Journal of Business Ethics https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-3944-9

ORIGINAL PAPER

Why Does Energy-Saving Behavior Rise and Fall? A Study on Consumer Face Consciousness in the Chinese Context Li Wang1 · Feng Wei1 · Xin‑an Zhang2 Received: 1 August 2017 / Accepted: 4 June 2018 © Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Abstract This research examines the effect of an individual difference variable that reflects the extent to which one desires positive evaluations from others—that is, face consciousness on consumer energy-saving behavior—as well as the mechanism through which the effect occurs and conditions under which it varies. Drawing upon the means-end theory of lifestyles, we propose that face consciousness increases a status-seeking lifestyle and thus decreases energy-saving behavior. Moreover, the negative relationship between status-seeking lifestyle and energy-saving behavior is contingent upon a perceived seriousness of environmental problems and perceived environmental responsibility, such that the indirect and negative effect of such face consciousness is stronger for consumers who perceive less serious environmental problems and less environmental responsibility. Results from an experimental study and a field study using samples of Chinese consumers provide consistent evidence for the hypothesized model. Theoretical and practical implications for energy-saving behavior are also discussed. Keywords  Face consciousness · Status-seeking lifestyle · Perceived seriousness of environmental problems · Perceived environmental responsibility · Energy-saving behavior

Introduction The increase in human energy consumption has greatly affected the amount of greenhouse gas emissions in the last several decades and has led to serious environmental problems including global warming and air pollution. Of the gas emissions generated by human beings, it has been estimated that nearly 30% is directly due to consumption activities such as driving and heating (Sütterlin et al. 2011). In this regard, consumer energy-saving behavior has become an increasingly important target for marketing practitioners and policy makers (Samuelson 1990; Stern and Gardner 1981). Studying the antecedents of energy-saving behavior is of * Li Wang [email protected] Feng Wei [email protected] Xin‑an Zhang [email protected] 1



School of Economics and Management, Tongji University, Shanghai, People’s Republic of China



Antai College of Economics and Management, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, People’s Republic of China

2

particular importance given the fact that today’s consumers are less prone to energy saving (Sütterlin et al. 2011); therefore, scholars have focused on identifying personal and contextual antecedents of consumer energy-saving behavior (He et al. 2016; Hori et al. 2013; Sütterlin et al. 2011; Yue et al. 2013). Among the personal factors examined, consumer self-identity has emerged as a main predictor of energy-saving behavior (Dermody et al. 2018; Sparks and Shepherd 1992; Whitmarsh and O’Neill 2010). According to self-identity theory, self-identity refers to the personal traits, characteristics, or goals that an individual uses to describe him or herself and does not connect the individual with a social group (Howard 2000; Oyserman 2001). As such, the self-identity approach to energy-saving behavior suggests that consumers engage in this behavior primarily because they believe themselves to be the kind of people who should save energy during consumption. However, energy-saving consumption sometimes occurs in public, which means that consumers may also engage in such behavior to influence others’ opinion of them (Kulviwat et al. 2009). To develop a comprehensive understanding of what motivate consumers to save energy, it is important to take factors of interpersonal influence into consideration.

13

Vol.:(0123456789)



Face is an interpersonal variable defined as a positive and favorable self-image that an individual hopes others have of him or her in social interactions (Ho 1976). In consumer research, face has been widely examined as an antecedent of luxurious or conspicuous consumption, suggesting that face facilitates consumption behavior that helps consumers to gain social status, especially in Asian culture (e.g., Li and Su 2007; Li et al. 2015; Liao and Wang 2009). For example, Liao and Wang (2009) found face consciousness of Chinese consumers positively relates to the consumption of expensive brands, which conveys a status signal. Along with this logic, it is reasonable to infer that face consciousness is likely to restrain behaviors that lead to status loss. Because energy-saving actions mean less money spent in the long run, and money is strongly related to social status, it is likely that face consciousness would move consumers away from such actions. That is, face consciousness is likely to hinder energy-saving consumption when the use of energy-saving products is seen as stingy. Yet to date, little effort has been devoted to the potential prohibitive effect of face consciousness on energy-saving consumption. We attempt to address this issue by specifically focusing on two different types of energy-saving behaviors—namely, curtailment behavior (e.g., using public transportation instead of driving) and energy-efficient behavior (e.g., buying an energy-efficient car)—and examine the potential effect of face consciousness on both in a Chinese context, given the importance of face within Asian Cultures (e.g., Bao et al. 2003; Ho 1976; Wong and Ahuvia 1998). We further explore the mechanisms through which face consciousness exerts influence on energy-saving behavior. Because face consciousness reflects the extent to which an individual values face, we follow the logic of the means-end theory of lifestyle (Brunsø et al. 2004) to explore the process through which face consciousness influences energy saving. According to the means-end theory of lifestyle, “lifestyle” is an intervening system of external manifestations of cognitive structures that link personal values to situation-specific behaviors (Hori et al. 2013; Kindra et al. 1994). We choose status-seeking lifestyle as the mediator between face consciousness as one type of personal value and energy saving as one type of consumer behavior. We choose status-seeking lifestyle for two reasons. First, consumer status-seeking lifestyle is often seen as a result of face consciousness (Wong and Ahuvia 1998); second, consumers who seek status are more inclined to engage in over-consumption and less energy-saving behavior. In addition, we propose that the indirect effect of face consciousness on energy-saving behavior via statusseeking lifestyle depends on the context. Face negotiation theory has shown an interactionist standpoint in which human behavior “is a function of a continuous multidirectional process of person-by-situation interactions” (Endler

13

L. Wang et al.

1983, p. 160) and proposes that individuals determine their self-presentation in particular situations for their own face (Ting-Toomey 1988). Drawing on this theory, we hypothesize that the indirect effect of face consciousness via status-seeking lifestyle on energy-saving behavior depends on a particular environmental-perception context. Specifically, we suggest that a perceived seriousness in regard to external environmental problems, as well as a perceived individual environmental responsibility, will moderate the relationship between face consciousness and energy-saving behavior. If consumers believe environmental pollution is very serious, or that they have an individual responsibility to the environment, they may demonstrate energy-saving efforts despite pursuing face and status (Laroche et al. 2001). Under these circumstances, energy-saving behavior can gain public approval and help consumers achieve face and status. Our study makes several important theoretical contributions. First, we contribute to the energy-saving behavior literature by identifying the antecedent of two types of energy-saving behaviors from the perspective of individual values—that is, face consciousness. Second, through the means-end theory of lifestyle, we explain how a statusseeking lifestyle plays a mediating role in the relationship between face consciousness and energy-saving behavior. Third, from the face negotiation theory of the person-situation interactional perspective, we identify two boundary conditions (perceived seriousness of environmental problems and perceived environmental responsibility) that affect the strength of the association between face consciousness, status-seeking lifestyle, and energy-saving behavior. Thus, our study not only contributes to an understanding of the antecedents of energy-saving behavior, it also offers suggestions on counteracting the negative influences of face consciousness on energy-saving behavior. We organize our study as follows. After proposing a theoretical background and hypotheses, we examine these hypotheses across two studies. Using an experimental study with a sample of Chinese undergraduates (Study 1), we examine the indirect effect of face consciousness on energy-saving behavior via status-seeking lifestyle, as moderated by perceived seriousness of environmental problems. Using a survey study using a sample of Chinese consumers (Study 2) to replicate and extend the findings of Study 1, we include perceived environmental responsibility as an added moderator. Finally, we discuss theoretical and practical implications.

