Hành vi tiêu dùng bền vững: Sự khác biệt giữa các nhóm người tiêu dùng Việt Nam theo lý thuyết lưỡng nan xã hội
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.24311/jabes/2020.31.6.825Từ khóa:
Hành vi tiêu dùng bền vững, Lý thuyết các lưỡng nan xã hội, Phân nhómTóm tắt
Nghiên cứu này khám phá sự khác biệt về các hành vi tiêu dùng bền vững (tiêu dùng tiết kiệm, hành vi tiêu dùng tốt cho sức khỏe và tuân thủ quy định môi trường) giữa các nhóm người tiêu dùng Việt Nam. Cách tiếp cận phân nhóm người tiêu dùng dựa theo lý thuyết lưỡng nan xã hội mở rộng (giá trị tự hạ thấp - tự nâng cao bản thân và xem xét kết cục ngắn hạn - dài hạn) và sử dụng kỹ thuật phân tích K–cluster kết hợp phân nhóm và ANOVA. Mẫu nghiên cứu bao gồm 700 người tiêu dùng phân bổ theo hạn ngạch tại 5 thành phố (Hà Nội, Tuy Hòa, Nha Trang, TP. Hồ Chí Minh và Cần Thơ). Kết quả cho thấy sự khác biệt về các hành vi tiêu dùng bền vững giữa bốn nhóm người tiêu dùng theo mức độ tăng dần: Thấp nhất là nhóm Ngắn hạn - Cá nhân, kế đến là nhóm Ngắn hạn - Xã hội, tiếp theo là nhóm Dài hạn - Cá nhân, và cao nhất là nhóm Dài hạn - Xã hội. Từ đó, các hàm ý chính sách được đề nghị gắn với giá trị và quan điểm thời gian nhằm thúc đẩy hành vi tiêu dùng bền vững của người Việt Nam.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Agresti, A. (2019). An Introduction to Categorical Data Analysis (3rd Ed.). New Jersey: Wiley.
Adams, J. (2012). Consideration of immediate and future consequences,smoking status, and body mass index. Health Psychology, 31(2), 260–263.
Adams, J., & Nettle, D. (2009). Time perspective, personality and smoking, body mass, and physical activity: An empirical study. British Journal of Health Psychology, 14(1), 83–105.
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two–step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411–423.
Bearse, S., Capozucca, P., Favret, L., & Lynch, B. (2009). Finding the green in today's
shoppers: Sustainability trends and new shopper insights. Deloitte. Retrieved from http://emprenderioja.es/files/recurso/us_cp_gmadeloittegreenshopperstudy_2009.pdf
Bowen, F., & Panagiotopoulos, P. (2018). Information based regulation: New roles for regulators in shaping regulatory compliance (BEIS Research Paper, No. 2018/9). UK Government, Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy, London.
Boyd, J. N., & Zimbardo, P. G. (1997). Constructing time after death: The Transcendental–future time perspective. Time & Society, 6(1), 234–245.
Brundtland. (1987). Our Common Future. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Carmi, N., & Arnon, S. (2014). The role of future orientation in environmental behavior: Analyzing the relationship on the individual and cultural levels. Society & Natural Resources, 27(12),
1303–1320.
Chandran, S., & Menon, G. (2004). When a day means more than a year: Effects of temporal framing on judgments of health risk. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(2), 375–389.
Cole, J. C., Andretta, J. R., & McKay, M. T. (2016). The relationship between temporal profiles and alcohol–related problems in University undergraduates: Results from the United Kingdom. Addictive Behaviours, 55, 15–18.
Collins, C. M., & Chambers, S. M. (2005). Psychological and situational influences on commuter–transport–mode choice. Environment and Behavior, 37(5), 67–81.
Dietz, T., Dan, A., & Shwom, R. (2007). Support for climate change policy: Social psychological and social structural influences. Rural Sociology, 72(2), 185–214.
Donnellan, M. B., & Robins, R. W. (2010). Resilient, overcontrolled, and undercontrolled personality types: Issues and controversies. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 4(11), 1070–1083.
Ebreo, A., & Vining, J. (2001). How similar are recycling and waste reduction? Future orientation and reasons for reducing waste as predictors of self–reported behavior. Environment and Behavior, 33(3), 424–448.
Feygina, I., Jost, J. T., & Goldsmith, R. E. (2010). System justification, the denial of global warming, and the possibility of “system–sanctioned change. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(3), 326–338.
Gil, A. G., Wagner, E. F., & Vega, W. A. (2000). Acculturation, familism, and alcohol use among Latino adolescent males: Longitudinal relations. Journal of Community Psychology, 28(4),
443–458.
Gilg, A., Barr, S., & Ford, N. (2005). Green consumption or sustainable lifestyles? Identifying the sustainable consumer. Futures, 37(6), 481–504.
