Ecological Economics 161 (2019) 83–90

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ecological Economics
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon

Analysis

Achieving triple dividend through mindfulness: More sustainable T

consumption, less unsustainable consumption and more life satisfaction
Tavleen Kaur Dhandra
College of Business, Chungbuk National University, 1 Chungdae-Ro, Seowon-Gu, Cheongju 28644, South Korea

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The present study makes a novel attempt to demonstrate a possible relation between mindfulness, sustainable
Green purchase intention consumption pattern, unsustainable consumption pattern and life satisfaction. A survey based on self-adminis-
Mindfulness tered questionnaires was conducted on a sample of 420 participants. The results revealed that mindfulness is
Sustainable consumption positively related to green purchase intention, social conscious purchasing and frugal purchasing behavior. This
Life satisfaction
suggests that mindfulness generates a sense of care for self, nature and society that reflect in their respective
Unsustainable consumption
consumption behaviors. Fulfilling the second purpose, mindfulness displayed a negative relation with materi-
Materialism
alism. This indicates that since mindfulness generates a sense of care for nature and society, individuals with
greater mindfulness are less likely to engage in unsustainable consumption patterns. Furthermore, green pur-
chase intention, social conscious purchasing and materialism showed a relationship with life satisfaction and
significantly mediated the relationship between mindfulness and satisfaction with life. Understanding the
beneficial effects of mindfulness in enhancing sustainable lifestyles, reducing materialistic tendencies and
consequently having a relationship with life satisfaction, imply that mindfulness can be helpful in providing
‘triple dividend’.

1. Introduction environmental consumption and temperance in consumption or dis-

The resource-intensive lifestyle of consumers has been recognized as
the main cause of environmental degradation that needs transformation
towards more sustainable consumption patterns. The increase in world
population along with materialistic lifestyle is increasing the global
demand for goods and services leading to unlimited hyper-consump-
tion. There is a need to understand the difficulties related to sustainable
consumption as it is believed that sustainability can be achieved by
engaging consumers to make minimal behavioral shifts that facilitate
more sustainable lifestyles, increase the demand for sustainable goods
and decrease irresponsible consumption (Brown and Cameron, 2000;
Jackson and Michaelis, 2003; Verhofstadt et al., 2016). The same ar-
gument has also been echoed in various other studies, emphasizing that
in order to have a successful implementation of sustainable consump-
tion programs, a revolutionary change in consumer lifestyle and be-
havior is required (Brown and Kasser, 2005; Evans, 2011; Ericson et al.,
2014; Fischer et al., 2017; Lee et al., 2014; Pepper et al., 2009;
Rosenberg, 2004; Sheth et al., 2011; Stern, 2000).
Consumerism that poses a serious threat to the environment and
humankind due to hyper-consumption can be best dealt by following
two different sustainable strategies, which are gaining constant atten-
tion. The strategies include encouraging environment friendly or pro-
couraging consumption of natural resources. Pro-environmental beha-
vior encourages businesses to produce and motivate consumers to
purchase social and environmental friendly goods (Stern, 2000). On the
other hand, reducing consumption or temperance in consumption be-
havior involves an effort to decrease the global consumption by redu-
cing exploitation of natural resources and enhancing greater well-being
(Sheth et al., 2011). A desire for a simple lifestyle or concern for societal
welfare is a touchstone of sustainable consumption, which is in sharp
contrast to a desire for materialistic lifestyles. Materialistic individuals
are less likely to demonstrate pro-environmental attitudes and beha-
viors and engage in higher levels of environmentally damaging beha-
vior themselves (Hurst et al., 2013). The present study examines ma-
terialism as an unsustainable behavior that needs reduction.
Based on the above two strategies of sustainable consumption to
deal with excess consumption, the present study examines four different
behaviors. This study presents a psychological approach, in terms of
mindfulness, to enhance sustainable consumption behaviors and reduce
unsustainable consumption patterns. The aim of the study is to utilize
mindfulness to successfully implement the sustainable strategies and
enhance satisfaction with life. Mindfulness plays a significant role in
motivating individuals for a shift in behavior towards sustainability
(Ericson et al., 2014; Fischer et al., 2017) and may be a necessary