Why Does Energy-Saving Behavior Rise and Fall? A Study on Consumer Face Consciousness in the…

Theoretical Background and Hypotheses The Two‑dimensional Model of Energy‑Saving Behaviors Accumulated research has shown that energy-saving behavior is not a unified construct, but rather consists of two dimensions—curtailment behavior and energyefficient behavior (e.g., Abrahamse et al. 2005; Gardner and Stern 2002; Jansson et  al. 2010). Energy curtailment behavior is broadly depicted as curtailment-related, energy-saving actions that, when performed repeatedly and relate to a change in a consumer’s daily life, assert new energy use habits (Sütterlin et al. 2011), such as avoiding the purchase of foods from distant countries. Energyefficient behavior refers to behaviors that do not require frequent repetition, but rather “one-shot” activities or purchase actions to improve energy efficiency that could have a long-term effect on energy consumed (Sütterlin et al. 2011), such as buying a car with low fuel consumption.

Face Consciousness and Energy‑Saving Behavior Face consciousness is a kind of value in a consumer’s life that emphasizes the importance of prestige, recognition, and status by using luxury products and named brands (Wan et al. 2009). Although face consciousness is similar to materialism that views possessions and money as symbols of happiness and success (Moschis and Churchill 1978), they are different. Materialism is based on an individualistic culture that emphasizes independent selfconcept, while face is related to a collectivist culture that emphasizes a more social concept of the self (Ho 1976; Liao and Wang 2009; Markus and Kitayama 1991). As Wong and Ahuvia (1998) indicate, face emphasizes people’s social needs rather than their private needs. Thus, consumers with strong face consciousness are prone to pay more for brand names to enhance one’s social position or gain face (Li and Su 2007; Liao and Wang 2009). Previous research has shown that individuals with strong face consciousness tend to be self-interested, possessive, and think highly of material wealth (Bao et al. 2003). As such, in the process of pursuing goods, they will occupy and consume many more resources while ignoring the incurred waste (Hirsh and Doldeman 2007). Therefore, the current paper proposes that consumers with strong face consciousness do not want to participate in energy-saving behavior. As consumption is essentially a “manifestation” of face consciousness (Bao et al. 2003), it encourages consumers with face consciousness to pursue the effect of

consumption by not only staying at the level of use-value, but to also raise it to the level of symbolic meaning in which face can be enhanced. Consumers’ face consciousness triggers the product “symbol” function rather than the “use” function beyond actual life needs. Thus, in order to gain or maintain face, people will often indulge in conspicuous consumption, excessive consumption, and other behaviors that waste resources (Shi et al. 2014) to meet their expressive needs. Since curtailment behavior, the essence of which is to save resources, gives priority to meeting actual needs in life and focuses on maximization of the use function, it is inconsistent with the nature of face consciousness. In addition, curtailment behavior relates to changes in behavioral habits to some extent (Poortinga et  al. 2003). People are often reluctant to change familiar behavior patterns, especially for consumers with strong face consciousness. Therefore, we hypothesize the following: Hypothesis 1a  Face consciousness is negatively related to curtailment behavior. For consumers with strong face consciousness who are deciding whether to adopt a new product, they not only take into account the product’s function, price, and expected utility, but they also weigh the ways in which the new product’s benefits would reflect upon them, such as the social value, image, and so forth (Bao et al. 2003). Energy-efficiency products refer to products that reduce carbon emissions through technological innovation and often include innovative but lesser-known features (Griskevicius et al. 2010). Thus, as innovative products do not inspire recognition or envy in other consumers, nor enhance face by consumption and thus garner expected benefits, consumers with strong face consciousness will show an obvious resistance to adopting such products (Ram 1987). This natural resistance will lead consumers with strong face consciousness to delay the adoption of such products until they are highly praised by the overall public. In addition, many types of green products tend to save money in the long run, and these products often provide consumers with financial incentives or through lower prices that make them more appealing (e.g., Griskevicius et al. 2010; Van Vugt et al. 1995). Because others may regard the purchase of these less-expensive products as stingy or frugal, such behavior is inconsistent to consumers with strong face consciousness. Therefore, it is a long process for consumers with strong face consciousness to adopt energy-efficient products. As such, we hypothesize: Hypothesis 1b  Face consciousness is negatively related to energy-efficient behavior.

13



The Mediating Role of Status‑Seeking Lifestyle The concept of “lifestyle” comes from the field of psychology and is defined as consumer orientation and behavioral attitudes of individuals toward various aspects of daily life formed based on their values (Coreil et al. 1985). Such individuals arrange life patterns according to their lifestyles and reflect their behavioral characteristics through interests and perspectives (Adler 1929). Social status refers to the position or ranking of an individual’s property in society (Weiss and Fershtman 1998). A status-seeking lifestyle means that a consumer tends to pursue wealth-related positions or rankings and shows his or her wealth in daily life through these interests (Choo and Mokhtarian 2004). This paper proposes that the existence of face consciousness encourages consumers to choose a status-seeking lifestyle and thereby reduces low-carbon consumption behavior. This assertion can be explained by the means-end theory of lifestyle, which has been used to describe the impact of individual values on attitudes and behavior (Brunsø et al. 2004; Rokeach 1973). Vinson et al. (1977) extend it to the field of consumer behavior, proposing that consumer behavior is an external manifestation of inner needs, thus linking consumer values and behavior. The theory holds that the values of consumers (end) determine their lifestyle and thus affect their consumer behavior (mean). According to this framework, it is possible to assume that a consumer with strong face consciousness (value) would like to show his or her status through a consumer orientation that is a status-seeking lifestyle and hopes to arouse the envy of others (lifestyle). Furthermore, the pursuit of status also makes consumers reluctant to engage in energy-saving behavior (consumer behavior). Specifically, on the one hand, those consumers with strong face consciousness pursue a lifestyle of showing their status. A status-seeking lifestyle is not only affected by economic factors, but also by social and cultural factors (Tsai 2005), and face consciousness is an important concept in such factors. This can be explained by the theory of impression management. According to this theory, individuals attempt to influence the impression they give to others, actively shaping it according to their own expectations, in the hope that others will perceive themselves in the way they expected (Schlenker 1980). When a consumer wants to earn face, he or she will pay more attention to meeting social needs, thereby revealing an image of social status through external manifestations to gain a positive public social image. This helps to promote these consumers’ social reputation and status in social interactions (Bao et al. 2003; Li and Su 2007) and enhance their position or ranking on a societal level (Hwang et al. 2003; Goffman 1967). Research has shown that the status-seeking lifestyle is effective in status recognition, face enhancement, and interpersonal

13

L. Wang et al.

relationship adjustments (Li et al. 2015). Thus, we expect consumers with strong face consciousness to more avidly pursue status. On the other hand, consumers with status-seeking lifestyles are reluctant to use energy-saving products. American sociologist Thorstein Veblen wrote in “The Theory of the Leisure Class” that consumers with status-seeking lifestyles have distinctively conspicuous characters, which are a manifestation of their individual vanity and “show-off” psychology (Marcoux et al. 1997). In the pursuit of material possessions, such people will display or consume specific commodities in front of others to promote their status or image (O’Cass and McEwen 2004). In this way, they value the external attributes of the product or service (such as brand and popularity) (Bao et al. 2003; Choo and Mokhtarian 2004) in order to prove their wealth to others, which is the best way to achieve an honorable social status. Given that curtailment behavior means conservation of resources and no wasteful consumption, it goes against the notion of “sufficiency” to which an individual with a status-seeking lifestyle aspires. In addition, since buying green products often is initiated by financial incentives, and using such products may be regarded as economical and thrifty in a long run (e.g., Griskevicius et al. 2010; Van Vugt et al. 1995), consumption of these commodities in front of others does not promote a consumer’s status. Because innovative energy-efficient products are not well-known luxury items with weak brand influence (Carrington et al. 2014; Gleim et al. 2013), consumers gain neither admiration nor high social positions using these products. We can thus conclude that consumers with statusseeking lifestyles will not engage in curtailment behavior and are reluctant to use energy-efficiency products because such products do not display distinguished status. This leads to the following hypotheses: Hypothesis 2  A status-seeking lifestyle mediates the relationships between face consciousness and energy-saving behavior, namely, curtailment behavior (2a) and energyefficient behavior (2b).