Glavic, P., & Lukman, R. (2007). Review of sustainability terms and their definitions. Journal of Cleaner Production, 15(18), 1875–1885.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate Data Analysis. New Jersey: Pearson Education Inc.
Hofmann, W., Friese, M., & Strack, F. (2009). Impulse and self–control from a dual–systems perspective. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4(2), 162–176.
Honkanen, P., Verplanken, B., & Olsen, S. O. (2006). Ethical values and motives driving organic food choice. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 5(5), 420–430.
Hồ Huy Tựu, Nguyễn Văn Ngọc, & Đỗ Phương Linh. (2018). Các nhân tố ảnh hưởng đến hành vi tiêu dùng xanh của người dân Nha Trang, Tạp chí Kinh tế Đối ngoại, 103, 1–19.
Jain, S. K., & Kaur, G. (2006). Role of socio-demographics in segmenting and profiling green consumers: An exploratory study of consumers in India. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 18(3), 107–146.
Joireman, J., Balliet, D., Sprott, D., Spangenberg, E., & Schultz, J. (2008). Consideration of future consequences, ego–depletion, and self–control: Support for distinguishing between CFC–immediate and CFC–future sub–scales. Personality and Individual Differences, 45(1), 15–21.
Joireman, J., Shaffer, M. J., Balliet, D., & Strathman A. (2012). Promotion orientation explains why future–oriented people exercise and eat healthy: Evidence from the two–factor consideration of future consequences–14 scale. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(10), 1272–1287.
Joireman, J., Sprott, D., & Spangenberg, E. (2005). Fiscal responsibility and the consideration of future consequences. Personality and Individual Differences, 39(6), 1159–1168.
Joireman, J., van Lange, P., & van Vugt, M. (2004). Who cares about the environmental impact of cars? Those with an eye towards the future. Environment and Behavior, 36(2), 187–206.
Joireman, J. A., van Lange, P. A. M., van Vugt, M., Wood, A., Vander Leest, T., & Lambert, C. (2001). Structural solutions to social dilemmas: A field study on commuters’ willingness to fund improvements in public transit. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31(3), 504–526.
Karp, D. (1996). Values and their effects on pro–environmental behavior. Environment and Behavior, 28(1), 111–133.
Kaplan, H., Hill, K., Lancaster, J., & Hurtado, A. M. (2000). A theory of human life history evolution: Diet, inteligence and longevity. Evolution Anthropology: Issues, News and Reviews, 9(4),
156–185.
Kees, J. (2011). Advertising framing effects and consideration of future consequences. The Journal of Consumer Affairs, 45(1), 7–32.
Kim, Y., & Choi, S. M. (2005). Antecedents of green purchase behavior: An examination of collectivism, environmental concern, and PCE. Advances in Consumer Research, 32(1), 592–599.
Laroche, M., Bergeron, J., & Barbaro–Forleo, G. (2001). Targeting consumers who are willing to pay more for environmentally friendly products. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 18(6), 503–520.
Liberman, N., & Trope, Y. (1998). The Role of feasibility and desirability considerations in near and distant future decisions: A test of temporal construal theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(1), 5–18.
McKay, M. T., Andretta, J. R., Magee, J., & Worrell, F. C. (2014). What do temporal profiles tell us about adolescent alcohol use? Results from a large sample in the United Kingdom. Journal of Adolescence, 37(8), 1319–1328.
Markowitz, E. M., Goldberg, L. R. Michael C. Ashton, M. C., & Lee, K. (2012). Profiling the ‘pro–environmental individual’: A personality perspective. Personality, 80(1), 81–111.
Milfont, T. L., Coelho–Jr. L. L., Gouveia, V. V., & Coelho, J. A. P. M. (2003). Human values: Their correlation with environmental attitudes and behaviors. Paper presented at the 5th Biennial Meeting of the Division of Environmental Psychology of the German Psycho Logical Association, Eindhoven, Netherlands.
Milfont, T. L., & Gouveia, V. V. (2006). Time perspective and values: An exploratory study of their relations to environmental attitudes. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 26(1), 72–82.
Nie, C., & Zepeda, L. (2011). Lifestyle segmentation of US food shoppers to examine organic and local food consumption. Appetite, 57(1), 28–37.
Nguyễn Quang Thái, & Ngô Thắng Lợi (2007). Phát triển bền vững ở Việt Nam: Thành tựu, cơ hội, thách thức và triển vọng. Hà Nội: NXB Lao động – Xã hội.
Nguyễn Hữu Thụ. (2014). Hành vi tiêu dùng xanh của người Hà Nội. Báo cáo tham luận khoa học, Hội tâm lý xã hội Việt Nam.