E-mail address: tavleen26@chungbuk.ac.kr.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.03.021
Received 7 December 2018; Received in revised form 27 February 2019; Accepted 18 March 2019
0921-8009/ © 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
T.K. Dhandra
component for the transition to a more sustainable society. Ericson
et al. (2014) revealed how enhanced mindfulness might direct in-
dividuals to re-consider their values and foster subjective well-being
separately from material consumption. They also posited that through
mindfulness, individuals could earn a “double dividend” that con-
tributes to a more sustainable way of living and greater well-being.
Sustainability literature needs to recognize causes, outcomes and the
dynamics of a complete, interdependent form of well-being in which
mindfulness is an important attribute. Mindful consumption offers a
novel approach for developing effective ways to curb over consumption
and encourage responsible consumption. Mindful consumption “con-
notes temperance in acquisitive, repetitive and aspirational consump-
tion at the behavioral level, ensuing from and reinforced by a mindset
that reflects a sense of caring toward self, community and nature”
(Sheth et al., 2011). Reconciling mindfulness and sustainability may
open up opportunities for a more profound understanding. In this re-
gard, the present study makes a novel attempt to demonstrate that
mindfulness can help achieve ‘triple dividend’ in terms of enhancing
pro-social and environmental behaviors, reduce materialism (un-
sustainable consumption behaviors) and achieving greater life sa-
tisfaction. To the best of my knowledge, no study is currently available
in the literature that examines the relationships studied in the present
research.
Mindfulness originates from Buddhist philosophy and is defined as
“a state of consciousness that involves awareness and attention of the
self, others, and the outside environment and substantially supports
decision-making” (Brown and Ryan, 2003). It is a way of regulating and
directing attention on the present moment and is an open and accepting
attitude towards experience, regardless its content (Kabat-Zinn, 1990).
As a broader disposition or trait, it refers to a relatively stable tendency
(natural or trained) towards engaging mindful states in everyday ex-
periences (Brown and Ryan, 2003), whereas state mindfulness denotes
the ability to evoke a mindful mode of awareness at a given point of
time (Lau et al., 2006). Mindfulness is concerned with the quality of
consciousness and differs from a variety of modes of processes named as
reflexive consciousness, which also include, private self-consciousness,
reflection and self-monitoring and reflexive consciousness (Brown and
Ryan, 2003).
A substantial amount of research in mindfulness has been conducted
over the last decade, driven by many positive effects of mindfulness
demonstrated in numerous fields as psychological and physical health
(Bajaj et al., 2016; Brown and Ryan, 2003; Kong et al., 2014; Schutte
and Malouff, 2011), affective states (Brown and Ryan, 2003), con-
sumption behaviors (Bahl et al., 2013; Park and Dhandra, 2017) and
sustainability (Brown and Kasser, 2005). Mindfulness comprises of
paying continuous attention towards ongoing cognitive, emotional and
sensory experiences without analyzing, judging or elaborating those
experiences (Kabat-Zinn, 2003). The components of mindfulness, that
are non-judgmental acceptance and awareness of moment-to-moment
experience, are considered powerful against general forms of psycho-
logical distress, such as fear, anxiety, anger, worry, rumination etc.
(Brown and Ryan, 2003; Brown et al., 2007; Kabat-Zinn, 2003). Kong
et al. (2014) demonstrated that mindfulness significantly predicted core
self-evaluation (neuroticism, self-efficacy, locus of control and self-es-
teem) and life satisfaction. Therefore, mindfulness is known to enhance
life satisfaction among individuals.
1.1. Mindfulness and consumption behaviors
The endeavor to understand sustainable consumption behavior has
become ubiquitous among the academic groups in the recent years.
Sustainable consumption behavior comprises, but is not limited to,
purchasing only sustainable and fair trade goods, using energy efficient
appliances, purchasing organic food, recycling waste from households,
adopting a voluntary simplified lifestyle, buying goods made with re-
cycled material, changing to environmentally friendly transport modes,
84
Ecological Economics 161 (2019) 83–90
investing only in “ethical funds” etc. (Jackson, 2005). Evans (2011)
stated, that “sustainable consumption is a matter of consuming differ-
ently by consuming less, both in terms of the quantities of goods and
services consumed (volume) and the environmental impacts of that
which is consumed (composition)”. It is a form of increased consump-
tion of environment friendly goods, decreased consumption of natural
resources and changing lifestyle to fulfill present needs and future de-
sires. Sustainable consumption is also referred to as “the use of goods
and services that respond to basic needs and bring a better quality of
life, while minimizing the use of natural resources, toxic materials and
emissions of waste and pollutants over the life cycle, so as not to jeo-
pardize the needs of future generations” (Oslo Roundtable on Sustainable
Production and Consumption, 1994).
Embracing a broad definition of sustainable consumption in terms
of its impact on environment (composition) and level of consumption
(volume), this study includes pro-environmental, socially responsible
consumption and downshifting consumption behaviors. Pro-environ-
mental behavior is undertaken to lower the negative effect of an in-
dividual's consumption choices on the environment. With regard to pro-
environmental consumption behavior, the study examines green pur-