The Moderating Role of Perceived Seriousness of Environmental Problems According to the face negotiation theory (Ting-Toomey and Kurogi 1988), individuals seeking face will negotiate and identify their status with others in particular situations to determine their type of self-presentation. Therefore, in different contexts, the effect of face consciousness and statusseeking lifestyle on energy-saving behavior is different. Perceived seriousness of environmental problems refers to one’s sense of the seriousness of external environmental destruction such as resource depletion and environmental pollution (Lee 2009). If consumers have a higher perception

Why Does Energy-Saving Behavior Rise and Fall? A Study on Consumer Face Consciousness in the…

of the seriousness of environmental problems, they have a stronger sense of crisis. Such consumers are also more aware of the survival pressures faced by mankind and tend to believe that mainstream societies are also aware (Schwepker and Cornwell 1991). Because gaining the recognition and approval of others in a social context can bestow status, recognition from others is related to consumers’ social status pursuit (Kastanakis and Balabanis 2012). Aware that others recognize the importance of environmental concerns, consumers who pursue high status will then reduce extravagant and wasteful high-carbon consumption because it is contrary to mainstream societal consciousness and leads to a lack of public recognition. By using such energy-efficient products, these consumers show the spirit of selflessness, as they have sacrificed personal interests in order to help alleviate environmental problems. Using energy-efficient products also reflects high-end taste and a finer quality of life (Lee and Mano 2014), ultimately reflecting the superiority of highstatus consumers. As a result, in such a context, consumers who pursue high status may tend to reduce high-carbon consumption and even engage in curtailment and energyefficient behaviors. Conversely, when environmental problems are not very serious, consumption of energy-waste products will not cause public opposition and disfavor. Perceiving less environmental seriousness, consumers seeking status have no sense of crisis regarding destruction of the natural environment. When making purchase decisions, they do not worry about peer pressure caused by environmental problems. Those who would improve their position and gain recognition within the social context are not concerned that extravagant consumption could aggravate environmental problems and thus do not curtail their consumption or take any energy-efficient actions. Therefore, we propose the following hypotheses: Hypothesis 3  Perceived seriousness of environmental problems moderates the relationship between status-seeking lifestyle and energy-saving behavior, namely, curtailment behavior (3a) and energy-efficient behavior (3b), such that the negative relationship is stronger when the perceived seriousness of environmental problems is lower. Assuming a perceived seriousness of environmental problems moderates the relationship between a status-seeking lifestyle and energy-saving behavior. Moreover, according to the face negotiation theory, when perceiving a high seriousness of environmental problems, consumers with strong face consciousness will be not averse to energy-saving behavior because they can gain face and status by helping the environment and presenting a positive appearance to others. Therefore, it is also likely that a perceived seriousness of environmental problems would conditionally influence the strength

of the indirect relationship between face consciousness and energy-saving behavior through status-seeking lifestyle, thereby demonstrating a pattern of moderated mediation between the variables. As such, we propose the following: Hypothesis 4  Perceived seriousness of environmental problems moderates the negative and indirect effect of face consciousness on energy-saving behavior, namely, curtailment behavior (4a) and energy-efficient behavior (4b) (through status-seeking lifestyle), such that the indirect effect is stronger when perceived seriousness of environmental problems is lower.

The Moderating Role of Perceived Environmental Responsibility Perceived environmental responsibility refers to the consumer’s personal responsibility consciousness of social resources and environmental protection (Lee 2009). Different from the perceived seriousness of environmental problems, perceived environmental responsibility does not emphasize an awareness of the severity of external environmental problems, but rather assumes that environmental problems and conserving resources are each person’s responsibility. With this perception of environment responsibility, consumers who pursue status would feel that high-carbon consumption has made them irresponsible and selfish. As such, they would not be averse to curtailment behavior and might even engage in such behavior with a sense of responsibility and a hope of improving social standing (Rice 2006). Moreover, they could also seek to improve their status by fulfilling their environmental responsibility (Lee 2009), often consuming environmentally friendly products. Conversely, consumers with a low perception of environment responsibility lack a sense of responsibility for environmental protection. When such consumers are pursuing status, they seldom comply with or voluntarily perform environmental protection behaviors and are particularly lacking in curtailment behavior. These consumers will make personal standing, wealth, and other materialistic matters their internal driving force and only focus on traditional and wasteful over-consumption to enhance their status. Moreover, when consumers are pursuing status, they may be more inclined to buy well-known luxury items that use many resources, rather than care about purchasing energy-efficient products. As such, we hypothesize that: Hypothesis 5  Perceived environmental responsibility moderates the relationship between status-seeking lifestyle and energy-saving behavior, namely, curtailment behavior (5a) and energy-efficient behavior (5b), such that the negative relationship is stronger when perceived environmental responsibility is lower.

13



We assume that a perceived environmental responsibility moderates the association between a status-seeking lifestyle and energy-saving behavior. Moreover, based on the face negotiation theory, when perceiving a high environmental responsibility, consumers with strong face consciousness would be not averse to energy-saving behavior because they can gain face and status by contributing to environmental protection to present a positive appearance before others. Thus, it is also possible that perceived environmental responsibility could conditionally affect the strength of the indirect relationship between face consciousness and energy-saving behavior through status-seeking lifestyle, thereby showing a pattern of moderated mediation between the variables. Therefore, we hypothesize the following: Hypothesis 6  Perceived environmental responsibility moderates the negative and indirect effect of face consciousness on energy-saving behavior, namely, curtailment behavior (6a) and energy-efficient behavior (6b) (through a statusseeking lifestyle), such that the indirect effect is stronger when perceived environmental responsibility is lower.

The Moderating Role of Perceived Seriousness of Environmental Problems and Perceived Environmental Responsibility In line with the arguments underlying Hypotheses 3 and 5, consumer perceptions of the seriousness of environmental problems and environmental responsibility that appropriately match a status-seeking lifestyle should jointly influence energy-saving behavior. At one extreme, the negative relationship between statusseeking lifestyle and energy-saving behavior is strongest when consumers do not care about environmental problems and avoid taking responsibility. At the other extreme, the influence of a status-seeking lifestyle becomes most attenuated when consumers are concerned about environmental issues and attempt to take responsibility. Finally, as no a priori conceptual reason indicates that one of the two perceived environment variables is a more salient moderator, the two remaining configurations, low PSEP/high PER and high PSEP/low PER, may exert an intermediate influence on the relationship between status-seeking lifestyle and energysaving behavior. Thus, we hypothesize: Hypothesis 7  The combined effects of perceived seriousness of environmental problems (PSEP) and perceived environmental responsibility (PER) moderate the negative relationship between status-seeking lifestyle and energy-saving behavior, namely, curtailment behavior (7a) and energyefficient behavior (7b), such that the strength (i.e., slope) of the negative relationship is (1) highest for the low PSEP/low PER configuration, (2) lowest for the high PSEP/high PER

13

L. Wang et al.

configuration, and (3) intermediate for the low PSEP/high PER and high PSEP/low PER configurations.

Study 1 Study 1 is designed to test Hypotheses 1, 2, 3, and 4 in a scenario-based experiment.

Design, Participants, and Procedure We used a 2 (perceived seriousness of environmental problems: high versus low) × 2 (face consciousness: high versus low) between-subject design with face consciousness measured. One hundred and ninety-five undergraduate (61% female; Mage = 20) were recruited from a major university in east China. Participants were randomly assigned to one of two scenarios: a high seriousness of environment problem and a low seriousness of environment problem. After participants rated their face consciousness and status-seeking lifestyle, they were asked to read the scenario and then rate their curtailment behavior and energy-efficient behavior.

