Neutralisation techniques

Neutralisation techniques are used by consumers to justify and rationalise non-environmental behaviour, and may help to explain why consumers continue to behave in ways that are inconsistent with their pro-environmental attitudes (Chatzidakis, Hibbert, Mittusis, & Smith, 2004; Chatzidakis, et al., 2007). In general, neutralisation techniques allow consumers tolerate compromises to their pro-environmental values by balancing good (i.e., green) and bad (i.e., not-so-green) consumption behaviour (Harris & Dumas, 2009). However, as discussed above, in some situations tradeoffs among alternatives, conflicting individual interests and the constraint of practicalities prevent consumers from adopting greener consumption habits (Bergin-Seers & Mair, 2009).

“Techniques of neutralisation” developed by Sykes and Matza (1957) were used to understand the deviant behaviour of adolescent delinquency. According to Sykes and Matza (1957), the techniques are rationalisations used to “protect the individual from self-blame and the blame of others after the act” (Sykes & Matza, 1957, p. 666).

Based on their findings, Sykes and Matza (1957) proposed five techniques of neutralisation. These techniques entail the “denial of responsibility” (i.e., one does not feel responsible for the outcome of the behaviour), “denial of injury” (i.e., denial that someone actually suffered as a result of the behaviour), “denial of victim” (i.e., a view that suffering parties deserved what they got), “condemning the condemners”

(i.e., the belief that those who condemn engage in similar behaviour or contribute to the behaviour), and “appeal to higher loyalties” (i.e., the behaviour is justified based on a higher goal or priority) (Sykes & Matza, 1957).

Stephanie Hooper 33 Chatzidakis et al. (2004) also proposed that these neutralisation techniques represent five rationalisations that help consumers to alleviate the impact of unethical consumption behaviour on their social relationships and self-concept. The study used these techniques to help explain how individuals cope with the “attitude-behaviour gap” prevalent in ethical and green consumerism. It is clear that neutralisation techniques enable consumers to conduct and rationalise non-environmental behaviour, justifying behaviour inconsistent with their core ethical values and beliefs (Chatzidakis, et al., 2004). Other research also identified neutralising arguments to rationalise the lack of translation of fair-trade attitudes into fair-trade purchases at the supermarket (Chatzidakis, et al., 2007). The analysis revealed that neutralisation techniques have some capacity to mitigate the impact of non-environmental behaviour to the individual‟s self-image.

While neutralisation theory has been applied in contexts where the consumer is misbehaving (i.e., behaviour that is inconsistent with personal/moral/social norms).

The effects of neutralisation techniques have not been applied to a “green consumerism” context. It is important for research to examine how consumers with pro-environmental attitudes cope when they behave in a non-environmental manner and maintain their self-image and self-esteem. Neutralisation of non-environmental behaviour is a critical area for research because of its relationship to the prevalent

“attitude-behaviour gap”. The personal concessions in green consumption behaviour are well researched however, the green literature has not acknowledged how the social environment can affect individual consumption behaviour. Personal relationships and social experiences can also affect individual action and may influence the translation of pro-environmental attitudes into green consumption behaviour.

Stephanie Hooper 34 2.4. Household decision-making

The green consumption literature has focused on the nature of consumers and their actions as individuals. For this reason, it has been criticised for overlooking and downplaying the importance of social context and conditions of consumers‟ lives and lifestyle (Moisander, 2007; Shove, 2003). The term “individual” is misleading because it summons the idea of isolation from a social and historical setting.

Wheelock and Oughton (1996, p. 143) suggest that most individuals live in households, and therefore analysis should be at the level of the household and the individuals within it. It is apparent that there are a number of competing motivations and goals within households, with most actions and consumption activities based on reciprocity or cooperation between individuals (Wheelock & Oughton, 1996).

Therefore, the behaviour of others shapes our interpretations of, and our responses to the situations we find ourselves in, especially for novel, ambiguous and uncertain situations like green consumerism (Griskevicius, Goldstein, Mortensen, Cialdini, &

Kendrick, 2006).

For most household consumption decisions, it is the household rather than the individual that is the critical decision-making and consumption unit (Spiro, 1983).

Family decision-making has been the focus of significant research in the past, although present interest in family research is declining (Communri & Gentry, 2000).

Despite its importance, academics have noted that “family decision making is one of the most under-researched and difficult areas to study within all of consumer behaviour” (Wilkie, Moore-Shay, & Assar, 1992). The term “family” generally constitutes a group of related and/or married people who live together (Communri &

Gentry, 2000). Meanwhile a “household” refers to an individual or group of individuals who live in the same dwelling, with each member fulfilling an individual role in the households organisation and management (Wheelock & Oughton, 1996).

Households represent an important target group, as major contributors to the emission of green-house gases and consequently, global warming (Abrahamse, Steg, Vlek, &

Rothengatter, 2005). The term “household metabolism” describes the flow of energy and materials through the household (Peattie, 2010). Domestic product types, food

Stephanie Hooper 35 and drink, housing and transport contribute to 70-80% of the total impacts from domestic consumption (Tukker, 2006). The environmental impact of domestic consumption includes pollution, human and environmental health risks and greenhouse gas emissions (Tukker, 2006). A greater understanding of how green consumption decisions are made within households may provide new insight into how other household members prevent and facilitate greener consumption behaviour.

Household decisions involve several potential decision makers and influencers (Norgaard, Bruns, Christensen, & Mikkelsen, 2007) and purchase decisions differ across types of products and decisions as well as family or household characteristics (Mangleburg, 1990). For these reasons, it is important to study and understand different household lifecycles and structures as this may affect consumption behaviour practiced by household members. Marketers must realise that any decision seemingly made by an individual residing within a household structure, may be at least influenced by other members of the household (Lackman & Lanasa, 1993). The lack of present qualitative research into the dynamics of household decision-making is a substantial shortcoming of marketing literature. It is important to investigate a range of different household structures and lifecycles to examine the nature of interaction and communication about green consumption behaviour.