chase intention (GPI). GPI indicates willingness of an individual to buy
green products. The intentions portray the factors that motivate and
influence the consumers to engage in green purchase behavior
(Ramayah et al., 2010). Green purchase intentions positively affect
green consumption behavior (Pagiaslis and Krontalis, 2014).
Another different but similar type of consumption behavior that has
been examined in this study is socially conscious behavior. Social
conscious behavior is initiated with an intention to have a positive
impact on others and associates with matters like labor rights, impact of
business on the society (Cowe and Williams, 2001). Another important
behavior central to debates on sustainable consumption involves con-
suming less, whether outlined as individual's choice to downshift or
emphasizing on curbing economic growth. Frugal purchasing, a form of
downshifting consumption, is referred to as “the limiting of ex-
penditures on consumption of goods and services and is characterized
by both restraint in acquiring possession and resourcefulness in using
them” (Lastovicka et al., 1999). Frugality could be an outcome of self-
control to prevent excess expenditure and while it was not carried out
due to environmental reasons, it lowers the ecological impact due to
reduction in consumption (Evans, 2011). Different factors involving
social norms, values, awareness of consequences and self-identity have
been identified that influence pro-environmental, pro-social consump-
tion behavior (Demarque et al., 2015; Nordlund and Garvill, 2003;
Pepper et al., 2009; Ross, 2015; Van den Bergh, 2008; Welsch and
Kühling, 2009). Recent studies have suggested that mindfulness relates
positively to ecological/sustainable behaviors (Amel et al., 2009;
Brown and Kasser, 2005; Barbaro and Pickett, 2016; Panno et al.,
2017).
Mindfulness has the potential to promote sustainable lifestyle and
behavior (Ericson et al., 2014). The ability of mindfulness to enhance
sustainable consumption is visible with its ability in the disruption of
routines (Fischer et al., 2017) and reduction in non-habitual and non-
automatic behavior (Brown et al., 2007; Bishop et al., 2004). Mind-
fulness has the ability to transform intentions into actions. Shapiro
(1992) demonstrated that the practitioners whose aim was self-reg-
ulation and stress management achieved self-regulation, for the ones
whose aim was self-exploration achieved self-exploration and finally
those who aimed for self-liberation progressed towards self-liberation
and empathetic services. Therefore, it can be implied that mindful in-
dividuals who have greater intentions to purchase green products are
likely to engage in green buying behavior. Amel et al. (2009) demon-
strated that acting with awareness construct of mindfulness was posi-
tively related to sustainable behavior, which was assessed through self-
report. Brown and Kasser (2005) identified a similar relationship be-
tween sustainable behavior, mindfulness and ecological footprints. On a
similar note, Barbaro and Pickett (2016) demonstrated a positive and
T.K. Dhandra
significant relationship between mindfulness and pro-environmental
behavior and that this relationship was mediated by connectedness to
nature. They suggest that mindfulness strengthen experiences with
nature or environment, which might develop strong relationship with
the natural environment, and make sustainable choices more notice-
able, resulting into a controlled behavior. In addition to this, Ross
(2015) reported a positive association between trait mindfulness and
voluntary simplicity lifestyles. It is suggested that mindful individuals
have greater self-awareness and place more value on satisfying needs
instead of wants. Mindfulness helps individuals to make choices with
diligent care (Brown and Ryan, 2003). It is assumed that mindful in-
dividuals will pay greater attention while making purchasing decisions,
for instance, by being careful in purchasing a product in order to pre-
vent harmful consequences on self, community and nature.
Another consumption behavior that helps to curb overconsumption
is reducing materialism. Materialism is defined as “the importance as-
cribed to the ownership and acquisition of material goods in achieving
major life goals or desired states” (Richins, 2004). The standard of
living of the materialistic individuals among the Western societies is
one of the “root causes” of environmental degradation and requires
reduction. Mick (1996) referred to materialism as a “dark side” con-
struct. A single facet of the “dark side” of materialism and the focus of
the study is its relationship with the natural environment. Prior studies
have revealed that mindfulness is negatively related to materialism, a
tendency towards less consumer activity over time (Wang et al., 2017).
Armstrong (2012) observed that mindfulness relates negatively to ma-
terial values and positively to life satisfaction. The relevance of mind-
fulness in exerting temperance on consumption behavior is implied in
the mindful mindset (Sheth et al., 2011). It is postulated that caring for
self, society and nature is negatively related to overconsumption and
will therefore, encourage temperance in consumption behaviors such
as, materialism. A study by Brown et al., (2009) provides evidence in
this regard by demonstrating that mindfulness can strengthen the sa-
tisfaction that individuals derive from the possessions they already
have, showing its ability to prevent the types of consumption behaviors
that result in overconsumption (Brown et al., 2009). Therefore, enga-
ging in a mindful consumption enables individuals to find new purpose
in the already held products and reduces materialistic tendencies.
1.2. Consumption behaviors and life satisfaction
Satisfaction with life is defined as “the cognitive appraisal of the
satisfactoriness of the conditions of one's life” (Diener et al., 1985). Life
satisfaction, a component of subjective well-being is regarded im-
portant for complete well-being and is an index of the total quality of
life involving health and living standard (George, 2002). It is also re-
ferred to as “a defensible proxy for chronic happiness” (Lyubomirsky
et al., 2005). Life satisfaction is often used synonymously with sub-
jective well-being, quality of life or happiness (Daig et al., 2009). In-
dividuals with higher levels of mindfulness exhibit greater well-being
on wide range of indices including happiness, lower depression and
greater positive affect (Brown and Ryan, 2003). Cultivation of mind-
fulness is an important factor in achieving a greater life satisfaction
along with more sustainable and less materialistic lifestyles at the same
time. Substantial amount of research proposes that mindfulness results
into greater life satisfaction (Armstrong, 2012; Brown and Ryan, 2003;
Kong et al., 2014).
Research on the effects of well-being is common for other kinds of
pro-social behavior such as volunteering (Meier and Stutzer, 2008) and
charity giving (Liu and Aaker, 2008). De Young (2000) found that pro-
social and environmental behavior provide innate satisfaction that
bolster well-being. The relationship between ecologically responsible
behavior and personal well-being is complimentary, that is, individuals
who live in a more ecologically sustainable manner are more happy
(Brown and Kasser, 2005). Engaging in a pro-environmental behavior
provides a way of coping with the negative well-being, that is
85
Ecological Economics 161 (2019) 83–90
enhancing greater subjective well-being (Schmitt et al., 2018). Simi-
larly, Jacob et al. (2009) demonstrated that significant amount of
variance in subjective well-being can be elucidated by ecologically re-
sponsible behavior. Xiao and Li (2011) demonstrated that higher green
purchase intention was associated with greater life satisfaction. Sa-
tisfaction with life can also be increased by engaging in a socially re-
sponsible consumption or a pro-social behavior directed towards im-
proving the welfare of others and doing well for the environment
(Nassani et al., 2013). Adoption of voluntary simplicity was also found
to have a significant positive relationship with a measure of satisfaction
with life (Boujbel and d'Astous, 2012).
Materialism, on the other hand, impairs an individual's overall
quality of life and personal well-being (Burroughs and Rindfleisch,
2002). Kasser (2002) postulates that the negative correlation between
well-being and materialism is generally described with regard to psy-
chological and personality factors, which might motivate materialism.
It is stated that psychological dissatisfaction is higher for materialistic
individuals when they are unable to have what they desire (Ryan and
Deci, 2001). This strong desire for material possessions may be related
to reduced life satisfaction and well-being. Some studies have examined
and provided evidence for the negative relationship between materi-
alism and different well-being measures like happiness and life sa-
tisfaction (Burroughs and Rindfleisch, 2002; Kasser and Ahuvia, 2002;
Richins and Dawson, 1992).
2. The present study
The preceding rationale and existing literature suggests that mind-
fulness contributes to various sustainable behaviors such as, pro-en-
vironmental behavior and ecologically conscious behavior (Amel et al.,
2009; Barbaro and Pickett, 2016; Brown and Kasser, 2005; Barber and
Deale, 2014), which in turn influences an individual's subjective well-
being (Eigner, 2001; Jacob et al., 2009; Xiao and Li, 2011). Previous
research showed the positive influence of mindfulness on well-being
and life satisfaction of an individual (Brown et al., 2007; Brown and
Ryan, 2003). The current research makes a novel attempt to expand the
aforementioned research on mindfulness and sustainability with an aim
to promote sustainable consumption behaviors and bring temperance in
consumption. By addressing the broad definition of sustainable con-
sumption behavior and mindful consumption that encompasses en-
vironmentally responsible behavior, socially conscious behavior and
temperance to aspirational behavior (Speth, 2008; Sheth et al., 2011)
this study examines the impact of mindfulness on pro-environmental
behavior (comprised of green purchase intention) socially conscious
behavior, frugal purchasing behavior and materialism (showing a
temperance in aspirational behavior). At present, the literature lacks in
studies on the effect of mindfulness on sustainable behaviors with re-
spect to enhancing pro-environmental and pro-social behavior and
especially temperance in consumption behavior has suffered from in-
sufficient consideration. It has been suggested that mindfulness could
help earn a “double dividend” that contributes to more sustainable way
of life and greater well-being, and the process underlying this re-
lationship should be explored (Ericson et al., 2014). The work reported
in this study contributes to fill this gap. The study provides evidence
that a mindful mindset might result in temperance in materialism and
enhancement in pro-environmental and social conscious purchasing
behavior, which might positively relate with life satisfaction. The study
also examines the mediating effect of the consumption behavior be-
tween mindfulness and life satisfaction. Based on the previous research
and above arguments, it is hypothesized that:
i) mindfulness will positively relate to green purchase intention, so-
cial conscious purchasing and frugal purchasing behaviors and will
negatively relate with materialism;
ii) mindfulness will positively relate to life satisfaction;
iii) green purchase intention, social conscious purchasing and frugal
T.K. Dhandra Ecological Economics 161 (2019) 83–90

