Values and willingness-to-pay for sustainability-certified mobile phones

References

• Arnkvist J (2014). The smartphone revolution and importance of mobilecomputing to stay relevant on smart device market: an analysis of user priorities when choosing a new smartphone and prototyping of an online performance comparison service [Master´s thesis]. Royal Insitute of Thechnology, School of Computer Science and Communication. [accessed 2016 Jun 27]. www.diva-portal.org.
   Google Scholar
• Auger P, Burke P, Devinney TM, Louviere JJ. 2003. What will consumers pay for social product features? J Bus Ethics. 42(3):281–304.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Auger P, Devinney TM, Louviere JJ. 2007. Using best–worst scaling methodology to investigate consumer ethical beliefs across countries. J Bus Ethics. 70(3):299–326.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bask A, Halme M, Kallio M, Kuula M. 2013. Consumer preferences for sustainability and their impact on supply chain management: the case of mobile phones. Int J Phys Distr Log Manage. 43(5–6):380–406.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Böhm S, Adam F, Farrell WC. 2015. Impact of the mobile operating system on smartphone buying decisions: a conjoint-based empirical analysis. In: Younas M., Awan I., Mecella M. (eds) Mobile Web and Intelligent Information Systems. MobiWIS 2015. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 9228. Springer, Cham
   Google Scholar
• Carlsson F, Martinsson P. 2001. Do hypothetical and actual marginal willingness to pay differ in choice experiments?: application to the valuation of the environment. J Environ Econ Manage. 41(2):179–192.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carrigan M, Marinova S, Szmigin I, De Pelsmacker P, Janssens W, Sterckx E, Mielants C. 2005. Consumer preferences for the marketing of ethically labelled coffee. Int Market Rev. 22(5):512–530.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen J. 1988. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2nd ed. Hillsdale (NJ): Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Delmas MA, Nairn-Birch N, Balzarova M. 2013. Choosing the right eco-label for your product. MIT Sloan Manage Rev. 54(4):10.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Disrupt Design. 2010. Life psychology - award winning educational sustainability animation. [accessed 20 July 2010] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJP18eKelws.
   Google Scholar
• Doran CJ. 2009. The role of personal values in fair trade consumption. J Bus Ethics. 84(4):549–563.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Doran CJ. 2010. Fair trade consumption: in support of the out-group. J Bus Ethics. 95(4):527–541.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Doran R, Hanss D, Larsen S. 2017. Intentions to make sustainable tourism choices: do value orientations, time perspective, and efficacy beliefs explain individual differences? Scand J Hosp Tour. 17:223–238. doi:10.1080/15022250.2016.1179129.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ebrahim R, Ghoneim A, Irani Z, Fan Y. 2016. A brand preference and repurchase intention model: the role of consumer experience. Journal of Marketing Management, 32:13-14, 1230-1259, doi: 10.1080/0267257X.2016.1150322.
   Google Scholar
• Eichstaedt P. 2011. Consuming the Congo: war and conflict minerals in the world’s deadliest place. Chicago: Chicago Review Press.
   Google Scholar
• Epstein MJ, Yuthas K. 2011. Conflict minerals: managing an emerging supply‐chain problem. Environ Qual Manage. 21(2):13–25.
   Google Scholar
• Gotschi E, Vogel S, Lindenthal T, Larcher M. 2010. The role of knowledge, social norms, and attitudes toward organic products and shopping behavior: survey results from high school students in Vienna. J Environ Educ. 41(2):88–100.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grankvist G 2013. Consumer attitudes to ethically labelled products. Research report/University West, Sweden. [accessed 2016 Jun 30]. www.diva-portal.org.
   Google Scholar
• Grankvist G. 2015. Attitudes towards fairtrade principles and environmental views among the Inhabitants of a Rural Swedish Town. Psychology. 6(13):1661.