Nguyễn Thế Đồng. (2013). Sản xuất và tiêu thụ bền vững ở Việt Nam – Thực trạng và giải pháp. Tạp chí Môi trường, 2, 15–18.
Rokeach, M. (1973). The Nature of Human Values. New York: Free Press.
Ryack, K. (2012). Evidence that time perspective factors depend on the group: Factor analyses of the CFC and ZTPI scales with professional financial advisors. Personality and Individual Differences, 52(6), 723–727.
Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L. M., & Malle, B. F. (1994). Social dominance orientation: A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(4), 741–763.
Quoquab, F., & Mohammad, J. (2020). A review of sustainable consumption (2000 to 2020): What we know and, what we need to know. Journal of Global Marketing, 33(5), 305–334. doi: 10.1080/08911762.2020.1811441
Quoquab, F., Mohammad, J., & Sukari, N. N. (2019). A multiple–item scale for measuring “sustainable consumption behaviour” construct: Development and psychometric evaluation. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 31(4), 791–816.
Schultz, P. W., & Zelezny, L. C. (1999). Values as predictors of environmental attitudes: Evidence for consistency across 14 countries. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 19(3), 255–265.
Shah, R., & Pillai, P. (2012). Consumers’enviromental concern and its influence on their purchase intention: SEM approach. Opinions, 2(1), 24–31.
Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 1–65.
Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Are there universal aspects in the structure and contents of human values?. Journal of Social Issues, 50(4), 19–45.
Stern, S. L., Nahum, J., Harrison, A., Bruschweiler–Stern, N., & Tronick, E. (1998). Non–interpretative mechanisms in psychoanalytic therapy. International Journal Psychoanalysis, 79, 903–921.
Stern, P. C., Dietz, T., Abel, T., Guagnano, G. A., & Kalof, L. (1999). A value belief norm theory of support for social movements: The case of environmental concern. Human Ecology Review, 6(2), 81–97.
Strathman, A., Gleicher, F., Boninger, D. S., & Edwards, C. S. (1994). The consideration of future consequences: Weighing immediate and distant outcomes of behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66(4), 742–752.
Tatiana, P., & Olsen, S. O. (2019). Present and future temporal profiles and their relationship to health intentions and behaviors: A test on a Norwegian general population sample. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 60(1), 36–42.
van Beek, J., Antonides, G., & Handgraaf, M. J. J. (2013). Eat now, exercise later: The relation between consideration of immediate and future consequences and healthy behavior. Personality and Individual Differences, 54(6), 785–791.
van Lange, P. A. M., van Vugt, M., Meertens, R. M., & Ruiter, R. A. C. (1998). A social dilemma analysis of commuting preferences: The roles of social value orientation and trust. Journal of Applied Social Psycholog, 28(9), 796–820.
Verhoef, P. C., & van Doom, J. (2016). Segmenting consumers according to their purchase of products with organic, fair–trade, and health labels. Journal of Marketing Behavior, 2(1), 19–37.
Vermeir, I., & Verbeke, W. (2006). Sustainable food consumption: exploring the consumer ‘attitude–behavioral intention’ gap. Journal of Agriculture and Environmental Ethics, 19, 169–194.
Verain, M. C. D., Dagevos, H., & Antonides, G. (2015). Sustainable food consumption: Product choice or curtailment. Appetite, 91(1), 375–384.
Verain, M. C. D., Sijtsema, S. J., & Antonides, G. (2016). Consumer segmentation based on food–category attribute importance: The relation with healthiness and sustainability perceptions. Food Quality and Preference, 48, 99–106.
Vlek, C., & Keren, G. (1992). Behavioral decision theory and environmental risk management: Assessment and resolution of four “survival” dilemmas. Acta Psychologica, 80(1–3), 249–278.
Worrell, F. C., McKay, M. T., & Andretta, J. R. (2015). Concurrent validity of Zimbardo Time Perspective Inventory profiles: A secondary analysis of data from the United Kingdom. Journal of Adolescence, 42, 128–139.
Żakowska‐Biemans, S. (2011). Polish consumer food choices and beliefs about organic food. British Food Journal, 113(1), 122–137.
Zhang, Z., Kong, M., Zhang, L., & Li, Z. (2012). Consideration of future consequences: Preliminary evidences for a four–factor distinction. Personality and Individual Differences, 87, 99–104.
Zimbardo, P. G., & Boyd, J. N. (1999). Putting time in perspective: A valid, reliable individual differences metric. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(6), 1271–1288.
Lượt tải xuống
Đã Xuất bản
Số
Chuyên mục
Giấy phép
Bản quyền (c) {copyrightHolder}
Tác phẩm này được cấp phép theo Giấy phép Creative Commons Ghi công-Phi thương mại 4.0 Quốc tế.