Measures All the multi-item measures in Study 1 were originally constructed in English. The Chinese versions for all these measures were developed by the commonly used translation-back translation procedure (Brislin 1980). The variables in this study are measured based on a five-point Likert scale, starting from “totally disagree” to “totally agree.” Face consciousness was measured with Bao et  al.’s (2003) four-item scale. A sample item includes “It is important that others like the products and brands I buy” (α = 0.72). Status-seeking lifestyle was measured with the three-item scale developed by Choo and Mokhtarian (2004). A sample item includes “a lot of the fun of having something nice is showing it off” (α = 0.80). Energy-saving behavior was measured using Karlin et al.’s (2014) two dimensions of energy-saving behavior: curtailment behavior consisted of three items and a sample item including “turn off lights when leaving rooms” (α = 0.70); energy-efficient behavior consisted of five items and a sample item includes “purchase an energy-efficient appliance” (α = 0.85). Perceived Seriousness of Environmental Problems Manipulation We manipulated seriousness of environmental problems with two scenarios. In the scenarios of high (low) seriousness of environmental problem, participants read the following report. “According to the China Daily, the air quality in Linxiang has deteriorated (ameliorated). The PM2.5 level has worsened (improved) by 25% than the past few years. Residents cannot (can) see the blue sky and white clouds.

Why Does Energy-Saving Behavior Rise and Fall? A Study on Consumer Face Consciousness in the…

At the same time, the city’s carbon emissions have been increasing (decreasing) year by year, with an average annual increase (decrease) of 5%, promoting(curbing) the climate warming. Rivers are also polluted (clean). The compliance rate of water functional area is 0 (100%). Water quality is just as worrying (reassuring) as air pollution, all of which hinder (advance) healthy life for residents.”

Analysis and Results Manipulation Check We checked to determine if we had successfully manipulated the perceived seriousness of environmental problems. Five items, based on Lee (2009), assessed manipulation of perceived seriousness of environmental problems that included the sample item, “I think the city’s environmental problems are worsening” (α = 0.94). The items were averaged to form a composite score. Higher scores indicated a high seriousness of environmental problem perception. Results confirmed that perceived seriousness of environmental problems in high seriousness condition (M = 4.20) is significantly higher than that in low seriousness condition low (M = 2.85, t(193) = − 12.44, p < 0.05), which indicates our manipulation was successful.

Main Effects of Face Consciousness Participants’ responses to all questions of face consciousness were averaged to a single item. We then used a median split to divide participants into low- and high-face consciousness groups. An independent-samples t test analysis shows that face consciousness significantly decreased curtailment behavior [t (193) = 3.14, p < 0.01; Mlow-face = 4.43, Mhigh-face= 4.12] as well as energy-efficient behavior [t (193) = 2.01, p < 0.05; Mlow-face = 3.99, Mhigh-face = 3.76]. The main effects are consistent with Hypotheses 1a and 1b. Mediating Effects of Status‑Seeking Lifestyle In order to examine Hypothesis 2, which stated that statusseeking lifestyle mediates the relationships between face consciousness and energy-saving behavior, a mediation analysis was conducted using Mplus 7 (Muthén and Muthén 2012). As shown in Fig. 1, status-seeking lifestyle is positively related to face consciousness (β = 0.56, t = 8.01, p < 0.001) and negatively related to curtailment behavior (β = −0.26, t = − 4.61, p < 0.001) and energy-efficient behavior (β = −0.28, t = − 4.39, p < 0.001). Moreover, the indirect effect of face consciousness on energy-saving behavior via status-seeking lifestyle is significantly negative (curtailment

Perceived seriousness of environmental problems H3a 0.27*/0.12* H1a /-0.18**

Face consciousness

H2a(H2b) 0.56***/0.61***

Status-seeking lifestyle

H1b /-0.08*

H3b 0.39**/0.16*

Curtailment behavior

H2a -0.26***/-0.11* H2b -0.28***/-0.11**

H5a /0.36**

H5b /0.24***

Energy-efficient behavior

Perceived environmental responsibility

Fig. 1  Summary of hypotheses and model results in Studies 1 and 2. Note Estimates left of each slash are results obtained from Study 1. Estimates right of each slash are path coefficients from the struc-

tural equation model that simultaneously predicts status-seeking lifestyle, curtailment behavior, and energy-efficient behavior in Study 2. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001

13



L. Wang et al.

behavior, ρ = − 0.13, p < 0.01; energy-efficient behavior, ρ = − 0.16, p < 0.001). Thus, Hypothesis 2 is supported. Results are summarized in Fig. 1. Moderating Effects of Perceived Seriousness of Environmental Problems Using Mplus 7, we were able to show that status-seeking lifestyle and perceived seriousness of environmental problems have a significant interaction effect on energy-saving behavior (curtailment behavior: β = 0.27, t = 1.98, p < 0.05; energy-efficient behavior: β = 0.39, t = 2.91, p < 0.01), as demonstrated in Fig. 1. Specifically, to further detail the results, we divided all the participants into two groups according to the median number of the status-seeking lifestyle level. As shown in Fig. 2, under the condition of a low level of perceived seriousness of environmental problems, we found that the negative effect of a status-seeking lifestyle is stronger (curtailment behavior: β= − 0.39, SE = 0.14, t(193) = − 2.76, p < 0.01, MLow-status = 4.34, MHigh-status = 3.96; energy-efficient behavior: β = − 0.57, SE = 0.17, t(193)= − 3.40, p < 0.001, MLow-status = 3.97, MHigh-status = 3.40). However, under the condition of a high level of perceived seriousness of environmental problems, the effect of status-seeking lifestyle is not significant (curtailment behavior: β = − 0.21, SE = 0.13, t(193)= − 1.60, p = n.s., M Low-status = 4.51, M High-status = 4.31; energy-efficient behavior: β = − 0.10, SE = 0.13, t(193) = − 0.77, p = n.s., MLow-status = 4.13, MHigh-status = 4.02). Therefore, Hypothesis 3 is supported. Moreover, we conducted a moderated mediation analysis of conditional indirect effects, which revealed the effect of face consciousness on energy-efficient behavior via statusseeking lifestyle differs significantly (curtailment behavior,

Discussion The results of Study 1 show that, consistent with our predictions, a status-seeking lifestyle mediates the relationship between face consciousness and energy-saving behavior when perceiving a low seriousness of environmental problems, but not when perceiving a high seriousness of environmental problems. Although these findings are encouraging, we thought it necessary to additionally examine the entire conceptual model simultaneously. Moreover, given that undergraduates may not have the same experiences as consumers, it was important to replicate our findings to ensure their generalizability.

Study 2 In Study 2, we sought to replicate and extend the findings of Study 1. To ensure the generalizability of the findings, we re-tested all hypotheses from Study 1 in Study 2. Moreover, we included a measure of perceived environmental responsibility as an additional moderator to examine Hypotheses 5, 6, and 7. To ensure that our results were generalized to consumers as well as to undergraduates, we used a sample of consumer households from Shanghai, China.

Method

5.00

4.50

∆ρ = 0.15, p < 0.05; energy-efficient behavior, ∆ρ = 0.22, p < 0.01) when perceiving a high seriousness of environmental problems (curtailment behavior, ρ = − 0.04, p = n.s.; energy-efficient behavior, ρ = − 0.03, p = n.s.) versus a low level (curtailment behavior, ρ = − 0.19, p < 0.001; energyefficient behavior, ρ = − 0.25, p < 0.001). Thus, Hypothesis 4 is supported.

Sample and Procedure

4.51 4.34

4.31 3.97

3.96

4.00

3.50

4.13 4.02

3.40

3.00 low PSEP

High PSEP

curtailment behavior low status-seeking lifestyle

low PSEP

High PSEP

energy-efficient behavior high status-seeking lifestyle

Fig. 2  Effect of status-seeking lifestyle and perceived seriousness of environmental problems on energy-saving behavior in Study 1. Note N = 195. PSEP perceived seriousness of environmental problems

13

Following Sütterlin et al.’s (2011) suggestion, we collected the data through a mail-in survey sent to a random sample of households in Shanghai, China. A total of 1200 questionnaires were mailed. Among them, 486 questionnaires were returned, which corresponded to a response rate of 40.5%. After excluding invalid samples, we collected a total of 332 questionnaires for the final analysis. Of this sample, 51.2% of the participants were male, and 48.8% were female. In terms of age, 16.3% of participants were below the age of 25; 50.0% were between 26 and 35; 20.5% were between 36 and 45; 11.7% were between 46 and 55, and 1.5% were older than 56. In terms of educational level, 0.6% of the participants graduated from high school or had a lower degree; 26.8% graduated from junior universities; 51.8% had

Why Does Energy-Saving Behavior Rise and Fall? A Study on Consumer Face Consciousness in the…

an undergraduate degree; and 20.8% had a postgraduate or higher degree.

