4.76	1.58	[4.63, 4.90]	530	4.79	1.59	[4.65, 4.92]
Goal collective efficacy	510	4.70	1.52	[4.57, 4.84]	511	4.88	1.50	[4.75, 5.01]	510	4.89	1.54	[4.76, 5.03]

Note: Higher values indicated a more frequent purchasing behaviour (1 = Never, 7 = Always) or a more pronounced facet of efficacy beliefs (1 = Strongly disagree, 7 = Strongly agree). CI = confidence interval for M.

Results

Table 3 gives a summary of bivariate correlations. Goal attractiveness was positively correlated with each product choice; however, this association was consistently weaker than associations between purchasing behaviour and efficacy beliefs. There were also considerable differences regarding the strength by which the different efficacy facets correlated with purchasing behaviour; behavioural self-efficacy showed the strongest association across all product purchases.

Table 3. Bivariate correlations.

	1	2	3	4	5	6
Organic food
1. Purchasing behaviour	–
2. Goal attractiveness	.18***	–
3. Behavioural self-efficacy	.34***	.28***	–
4. Behavioural collective efficacy	.28***	.35***	.55***	–
5. Goal self-efficacy	.29***	.39***	.48***	.44***	–
6. Goal collective efficacy	.26***	.42***	.39***	.58***	.63***	–
Refillable products
1. Purchasing behaviour	–
2. Goal attractiveness	.21***	–
3. Behavioural self-efficacy	.43***	.35***	–
4. Behavioural collective efficacy	.28***	.40***	.54***	–
5. Goal self-efficacy	.25***	.45***	.55***	.47***	–
6. Goal collective efficacy	.26***	.50***	.41***	.69***	.64***	–
Bio-degradable products
1. Purchasing behaviour	–
2. Goal attractiveness	.26***	–
3. Behavioural self-efficacy	.41***	.37***	–
4. Behavioural collective efficacy	.37***	.38***	.60***	–
5. Goal self-efficacy	.37***	.47***	.55***	.51***	–
6. Goal collective efficacy	.33***	.48***	.44***	.65***	.68***	–

Note: Pearson correlations. Listwise deletion. N = 500 for organic food, N = 501 for refillable products, N = 500 for bio-degradable products.

***p < .001

The extent to which different facets of efficacy beliefs can account for individual differences in purchasing behaviour was explored by separate hierarchical regression analyses, each with a specific behaviour serving as the criterion (see Table 4). First, we entered goal attractiveness to account for the extent to which environmental preservation was regarded as important by the participants. Second, we entered the efficacy facets, each operationalized to match the specific behaviour under investigation, for example, purchasing organic food.

Table 4. Multiple regressions.

	Organic food			Refillable products			Bio-degradable products
	B	95% CI	β	B	95% CI	β	B	95% CI	β
Step 1
Constant	1.85	[1.19, 2.52]		1.90	[1.20, 2.59]		1.41	[0.77, 2.05]
Goal attractiveness	0.24	[0.12, 0.35]	0.18***	0.30	[0.18, 0.42]	0.21***	0.34	[0.23, 0.45]	0.26***
R^2		0.03			0.05			0.07
R^2Adjusted		0.03			0.04			0.07
F		16.73***			23.76***			35.98***
Step 2
Constant	0.92	[0.25, 1.59]		0.98	[0.30, 1.66]		0.53	[−0.09, 1.15]
Goal attractiveness	0.04	[−0.08, 0.16]	0.03	0.06	[−0.07, 0.19]	0.04	0.06	[−0.06, 0.18]	0.04
Behavioural self-efficacy	0.24	[0.13, 0.36]	0.22***	0.47	[0.35, 0.59]	0.41***	0.25	[0.14, 0.37]	0.23***
Behavioural collective efficacy	0.09	[−0.04, 0.21]	0.08	0.00	[−0.15, 0.14]	0.00	0.14	[0.01, 0.27]	0.12*
Goal self-efficacy	0.11	[−0.01, 0.22]	0.10	−0.07	[−0.20, 0.06]	−0.07	0.14	[0.02, 0.26]	0.14*
Goal collective efficacy	0.05	[−0.08, 0.18]	0.05	0.14	[−0.02, 0.29]	0.12	0.04	[−0.10, 0.17]	0.04
R^2		0.15			0.20			0.22
R^2Adjusted		0.14			0.19			0.21
F		16.81***			24.18***			27.21***

Note: Listwise deletion. N = 500 for organic food, N = 501 for refillable products, N = 500 for bio-degradable products. VIF values (after Step 2) ranged between 1.28 and 2.72 across the three models. CI = confidence interval for B.

***p < .001. *p < .05.

Goal attractiveness explained significant portions of variance in each purchasing behaviour; yet this positive association turned out to be insignificant after adding measures for the efficacy beliefs in the second step of the hierarchical models. Results for purchasing organic food and refillable products were similar in the sense that behavioural self-efficacy turned out to be the only significant explanatory variable. A more complex picture was obtained for purchasing bio-degradable products. Here, most efficacy facets showed significant associations, except for goal collective efficacy.

Discussion

This study rests on the proposition that efficacy beliefs can be differentiated based on whether they relate to individual action versus collective action, but also whether they address the behavioural execution versus goal attainment (Koletsou & Mancy, 2011; Hamann & Reese, 2020). Each of these facets of efficacy beliefs was only moderately pronounced in the current sample, indicating that there is room for further strengthening these characteristics with regard to the investigated consumption domain (cf. Table 2). Efficacy beliefs were also shown to be comparatively more important for explaining purchasing behaviour than goal attractiveness. This has potential bearing on social marketing campaigns that target individual consumption decisions, and specifically, efforts to promote purchases of environmentally friendly products in a holiday context. Rather than merely trying to raise acceptance for efforts to reduce negative environmental impacts, marketers should incorporate strategies to strengthen consumers’ perceived ability to act and make a difference when travelling as tourists. For suggestions on how consumers’ perceived efficacy can be promoted through informational campaigns, see Hanss and Doran (2020).

Multivariate analyses shed light on the role of the investigated efficacy facets for purchases of products with environmentally friendly qualities. A closer look at the results of these analyses reveals that only one facet (i.e. behavioural self-efficacy) was consistently associated with purchasing behaviour; other facets (i.e. goal self-efficacy, behavioural collective efficacy) were only associated with specific product purchases and sometimes failed to explain unique variance altogether (i.e. goal collective efficacy). However, in the bivariate analyses, all facets of efficacy beliefs were significantly and positively associated with all purchasing behaviours. Shared variance among the efficacy facets, as indicated by correlations of moderate to large size between the focal constructs of this study (cf. Table 3), can explain this discrepancy between bivariate and multivariate analyses.

Our finding that behavioural self-efficacy stands out in the multivariate analyses could be due to perceived or actual difficulties with purchasing environmentally friendly products when being on holiday. For example, tourists who travel abroad may not be familiar with local brands or labels that signify specific attributes and, thus, find it difficult to identify and choose environmentally friendly options at the point of sale. Considering that behavioural self-efficacy was also less pronounced than the other efficacy facets (cf. Table 2), it seems plausible to assume that tourists sometimes experience such difficulties, and then may base their purchasing decisions on entirely other product characteristics. When not travelling and, thus, being more familiar with labels and brands on offer, consumers may experience less difficulties with identifying and choosing environmentally friendly products. Therefore, efficacy beliefs regarding goal achievement should be more decisive for purchasing decisions in familiar shopping contexts. Studies among individuals from non-tourist populations provide empirical support for this assumption (Hanss et al., 2016; Hanss & Böhm, 2010).

