Controlling green consumption behaviour

The participants acknowledge that they influence and are influenced by other household members toward greener consumption behaviour and habits. In some cases, the participants exert control over others with influence strategies and use of power (see Figure 18).

Figure 18: Controlling techniques

Fiona (Case 2) often uses emotional strategies to exercise control over what is purchased, especially in terms of green products. While consumption is at times purely individual, it is often a collective experience and therefore the adoption of some green consumption behaviour requires commitment, support and cooperation from other household members (Gronhoj, 2006; Kennedy, et al., 2009). As Fiona holds strong environmental and ethical values (i.e., sustainability and animal welfare), through previous experience she has learnt that Fred is more likely to compromise for her because of these values.

Fiona: [Fred] “more compromises for me I think. So he would compromise for things like woodland eggs and green household products and toilet paper and stuff more than what I would compromise for him. Because he doesn‟t really care, whereas I care - so I normally win.”

In general, Fred is more cost-driven and often compromises on the cost of products for greener attributes, in order to avoid negative reactions, as evidenced in the following example:

Stephanie Hooper 135 Fred: “Nagging, general fuss, just giving in to avoid a scene. It‟s like that ad with the 2-year old who has a tantrum. It‟s kind of like that with Fiona.

Fiona uses emotionally-laden reactions to influence Fred‟s behaviour, defined as an

“emotional influence strategy” (Davis, 1976; Spiro, 1983). Fiona feels that she has legitimate reasons for purchasing green products and therefore Fred should compromise for her. Whereas, Fred generally concedes to Fiona‟s demands in order to avoid tantrums and public emotional confrontations. Therefore, Fiona can

“normally win” purchase disputes through using persuasive techniques and emotional influence strategies to maintain relative control over green product purchases. As these disagreements about product purchases often occur when Fiona and Fred are shopping together, Fiona has the ability to secure “future purchase commitment”

(Davis, 1976) from Fred. When Fred agrees to purchase certain green products on one occasion, it is more difficult for him to retract and purchase a different product at a later stage.

Meanwhile, Deborah (Case 4) deliberately comments on her spouse‟s recycling and waste habits in order to encourage greener behaviour in the household.

Deborah: “Probably just telling him every time he goes to put it in the rubbish bin. I‟ve actually actively come and said „no it doesn‟t go in there.‟ And then some of the time if he‟s not at home I just take the plastic out and put it in the right place and then make a passing comment.”

Sheth (1974) found that persuasive techniques embrace emotive forms of gaining influence such as “nagging”. Therefore, “nagging” is an emotional strategy employed by Fiona and Deborah, to “persuade or dominate their partner by using emotive appeals and non-verbal techniques to gain control over the purchase outcome” (Davis, 1976, pp. 255-256).

With power and influence strategies, other household members are manipulated into performing green consumption behaviour with a greater level of consistency.

Alternatively, household members may be motivated by “not-so-green” reasons, such as practising green consumption behaviour in order to avoid being nagged. Overtime,

Stephanie Hooper 136 and over the course of the relationship, Fiona‟s control over Fred‟s purchases and Deborah‟s control over Darryl‟s recycling habits may result in permanent behaviour change, as the male household members adapt to their partner‟s “green” requirements.

Decision history can create carry-over effects in the case of decision conflicts (Hoyer, 1984), as green purchases and practices become a habitual part of household consumption behaviour.

Some participants use positive and negative reinforcement as a mechanism to control consumption behaviour. Positive reinforcement is considered a reward that is likely to increase the practice of pro-environmental behaviour (Bandura, 1969). Based on this idea, Bruce (Case 6) subtly encourages his brother to practice green behaviour and disincentives non-environmental behaviour.

Bruce: “Because of course we are pushing people into corners they don‟t want to be in, so what I tend to do with my brother is encourage him. I treat him like a kid, he doesn‟t see me doing it but to me I‟m treating him like a child. By encouraging him when I see him do positive things. Just being less impressed.

So when he buys the flash BMW I am like „oh poor you!‟ You know?”

Bruce describes the discrete use of positive and negative reinforcement to manipulate his brother toward greener consumption behaviour. It should be noted, that in addition to BMW‟s, this household case does not view SUV‟s as an acceptable vehicle (as highlighted by Bridget‟s statement in section: 4.5.1.1. pp. 120-123).

Despite Bruce‟s distaste for certain types of consumption behaviour, he has found that generally people do not appreciate or respond well to being told what to do.

Therefore, Bruce uses social power, rewards and punishments to influence behaviour by controlling the positive and negative feedback his brother receives. According to Kollmuss and Agyeman (2002, p. 246), a person must receive positive reinforcement to continue with certain ecological behaviour. For this reason, Bruce ensures that his brother‟s green behaviour is rewarded with both social approval and recognition while his brother receives the opposite reaction for non-environmental behaviour.

Stephanie Hooper 137 4.5.4.1.3. Facilitating green consumption behaviour

Some participants facilitate the green behaviour of other people by providing the tools and knowledge to perform pro-environmental processes. Bridget (Case 6) supplies family members with the tools and materials to compost their own organic waste.

Bridget: “I bought my parents a worm-farm and I bought them a bicashi bucket so they do all of that. But I think people have to come to it themselves you can‟t force it.”

While Bridget may provide the tools for greener behaviour, she also acknowledges that people must adopt pro-environmental behaviour without pressure from other people. Both Bridget and Bruce realise that forcing green consumption behaviour upon others, is an ineffective strategy for promoting pro-environmental behaviour change. For altruistic reasons, both Bridget and Bruce (Case 6) make concessions for others based on their own personal pro-environmental values. Both of these participants try to enable green consumption behaviour in other people. Bridget and Bruce have been known to recycle their colleagues‟ plastic containers and compost coffee grounds from work, at their home. Bridget and Bruce compensate for the lack of green consumption behaviour in others by enabling and sometimes performing green consumption behaviour on the behalf of other people.

Bridget: “There is always a drawer of containers at work, and if I find them I take them out of the rubbish because I can‟t believe that people at work throw them out.”

Bruce: “We [Bruce and Bridget] have both become very green and I know Bridget does things at work, like she brings home coffee grounds from work and things like that. We both do that when people bring containers from buying their lunch and go into the lunchroom, have their lunch and then put their containers in the rubbish bin. I get them out, wash them, and take them home.

My wife has been guilty of that a few times too I think.”

Stephanie Hooper 138 Bridget and Bruce are among the greenest participants in this study and they both acknowledge that they are “very green” in terms of their values and consumption behaviour. These pro-environmental values have led them to look beyond their own consumption habits and to that of others. They are both very action-oriented and have a sense of duty and even obligation to facilitate greener consumption behaviour in other people, as well as themselves. While they recognise it is better if people “come to it themselves”, it is also clear that both Bridget and Bruce find it difficult to refrain from imposing their pro-environmental values upon others.