   Google Scholar
• Grankvist G, Kajonius P. 2015. Personality traits and values: a replication with a Swedish sample. Int J Pers Psychol. 1(1):8–14.
   Google Scholar
• Hainmueller J, Hiscox MJ, Sequeira S 2014. Consumer demand for the fair trade label: evidence from a multi-store field experiment. Review of Economics and Statistics, Forthcoming; Formerly: MIT Political Science Department Research Paper No. 2011-9B. Available SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1801942. doi:10.2139/ssrn.1801942.
   Google Scholar
• Hanemann WM. 1991. Willingness to pay and willingness to accept: how much can they differ? Am Econ Rev. 81(3):635–647.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hanss D, Böhm G. 2012. Sustainability seen from the perspective of consumers. Int J Consum Stud. 36(6):678–687.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hiscox MJ, Broukhim M, Litwin C (2011). Consumer demand for fair trade: new evidence from a field experiment using eBay auctions of fresh roasted coffee. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1811783 doi:10.2139/ssrn.1811783.
   Google Scholar
• Human Values (Core – All rounds). [accessed 4 July 2016] http://www.europeansocialsurvey.org/data/themes.html?t=values.
   Google Scholar
• Joireman JA, Van Lange PAM, Kuhlman DM, Van Vugt M, Shelley GP. 1997. An interdependence analysis of commuting decisions. Eur J Soc Psychol. 27:441–463. doi:10.1177/0013916503251476.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Karjaluoto H, Karvonen J, Kesti M, Koivumäki T, Manninen M, Pakola J, … Salo J. 2005. Factors affecting consumer choice of mobile phones: two studies from Finland. J Euromarket. 14(3):59–82.
   Google Scholar
• Knafo A, Roccas S, Sagiv L. 2011. The value of values in cross-cultural research: A special issue in honor of Shalom Schwartz. J Cross Cult Psychol. 42(2):178–185.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knetsch JL, Sinden JA. 1984. Willingness to pay and compensation demanded: experimental evidence of an unexpected disparity in measures of value. Q J Econ. 99(3):507–521.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kollmuss A, Agyeman J. 2002. Mind the gap: why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environ Educ Res. 8(3):239–260.
   Google Scholar
• Ladhari R, Tchetgna NM. 2015. The influence of personal values on Fair Trade consumption. J Clean Prod. 87:469–477. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.10.068.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee D, Moon J, Kim YJ, Mun YY. 2015. Antecedents and consequences of mobile phone usability: linking simplicity and interactivity to satisfaction, trust, and brand loyalty. Inf Manage. 52(3):295–304.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Link TV. 2013. Tainted tin: the deadly cost of smart phones. [Video file]. [accessed 9 January 2013]. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USodnCMC6rE.
   Google Scholar
• Ma YJ, Lee HH. 2012. Understanding consumption behaviours for fair trade non‐food products: focusing on self‐transcendence and openness to change values. Int J Consum Stud. 36(6):622–634.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Markowitz EM, Goldberg LR, Ashton MC, Lee K. 2012. Profiling the “pro‐environmental individual”: A personality perspective. J Pers. 80(1):81–111.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Milfont TL. 2012. The interplay between knowledge, perceived efficacy, and concern about global warming and climate change: A one-year longitudinal study. Risk Anal. 32:1003–1020.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mooallen J 2016 July 1. The afterlife of cellphones. The New York Times Magazine. http://www.nytimes.com.
   Google Scholar
• Nordlund AM, Garvill J. 2002. Value structures behind proenvironmental behavior. Environ Behav. 34(6):740–756.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O´Rourke D 2016. Environmental, social, and health impacts of cell phones [Video file]. [accessed 1 July 2016]. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wnoNCweyNQ4.
   Google Scholar
• Pepper M, Jackson T, Uzzell D. 2009. An examination of the values that motivate socially conscious and frugal consumer behaviours. Int J Consum Stud. 33(2):126–136.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Prasad M, Kimeldorf H, Meyer R, Robinson I. 2004. Consumers of the world unite: a market-based response to sweatshops. Labour Stud J. 29(3):57–80.