The reported analyses highlight the explanatory value of behavioural self-efficacy in comparison with other types of efficacy beliefs, at least when considering the investigated consumption context. One possible explanation for why collective efficacy was relatively weakly associated with product purchases may be in the reference group used in the current study. The broad focus on ‘tourists’ might have been too general, so that efficacy beliefs towards tourists as a group are not related to individual consumption decisions. Research from other domains suggests that the more people resemble the characteristics of a reference group, the more likely they are to feel confident about as well as intent on echoing behaviours (Rimal et al., 2005; Rimal & Real, 2005). It can be speculated that references to a more specific group of actors, such as visitors from the same destination who are shopping at the same store, would have rendered collective efficacy as more important. This is because individuals may find it easier to relate their own consumption decisions to those made by more similar others; for a related discussion, see Doran et al. (2015).

Limitations

It should be noted that public views on the concept of sustainability typically incorporate several dimensions beyond the issue of environmental preservation, although the latter continues to be especially salient among consumers (Barone et al., 2020; Hanss & Böhm, 2012). One question that has yet to be addressed is whether the relative importance of different efficacy facets remains stable when they are investigated with respect to other dimensions of sustainability, for example social and economic implications connected with the purchasing of organic food. In addition to including items that allow for widening the scope of the employed efficacy measures, another useful addition would be to differentiate perceptions about one’s ability to exert a direct versus an indirect influence on sustainable development goals whilst acting as a consumer. Past studies have shown that the willingness to choose environmentally friendly and socially benign groceries can in part be explained by the perceived ability to encourage others to contribute to different aspects of sustainable development (Hanss et al., 2016; Hanss & Böhm, 2010; for further evidence on the distinction between direct and indirect goal collective efficacy, see Hamann & Reese, 2020).

Conclusion

A growing literature highlights the role of efficacy beliefs in explaining intentions to behave environmentally friendly when travelling as a tourist (Doran et al., 2015, 2017; Strzelecka et al., 2018; Xu et al., 2019). The current study advances this literature by exploring different facets of efficacy beliefs in the context of grocery shopping. The unique contributions of each specific efficacy facet in explaining purchasing behaviour varied across the investigated product categories. These product category-specific associations may have practical implications because they outline possible avenues for promoting choice of environmentally friendly products, including situations when choosing these products can be construed as costly from an individual point of view. A natural progression would be to consider indirect contributions of individual purchases to sustainable development goals. For example, by purchasing local produce, tourists may set an example for other tourists to do the same and thereby increase their perceived and actual impact. Some studies have addressed tourists’ perceived ability to encourage others by setting a good example, but none of these focused specifically on purchasing behaviour at the holiday destination (Doran et al., 2015, 2017).

Ethical clearance

This research complied with the general guidelines for research ethics by the Norwegian National Committee for Research Ethics in the Social Sciences and the Humanities (NESH). Formal approval by an ethics committee was not required as per applicable institutional guidelines and regulations. Informed consent was inferred by participants filling out the survey.

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the Meltzer foundation.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Rouven Doran

Rouven Doran is an Associate Professor of General Psychology at the Department of Psychosocial Science, University of Bergen. His research interests are centered on individual and social factors that shape perceptions and responses to environmental issues.

Simen Bø

Simen Bø is a PhD Research Scholar in Psychology and Decision Science at the Department of Strategy and Management, Norwegian School of Economics. In his research, he studies judgment and decision making, with an emphasis on how people think about the future.

Daniel Hanss

Daniel Hanss is Professor of Environmental Psychology and Sustainability at the Department of Social Sciences, Darmstadt University of Applied Sciences. His research interests focus around individual perceptions, decision-making, and behavior in the context of social-ecological transformations.

Notes

1 Bandura (1997) refers to this as perceived self-efficacy and outcome expectation, respectively.

2 The theoretical rationale behind is that peoples’ perceptions of their ability to engage in behaviours required to attain desired goals, in conjunction with their expectancies regarding the outcomes of their actions relating to these goals, can motivate them in carrying out demanding tasks (cf. social cognitive theory; Bandura, 1997).

3 For a further discussion on the conceptual distinction between facets of efficacy beliefs that are oriented towards behavioural execution versus facets of efficacy beliefs that are focused on goal attainment, and their application to different actor levels, see Hamann and Reese (2020).