Control variables include consumers’ age, gender, and educational level.

Results

Measures In Study 2, we use the same translation-back translation procedure to develop Chinese versions for all these measures as in Study 1 (Brislin 1980). Five-point Likert scales are used to measure the variables in this study, ranging from “totally disagree” to “totally agree.” We used the same scale as in Study 1 to measure statusseeking lifestyle (α = 0.72) and perceived seriousness of environmental problems (α = 0.82). Face consciousness was measured with Zhang et al.’s (2011) 11-item scale. A sample item included “I hope people think that I can do better than others” (α = 0.85). Perceived environmental responsibility was measured with the seven-item scale developed by Lee (2009). A sample item included “I should be responsible for protecting our environment” (α = 0.71). Energy-saving behavior was measured by the Sütterlin et al. (2011) criteria of two dimensions: curtailment behavior and energy-efficient behavior. Curtailment behavior consisted of 26 items identified by 5 sub-dimensions; a sample item included “go on holidays by train” (α = 0.78). Energy-efficient behavior consisted of six items identified by two sub-dimensions; a sample item included “when I buy a car, I pay attention to the environmental friendliness of the drive” (α = 0.71). Using procedures suggested by Williams and Anderson (1994), we created single-item indicators for the five curtailment behavior dimensions and two energy-efficient behavior dimensions, respectively. We then performed a confirmatory factor analysis that achieved an acceptable fit level (χ2 = 37.35, df = 13; p = 0.00; RMSEA = 0.075; CFI = 0.92; TLI = 0.88).

Correlation Analysis Table 1 presents the means, standard deviations, coefficient alphas, and correlations of all variables. Consistent with our predictions, face consciousness is negatively correlated with curtailment behavior (r = − 0.17, p < 0.01) and energyefficient behavior (r = − 0.20, p < 0.01), thus demonstrating preliminary support for Hypotheses 1a and 1b. Hypothesis Testing Using Mplus 7 (Muthén and Muthén 2012), we modeled the structural associations to examine mediating and moderating effects among the variables by the integrated approach, which does not require multiple stages of analysis, and tests all the proposed relationships simultaneously, generating estimates with fewer biases (Edwards and Lambert 2007). Following Williams and Anderson’s (1994) procedure, we created single-item indicators for each of multi-item variables. The model fitted the data at an acceptable level (χ2 = 27.02, df = 9; p = 0.00; RMSEA = 0.078; CFI = 0.95; TLI = 0.83). We note that the smaller value of TLI was probably due to the complexity of our model. TLI is a comparative fit index that is sensitive to model specifications. According to the simulation results of Bentler (1990), the more complex a model’s specifications, the more likely a smaller TLI value is obtained. Because we tried to test all interactive hypotheses simultaneously, our SEM model included three two-way interaction terms and a three-way

Table 1  Means, standard deviations, coefficient alphas, and correlations among variables in Study 2 Variable

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1. Face consciousness 2. Status-seeking lifestyle 3. PSEP 4. PER 5. Curtailment behavior 6. Energy-efficient Behavior 7. Gender 8. Age 9. Education M SD

(0.85) 0.57** 0.09 − 0.10 − 0.17** − 0.20** − 0.02 0.11* 0.01 3.06 0.62

(0.72) − 0.02 − 0.16** − 0.27** − 0.22** − 0.07 0.05 − 0.02 2.53 0.67

(0.82) 0.30** 0.27** 0.22** 0.18** − 0.10 0.01 3.73 0.66

(0.71) 0.19** 0.12* − 0.03 − 0.16** − 0.06 3.75 0.49

(0.78) 0.50** − 0.03 − 0.09 − 0.08 3.32 0.40

(0.71) 0.12* − 0.03 − 0.03 3.11 0.63

– 0.08 − 0.02 2.32 0.93

– − 0.09 0.51 0.50

– 2.93 0.70

N = 332. Coefficient alphas are on the diagonal in parentheses PSEP Perceived seriousness of environmental problems, PER Perceived environmental responsibility *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01

13



L. Wang et al.

interaction term, which made it quite complex and consequently reduced the TLI value. We summarize the findings in Fig. 1 and Table 2. Main Effect and Mediating Effect Analyses Main effect analyses show that face consciousness is negatively related to curtailment behavior (β= − 018, p < 0.01) and energy-efficient behavior (β = − 0.08, p < 0.05). As illustrated in Table 2, status-seeking lifestyle is positively related to face consciousness (β = 0.61, p < 0.001) and negatively related to curtailment behavior (β= − 0.11, p < 0.05) and energy-efficient behavior (β= − 0.11, p < 0.01). As shown in Table 2, the indirect effect of face consciousness on energy-saving behavior via status-seeking lifestyle is significantly negative (curtailment behavior, ρ = − 0.06, p < 0.01; energy-efficient behavior, ρ = − 0.06, p < 0.05). As such, Hypotheses 1 and 2 are supported. Moderating Effect Analyses The moderating effect of perceived seriousness of environmental problems over lifestyle-behavior linkages is shown in Table 2. Perceived seriousness of environmental problems moderates the linkage between status-seeking lifestyle and energy-saving behavior (curtailment behavior, β = 0.12, p < Table 2  Results for face consciousness, status-seeking lifestyle, curtailment behavior, and energy-efficient behavior in Study 2

0.05; energy-efficient behavior, β = 0.16, p < 0.001). Hence, Hypothesis 3 is supported. It is also shown in Table 2 that perceived environmental responsibility moderates the linkage between status-seeking lifestyle and energy-saving behavior (curtailment behavior, β = 0.36, p < 0.01; energy-efficient behavior, β = 0.24, p < 0.001). Hence, Hypothesis 5 is supported. Hypothesis 7 proposed that a perceived seriousness of environmental problems and a perceived environmental responsibility jointly moderate the relationship between status-seeking lifestyle and energy-saving behavior. As displayed in Table 2, the three-way interaction term proves to be significantly related to curtailment behavior (β = 0.38, p < 0.05) and energy-efficient behavior (β = 0.42, p < 0.001), thus supporting Hypothesis 7. The three-way interaction effects are illustrated in the panel of Figs. 3 and 4. Specifically, the figures’ left panels show the interactive effect of status-seeking lifestyle and perceived environmental responsibility on energy-saving behavior for consumers perceiving a high seriousness of environmental problems. When consumers perceived low levels of environmental responsibility, status-seeking lifestyle is negatively related to curtailment behavior (β = − 0.13, p < 0.01) and energy-efficient behavior (β = − 0.21, p < 0.01). In contrast, when consumers perceived high levels of environmental responsibility, status-seeking lifestyle

Status-seeking lifestyle Face consciousness Status-seeking lifestyle PSEP PER PSEP* status-seeking lifestyle PER* status-seeking lifestyle PSEP*PER PSEP*PER* status-seeking lifestyle Age Gender Education Average indirect effects PSEP high PSEP low PSEP difference PER high PER low PER difference

0.61***

− 0.04 − 0.02 − 0.03

Curtailment behavior

Energyefficient behavior

− 0.10 − 0.11* 0.15** 0.05 0.12* 0.36** 0.10 0.38* 0.04 0.02 0.00 − 0.06** 0.01 − 0.14*** 0.15*** 0.00 − 0.13*** 0.13***

0.01 − 0.11** 0.12*** 0.07 0.16*** 0.24*** − 0.04 0.42*** − 0.05* − 0.03 − 0.03 − 0.06* 0.04 − 0.17*** 0.21** − 0.02 − 0.11* 0.10*

N = 332 PSEP perceived seriousness of environmental problems, PER perceived environmental responsibility *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001

13

Why Does Energy-Saving Behavior Rise and Fall? A Study on Consumer Face Consciousness in the… High perceived seriousness of environmental

problems

3.5

3.5

β=0.13, p ˘0.01

3

2.5

Curtailment behavior

4

Curtailment behavior

Low perceived seriousness of environmental

problems

β=-0.13, p ˘

3 β=-0.10, p=n.s.

2.5 2 1.5

0.01

2

Low

β=-0.32, p ˘0.001

1

High

Low

Status-seeking lifestyle

High Status-seeking lifestyle

Low perceived environmental responsibility

Low perceived environmental responsibility

High perceived environmental responsibility

High perceived environmental responsibility

Fig. 3  The joint moderating effects of status-seeking lifestyle, perceived seriousness of environmental problems, and perceived environmental responsibility on curtailment behavior in Study 2

High perceived seriousness of environmental

3.5

3 β=0.16, p˘0.05

3 2.5 β=-0..21, p˘0.01

2 1.5 1

Energy-efficient behavior

Energy-efficient behavior

Low perceived seriousness of environmental

problems

4

problems

β=-0.03 p=n.s.

2.5

2

1.5 β=-0.34, p˘0.001 1

Low

High Status-seeking lifestyle

Low

High Status-seeking lifestyle

Low perceived environmental responsibility

Low perceived environmental responsibility

High perceived environmental responsibility

High perceived environmental responsibility

Fig. 4  The joint moderating effects of status-seeking lifestyle, perceived seriousness of environmental problems, and perceived environmental responsibility on energy-efficient behavior in Study 2

become positively related to curtailment behavior (β = 0.13, p < 0.01) and energy-efficient behavior (β = 0.16, p < 0.05). The right panels of Figs. 3 and 4 show the interactive influence of consumers who perceived a low seriousness of environmental problems. For consumers perceiving low levels of environmental responsibility, status-seeking lifestyle is more negatively related to energy-saving behavior (curtailment behavior, β = − 0.32, p < 0.001; energy-efficient behavior, β = − 0.34, p < 0.001) than for consumers perceiving high levels of environmental responsibility (curtailment behavior, β = − 0.10, p = n.s.; energy-efficient behavior, β = − 0.03, p = n.s.). Therefore, Hypothesis 7 receives additional support.

Moderated Mediation Analysis Moderated mediation suggests that the indirect effect varies at different moderator levels. As summarized in Table 2, the indirect effect of face consciousness on energy-efficient behavior via a status-seeking lifestyle differs significantly (curtailment behavior, ∆ρ = 0.15, p < 0.001; energy-efficient behavior, ∆ρ = 0.21, p < 0.01) when perception of the seriousness of environmental problems is at high (curtailment behavior, ρ = 0.01, p = n.s.; energy-efficient behavior, ρ = 0.04, p = n.s.) level versus a low level (curtailment behavior, ρ = − 0.14, p < 0.001; energy-efficient behavior, ρ = − 0.17, p < 0.001). Hence, the indirect effect of face

13



consciousness on curtailment behavior via status-seeking lifestyle is moderated by perceived seriousness of environmental problems, which supports Hypothesis 4. Similarly, as illustrated in Table 2, the indirect effect of face consciousness on energy-efficient behavior via status-seeking lifestyle also differs significantly (curtailment behavior, ∆ρ = 0.13, p < 0.001; energy-efficient behavior, ∆ρ = 0.10, p < 0.05) when perceived environmental responsibility is at a high level (curtailment behavior, ρ = 0.00, p = n.s.; energy-efficient behavior, ρ = − 0.02, p = n.s.) versus a low level (curtailment behavior, ρ = − 0.13, p < 0.001; energy-efficient behavior, ρ = − 0.11, p < 0.05). As such, Hypothesis 6 is supported.

Discussion Study 2 replicated and extended Study 1 by proving perceived environmental responsibility as an additional moderator on the negative and indirect effects of face consciousness on saving-energy behaviors (through a status-seeking lifestyle). Moreover, we found the three-way interaction term (perceived seriousness of environmental problems × perceived environmental responsibility × status-seeking lifestyle) significantly and positively related to energy-saving behaviors.

General Discussion and Implications Based on the means-end theory of lifestyle, this study finds that face consciousness significantly and negatively affects saving-energy behaviors through a status-seeking lifestyle. Moreover, a perceived seriousness of environmental problems and perceived environmental responsibility weaken the mediating effects between face consciousness and energysaving behavior. It is interesting that under the condition of which both the seriousness of environmental problems and environmental responsibility are perceived to be high, a status-seeking lifestyle has a positive impact on energysaving behaviors.

Theoretical Implication This study contributes to the literature in the following aspects. First, we extend research on the antecedents of energy-saving behaviors by arguing and testing the prohibitive effect of face consciousness on energy-saving behavior. Our findings suggested consumers with strong face consciousness are less likely to engage in not only curtailment behavior, but also energy-efficient behavior. This conclusion is different from the positive influence of self-identity on energy-saving behavior. According to identity theory, identity can be articulated via an array of personal and social

13

L. Wang et al.

identities (Howard 2000; Oyserman 2001). Self-identity and social identity have a distinctive influence on energysaving behavior because they have a different connection to membership in a social group— the former has no connection while the latter has a connection. Consumers with strong face consciousness seek social identities (Hofstede 1991; Li and Su 2007) in that they feel strong pressure to meet the expectations of others to maintain face (Li and Su 2007). By establishing the study model that face consciousness decreases curtailment behavior and energy-efficient behavior, this study broadens an understanding of the implications of the two types of saving-energy behaviors. Moreover, curtailment and energy-efficient behavior may represent different behavioral changes for consumers. By definition, curtailment aims to eliminate the use of energy, while energy efficiency aims to improve the efficiency of energy use (Samuelson 1990). Therefore, it is perhaps easier for consumers to engage in energy-efficiency actions than curtailment behavior, as the latter may require consumers to give up consumption. However, our empirical results suggest the effects of face consciousness on the two behaviors are identical, implying that the difference between the two energy-saving behaviors might not be significant enough in terms of the influence of face consciousness. Second, by introducing the means-end theory of lifestyle, this study outlines a mediating mechanism of the effect of a status-seeking lifestyle and explains why face consciousness relates to saving-energy behaviors. We propose that consumers with strong face consciousness are likely to promote their own reputations in social interactions and attempt to improve the visibility of their status by lifestyle. These findings are intriguing because they show how a status-seeking lifestyle can impede face consciousness in regard to saving-energy behaviors, a proposition that can be explained by theory, but had not been examined empirically (Brunsø et al. 2004). Third, this study sheds light on the complex relationship between face consciousness and energy-saving behavior by articulating how the particular environmental-perception context might create necessary conditions for a customer’s face consciousness through a status-seeking lifestyle. The findings add to the current face consciousness and energysaving behavior research, as conflicting findings have been found (e.g., He et al. 2016; Liu et al. 2015). For example, He et al. (2016) found that face consciousness is negatively associated with curtailment behavior in that it leads to overconsumption, whereas Liu et al. (2015) found a positive relationship, because consumers with strong face consciousness care about their reputations, which can be enhanced by following energy-saving actions. Therefore, we found that the role of face consciousness depends on the context, which predicted that the relationship between face consciousness, status-seeking lifestyle, and saving-energy behaviors could be moderated by a perceived seriousness of environmental

Why Does Energy-Saving Behavior Rise and Fall? A Study on Consumer Face Consciousness in the…

problems and perceived environmental responsibility. Our reasoning is based on the face negotiation theory (TingToomey 1988), which shows that different contextual forces work together to shape individual behavior. In other words, individuals will have different self-presentations in different situations in regard to their own face. Moreover, we also found a significant three-way interaction. Specifically, when consumers perceive less seriousness of environmental problems and less environmental responsibility, a status-seeking lifestyle has a significant negative impact on energy-saving behaviors. However, when consumers perceive more seriousness of environmental problems and more environmental responsibility, a status-seeking lifestyle has a significant positive impact on energy-saving behaviors. This is a very interesting finding. The reason is that when perceiving a high seriousness of environmental problems and a high environmental responsibility, consumers pursuing status will think that others who are similar also care about the environment, and they will gain social approval if they consume energy-efficiency products (Hardy and Van Vugt 2006) or partake in curtailment behavior. This interesting finding echoes Liu et al.’s (2015) study that consumers with strong face consciousness and status will have a positive attitude toward ecological consumption.