   Google Scholar
• Reis HT. 2008. Reinvigorating the concept of situation in social psychology. Pers Social Psychol Rev. 12:311–329.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ritov L, Kahneman D. 1997. How people value the environment: attitudes versus economic values. In: Bazerman MH, Messick DM, Tenbrunsel AE, Wade-Benzoni KA, editors. Environment, ethics, and behavior. The psychology of environmental valuation and degradation. San Francisco: The New Lexington Press; p. 33–51.
   Google Scholar
• Rokeach M. 1973. The nature of human values. New York: Free press.
   Google Scholar
• Rosenthal R. 1994. Parametric measures of effect size. In: Cooper H, Hedges LV, editors. The handbook of research synthesis. New York (NY): Sage; p. 231–244.
   Google Scholar
• Runyan RC, Foster IM, Park J, Ha S. 2012. Understanding pro-environmental behavior: a comparison of sustainable consumers and apathetic consumers. Int J Retail Distr Manage. 40(5):388–403.
   Google Scholar
• Schultz PW, Kaiser F. 2012. Promoting pro-environmental behavior. In: Clayton SD, editor. The Oxford handbook of environmental and conservation psychology. New York: Oxford University Press; p. 556–580.
   Google Scholar
• Schultz PW. 2014. Strategies for promoting proenvironmental behavior: lots of tools but few instructions. Eur Psychol. 19:107–117.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schultz PW, Zelezny L. 1999. Values as predictors of environmental attitudes: evidence for consistency across 14 countries. J Environ Psychol. 19(3):255–265.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schwartz SH. 1992. Universals in the content and structure of values: theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. Adv Exp Soc Psychol. 25(1):1–65.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schwartz SH 2009. Draft users manual: proper use of the Schwarz value survey, version 14 January 2009, compiled by Romie F. Littrell. Auckland, New Zealand: Centre for Cross Cultural Comparisons. Manuscript. Available at: http://crossculturalcentre. homestead. com/(Accessed July, 16, 2013).
   Google Scholar
• Schwartz SH, Bardi A. 2001. Value hierarchies across cultures taking a similarities perspective. J Cross Cult Psychol. 32(3):268–290.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Seligman C, Olson JM, Zanna MP. 2013. The psychology of values: the Ontario Symposium. Vol. 8. New Jersey: Psychology Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sexton SE, Sexton AL. 2014. Conspicuous conservation: the Prius halo and willingness to pay for environmental bona fides. J Environ Econ Manage. 67(3):303–317.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sønderskov KM, Daugbjerg C. 2011. The state and consumer confidence in eco-labeling: organic labeling in Denmark, Sweden, The United Kingdom and The United States. Agric Human Values. 28(4):507–517.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steg L, de Groot JIM. 2012. Environmental values. In: Clayton SD, editor. The Oxford handbook of environmental and conservation psychology. New York: Oxford University Press; p. 81–92.
   Google Scholar
• Suckling J, Lee J. 2015. Redefining scope: the true environmental impact of smartphones? Int J Life Cycle Assess. 20(8):1181–1196.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tanner C, Kast SW. 2003. Promoting sustainable consumption: determinants of green purchases by Swiss consumers. Psychol Market. 20(10):883–902.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• The Secret Life Series. 2008, January 11. The secret life of cell phones – A Project of INFORM, Inc. [Video file]. [accessed 11 Jan 2008] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkbpiL9UsY8.
   Google Scholar
• Thøgersen J, Haugaard P, Olesen A. 2010. Consumer responses to ecolabels. Eur J Mark. 44(11/12):1787–1810.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tully SM, Winer RS. 2014. The role of the beneficiary in willingness to pay for socially responsible products: a meta-analysis. J Retailing. 90(2):255–274.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar