Socially responsible behaviour: values and attitudes of the alternative trading organisation consumer

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to examine whether consumers' intentions to purchase apparel products from an alternative trading organisation (ATO; an example of socially responsible consumer behaviour) could be explained by their societally‐centred values and attitudes, as well as attitudes more specifically related to purchasing. Data were collected with a nationwide mail survey of US consumers (n =344) randomly drawn from the stratified mailing list of one North American ATO. Theory‐based relationships, suggesting a hierarchical system of effects among values and atti‐tudes, were tested and supported with path analysis. Comparison of two different path models revealed that attitude towards the behaviour of purchasing apparel from the ATO was a better predictor of purchase behaviour than was attitude towards the apparel itself; however, the two concepts were determined to each contribute valuable information for understanding purchasing behaviour.

Individual values and motivational complexities in ethical clothing consumption: A means-end approach

“…This supposition is supported by Dickson and Littrell (1996) who also distinguished dual pathways leading to purchase, one attitude towards the behaviour of purchasing ethical clothing and the other attitude towards the clothing itself. Thus, for many consumers both a wider ethical attitude and narrower product attributes contribute to purchasing behaviour, a finding supported by the separation of the dominant pathways in the HVM.…”

“…For example, Joergens (2006) and Iwanow et al (2005), in studies of all clothing consumers, conclude that price, style and quality are the primary influence on clothes purchase, ethical considerations are of secondary importance. In contrast, Sneddon, Lee & Soutar (2009) and Dickson & Littrell (1996) (Shaw et al 2006). Ethical clothing consumers may also search to express their ideology and self-identity through their clothing, i.e., egoistic motives (Niinimäki 2010).…”

“…This results in 'value trade-offs' (Padel & Foster 2005) that consumers need to make when buying ethical clothing (Dickson & Littrell 1996).…”

“…Littrell 1996, andDickson (2000) using path analysis, specifically theorise and demonstrate a hierarchical system of effects with global values as the most abstract level affecting more specific attitudes. Importantly, the attitude towards the behaviour of purchasing apparel in an ethical context was a better predictor of purchase behaviour than was attitude towards the apparel itself (Dickson & Littrell 1996).…”

Consumers of charity bracelets: cause‐supporters or fashion‐followers?

“…From a cognitive standpoint, consumers want their attitudes to be consistent with their behavior (Eagly and Chaiken, 1993). In terms of socially responsible buying behavior, researchers (Dickson and Littrell, 1996;Kim, Littrell, and Ogle, 1999) have found that individuals who purchase products from alternative trade organizations tend to have positive attitudes toward behaving ethically in the marketplace. Extrapolating from these findings, it is expected that individuals who purchased rubber charity bracelets had a more positive attitude toward ethical consumption than those who did not buy the bracelets.…”