Practical Implications The findings of this study have important practical implications in promoting saving-energy behaviors. First, our finding that face consciousness is negatively related to saving-energy behaviors highlights improving energy-saving products. In order to make energy-saving products more attractive such that using them is face-saving, it is necessary to improve the design, appearance, and quality of such products. In addition, it also is important to encourage and guide famous brand manufacturers, such as Mercedes Benz and BMW, to join in the production of energy-saving products, so that the use of such products can enhance their status. Second, given that one’s face consciousness is influenced by an individual’s social identities, only when the group around that person advocates for environmental friendly consumption will he or she connect face with green consumption. People tend to accept and attach greater importance to the values of those around them—parents, teachers, cultural role models, as well as the marketing and media culture to which they are exposed (Banerjee and Dittmar 2008; Sheldon and McGregor 2000). Thus, it is important to advocate the values of environmental protection and energy saving and denounce the waste of energy through public figures including movie stars, sports stars, well-known experts, politicians, and scientists.

Then, given that a perceived seriousness of environmental problems weakens the negative relationship between face consciousness and energy-saving behavior, policy makers should enhance consumers’ awareness of environmental problems. Policy makers should communicate the severity of the situation through the use of environment-related topic lectures and knowledge sharing to increase resources and information dissemination. They should also be attentive to the role of perceived environmental responsibility. Consumers tend to absolve themselves from the main responsibility of environment protection and assume the government and other enterprises will take care of it (China Comprehensive Social Survey 2010). In addition, from the perspective of modern public governance theory, in a well-developed market economy, the government serves as a supplement to other social subjects. As such, environmental protection should be a common responsibility of the government, enterprises, and consumers. Given that consumers’ perceived environmental responsibility weakens the negative relationship between face consciousness and energy-saving behaviors, policy makers should enhance awareness of environmental responsibility to improve the critical role of consumers in environmental protection, especially for younger generations. Ultimately, post-material values will become core societal values that can promote energy-saving behaviors (Kikuchi-Uehara et al. 2016).

Limitation and Future Research Several limitations of the present study should be acknowledged. First, this research focuses on the Chinese context, considering that the role of face and status may be particularly salient in collectivistic societies. In order to examine this findings’ generalizability, future research will be extended to individualistic societies to replicate our findings. Second, we distinguished energy-saving behavior into curtailment behavior and energy-efficient behavior, neglecting its observable characteristics. For example, those with face consciousness may be more reluctant to buy an economical energy-saving car than an energy-efficient television or solar panels for their home, since the former is more visible to others and would cause loss of face. Thus, we could pay more attention to energy-saving behaviors with different observability in future research. Third, there exist both low-priced and high-priced energysaving products. High-priced energy-saving products, such as Tesla, represent one type of energy-saving product on which the prohibitive effect of face consciousness may not be easily observed, because these products are not only energy-saving, but also luxurious. Past research has indicated face consciousness has a positive effect on luxurious

13



product (Wong and Ahuvia 1998). However, when a product is both energy-saving and luxury, the prohibitive effect of face consciousness on energy-saving might be counterbalanced by its own promotive effect on luxury. Thus, it is valuable to explore the complex effect of face consciousness on these products with dual attributes in the future. Fourth, we may have neglected some important moderators. For instance, although we suggest that face consciousness and status-seeking negatively relate with energy-saving behaviors, other evidence has drawn different conclusions (e.g., Griskevicius et al. 2010). Thus, it is possible that the relationship between face consciousness, status-seeking, and energy-saving behaviors could depend on the context, such as public green consumption values (Haws et al. 2014). If the public is advocating energy conservation and is respectful of environmentalists, those who engage in energy-saving behaviors would gain status and face. Fifth, there may be other mediating mechanisms that also contribute to the associations between face consciousness and energy-saving behaviors. For instance, ethical evaluation brought on by face consciousness might mediate its influence on energy-saving behaviors (Yin et al. 2018). Therefore, an important next step for face consciousness research is to explore the mediating influence of ethical evaluation. Future research on this topic could enrich both theoretical and practical contributions. Funding  This study was supported by research grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 71572130), and the Shanghai Pujiang Program (Grant No. 15PJC094).

References Abrahamse, W., Steg, L., Vlek, C., & Rothengatter, T. (2005). A review of intervention studies aimed at household energy conservation. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25(3), 273–291. Adler, A. (1929). Problems of neurosis: A book of case histories. New York: Harper and Row. Banerjee, R., & Dittmar, H. (2008). Individual differences in children’s materialism: The role of peer relations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(1), 17–31. Bao, Y., Zhou, K. Z., & Su, C. (2003). Face consciousness and risk aversion: Do they affect consumer decision-making? Psychology & Marketing, 20(8), 733–755. Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107(2), 238–246. Brislin, R. W. (1980). Translation and content analysis of oral and written material. In H. C. Triandis & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 349–444). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Brunsø, K., Scholderer, J., & Grunert, K. G. (2004). Closing the gap between values and behavior—A means–End theory of lifestyle. Journal of Business Research, 57(6), 665–670. Carrington, M. J., Neville, B. A., & Whitwell, G. J. (2014). Lost in translation: Exploring the ethical consumer intention–behavior gap. Journal of Business Research, 67(1), 2759–2767.

13

L. Wang et al. China Comprehensive Social Survey. (2010). Chinese National Survey Data Archive. Retrieved from http://cnsda​.ruc.edu.cn/index​ .php?r=proje​cts/view&id=15553​986. Choo, S., & Mokhtarian, P. L. (2004). What type of vehicle do people drive? The role of attitude and lifestyle in influencing vehicle type choice. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 38(3), 201–222. Coreil, J., Levin, J. S., & Jaco, E. G. (1985). Life style-an emergent concept in the sociomedical sciences. Culture, Medicine and Psychiatry, 9(4), 423–437. Dermody, J., Koenig-Lewis, N., Zhao, A. L., & Hanmer-Lloyd, S. (2018). Appraising the influence of pro-environmental selfidentity on sustainable consumption buying and curtailment in emerging markets: Evidence from China and Poland. Journal of Business Research, 86(5), 333–343. Edwards, J. R., & Lambert, L. S. (2007). Methods for integrating moderation and mediation: A general analytical framework using moderated path analysis. Psychological Methods, 12, 1–22. Endler, N. S. (1983). Interactionism: A personality model, but not yet a theory. In Nebraska symposium on motivation. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Gardner, G. T., & Stern, P. C. (2002). Environmental problems and human behavior. Boston: Pearson Custom Publishing. Gleim, M. R., Smith, J. S., Andrews, D., & Cronin, J. J. (2013). Against the green: A multi-method examination of the barriers to green consumption. Journal of Retailing, 89(1), 44–61. Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior. Chicago: Aldine Publishing. Griskevicius, V., Tybur, J. M., & Van den Bergh, B. (2010). Going green to be seen: Status, reputation, and conspicuous conservation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(3), 392–404. Hardy, C. L., & Van Vugt, M. (2006). Nice guys finish first: The competitive altruism hypothesis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32(10), 1402–1413. Haws, K. L., Winterich, K. P., & Naylor, R. W. (2014). Seeing the world through GREEN-tinted glasses: Green consumption values and responses to environmentally friendly products. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 24(3), 336–354. He, A. Z., Cai, T., Deng, T. X., & Li, X. (2016). Factors affecting nongreen consumer behaviour: An exploratory study among Chinese consumers. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 40(3), 345–356. Hirsh, J. B., & Dolderman, D. (2007). Personality predictors of consumerism and environmentalism: A preliminary study. Personality and Individual Differences, 43(6), 1583–1593. Ho, D. Y. F. (1976). On the concept of face. American Journal of Sociology, 81(4), 867–884. Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. New York: McGraw-Hill. Hori, S., Kondo, K., Nogata, D., & Ben, H. (2013). The determinants of household energy-saving behavior: Survey and comparison in five major Asian cities. Energy Policy, 52(1), 354–362. Howard, J. (2000). Social psychology of identities. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 367–393. Hwang, A., Francesco, A. M., & Kessler, E. (2003). The relationship between individualism-collectivism, face, and feedback and learning processes in Hong Kong, Singapore, and the United States. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 34(1), 72–91. Jansson, J., Marell, A., & Nordlund, A. (2010). Green consumer behavior: Determinants of curtailment and eco-innovation adoption. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 27(4), 358–370. Karlin, B., Davis, N., Sanguinetti, A., Gamble, K., Kirkby, D., & Stokols, D. (2014). Dimensions of conservation: Exploring differences among energy behaviors. Environment and Behavior, 46(4), 423–452.

Why Does Energy-Saving Behavior Rise and Fall? A Study on Consumer Face Consciousness in the… Kastanakis, M. N., & Balabanis, G. (2012). Between the mass and the class: Antecedents of the “bandwagon” luxury consumption behavior. Journal of Business Research, 65(10), 1399–1407. Kikuchi-Uehara, E., Nakatani, J., & Hirao, M. (2016). Analysis of factors influencing consumers’ proenvironmental behavior based on life cycle thinking. Part I: Effect of environmental awareness and trust in environmental information on product choice. Journal of Cleaner Production, 117, 10–18. Kindra, G., Laroche, M., & Muller, T. (1994). The Canadian perspective consumer behaviour. Ontario: International Thomson Publishing. Kulviwat, S., Bruner, I. I., G. C., & Al-Shuridah, O. (2009). The role of social influence on adoption of high tech innovations: The moderating effect of public/private consumption. Journal of Business Research, 62(7), 706–712. 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. Lee, K. (2009). Gender differences in Hong Kong adolescent consumers’ green purchasing behavior. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 26(2), 87–96. Lee, K., & Mano, H. (2014). Beyond simple innovativeness: A hierarchical continuum and thinking and feeling processing modes. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 42(4), 597–613. Li, J. J., & Su, C. (2007). How face influences consumption. International Journal of Market Research, 49(2), 237–256. Li, J., Zhang, X. A., & Sun, G. (2015). Effects of “face” consciousness on status consumption among Chinese consumers: Perceived social value as a mediator. Psychological Reports, 116(1), 280–291. Liao, J., & Wang, L. (2009). Face as a mediator of the relationship between material value and brand consciousness. Psychology & Marketing, 26(11), 987–1001. Liu, L., Chen, R., & He, F. (2015). How to promote purchase of carbon offset products: Labeling vs. calculation? Journal of Business Research, 68(5), 942–948. Marcoux, J. S., Filiatrault, P., & Cheron, E. (1997). The attitudes underlying preferences of young urban educated Polish consumers towards products made in western countries. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 9(4), 5–29. Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion and motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224–253. Moschis, G. P., & Churchill, G. A. (1978). Consumer socialization: A theoretical and empirical analysis. Journal of Marketing Research, 15(4), 599–609. Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2012). Mplus Version 7 user’s guide. Los Angeles: Muthén & Muthén. O’cass, A., & McEwen, H. (2004). Exploring consumer status and conspicuous consumption. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 4(1), 25–39. Oyserman, D. (2001). Self-concept and identity. In A. Tesser & N. Schwarz (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of social psychology (pp. 499–517) Malden: Blackwell Press. Poortinga, W., LSteg, L., Vlek, C., & Wiersma, G. (2003). Household preferences for energy-saving measures: A conjoint analysis. Journal of Economic Psychology, 24(1), 49–64. Ram, S. (1987). A model of innovation resistance. ACR North American Advances. Rice, G. (2006). Pro-environmental behavior in Egypt: Is there a role for Islamic environmental ethics? Journal of Business Ethics, 65(4), 373–390. Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. New York: Free Press. Samuelson, C. D. (1990). Energy conservation: A social dilemma approach. Social Behaviour, 5(4), 207–230. Schlenker, B. R. (1980). Impression management. Monterey: Brooks/ Cole Publishing Company.

Schwepker, C. H. Jr., & Cornwell, T. B. (1991). An examination of ecologically concerned consumers and their intention to purchase ecologically packaged products. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 10(2), 77–101. Sheldon, K. M., & McGregor, H. A. (2000). Extrinsic value orientation and “the tragedy of the commons”. Journal of Personality, 68(2), 383–411. Shi, Z., Wen, L., & Zheng, W. (2014). Can ecological product win consumers in China? A study on the effect of product attributes and consumers’ face consciousness on ecological product preference. Frontiers of Business Research in China, 8(2), 182–205. Sparks, P., & Shepherd, R. (1992). Self-identity and the theory of planned behaviour: Assessing the role of identification with green consumerism. Social Psychology Quarterly, 55(4), 388–399. Stern, P. C., & Gardner, G. T. (1981). Psychological research and energy policy. American Psychologist, 36(4), 329–342. Sütterlin, B., Brunner, T. A., & Siegrist, M. (2011). Who puts the most energy into energy conservation? A segmentation of energy consumers based on energy-related behavioral characteristics. Energy Policy, 39(12), 8137–8152. Ting-Toomey, S. (1988). Intercultural conflict styles: A face-negotiation theory. In Y. T. Kim & W. B. Gudykunst (Eds.), Theories in intercultural communication (pp. 213–238). Newbury Park: Sage Publications. Tsai, S. P. (2005). Impact of personal orientation on luxury-brand purchase value: An international investigation. International Journal of Market Research, 47(4), 429–454. Van Vugt, M., Meertens, R., & Van Lange, P. (1995). Car versus public transportation? The role of social value orientations in a reallife social dilemma. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 25(3), 258–278. Veblen, T. (1988). The theory of the leisure class. New York: Mentor Books. Vinson, D. E., Scott, J. E., & Lamont, L. M. (1977). The role of personal values in marketing and consumer behaviour. Journal of Marketing, 41(2), 44–50. Wan, W. W. N., Luk, C.-L., Yau, O. H. M., Tse, A. C. B., Sin, L. Y. M., Kwong, K. K., et al. (2009). Do traditional Chinese cultural values nourish a market for pirated CDs? Journal of Business Ethics, 88(S1), 185–196. Weiss, Y., & Fershtman, C. (1998). Social status and economic performance: A survey. European Economic Review, 42(3–5), 801–820. Whitmarsh, L., & O’Neill, S. (2010). Green identity, green living? The role of pro-environmental self-identity in determining consistency across diverse pro-environmental behaviours. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(3), 305–314. Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1994). An alternative approach to method effects by using latent-variable models: Applications in organizational behavior research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(3), 323–331. Wong, N. Y., & Ahuvia, A. C. (1998). Personal taste and family face: Luxury consumption in Confucian and Western societies. Psychology & Marketing, 15(5), 423–451. Yin, J., Qian, L., & Singhapakdi, A. (2018). Sharing sustainability: How values and ethics matter in consumers’ adoption of public bicyclesharing scheme. Journal of Business Ethics, 149(2), 313–322. Yue, T., Long, R., & Chen, H. (2013). Factors influencing energy-saving behavior of urban households in Jiangsu Province. Energy Policy, 62, 665–675. Zhang, X. A., Cao, Q., & Grigoriou, N. (2011). Consciousness of social face: The development and validation of a scale measuring desire to gain face versus fear of losing face. The Journal of Social Psychology, 151(2), 129–149.

13