purchasing behaviors will relate positively to life satisfaction and assessed using 9-item materialism value scale recently improved by
materialism will relate negatively to life satisfaction and; Richins (2004). The scale demonstrates good reliability. Overall, re-
iv) green purchase intention, social conscious purchasing, frugal pur- spondents expressed their (dis) engagement on a 7-point Likert scale.
chasing behaviors and materialism will have significant mediating Social conscious purchasing behavior and frugal purchasing behavior
effect on the mindfulness and life satisfaction relationship. were measured using Pepper et al. (2009) scale. The scale comprises of
6 items each for social conscious purchasing and frugal purchasing.
The present study centers around trait mindfulness. Even though Pepper et al. (2009) have reported good internal consistency and re-
mindfulness can be developed through mindfulness meditation, inter- liability of the scale items. Respondents answered how frequently they
ventions or mindfulness training (Kabat-Zinn, 1990) but it is an in- were involved in this behavior on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = never and
herent ability present in every individual at different levels (Brown and 7 = almost always).
Ryan, 2003). Previous studies have adopted the trait approach in ex-
amining the relationship between sustainable consumption behavior-
3.2.3. Life satisfaction
mindfulness, mindfulness and well-being and well-being-sustainable
Life Satisfaction was assessed using Diener et al. (1985) 5 item Sa-
consumption behavior (Amel et al., 2009; Brown and Kasser, 2005;
tisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS). The scale measures general life sa-
Brown et al., 2009; Ross, 2015).
tisfaction by five items, which are summed to create a single well-being
score. This scale is the most extensively employed measure to assess life
3. Materials and method
satisfaction, depicting higher levels of internal consistency and relia-
bility. Respondents indicated their level of (dis) agreement on a 7-point
3.1. Participants
scale. The SWLS is recommended as a complement to emotional well-
being because it measures an individual's conscious evaluative judg-
A total of 420 respondents (females = 292 and males = 128) from a
ment of his or her life by using the person's own criteria (Pavot and
University in India volunteered to participate in the study. Respondents
Diener, 2009). Moreover, the SWLS items are comprehensive rather
anonymously completed the survey questionnaire and the mean age
than specific in nature, allowing respondents to weigh domains of their
was 31 years (S.D. = 10.4). In terms of educational level, model edu-
lives in terms of their own values, in arriving at an overall judgment of
cation was a post graduate degree (54.3%) and only some of the par-
life satisfaction. An individual's overall judgment of life satisfaction
ticipants indicated as having an educational degree less then bachelor's
theoretically foresees one's comparison of life circumstances to one's
(1.4%). They were recruited from various courses at the University in
standards (Pavot and Diener, 2009).
India. Respondents were recruited using opportunity sampling from
various lectures and practice seminars. The respondents read an ex-
planatory statement that concisely summarized the objective of the 4. Results
study together with the anonymous and voluntary nature of their par-
ticipation. In order to maintain anonymity in the surveys, respondents The results of the descriptive statistics, reliabilities, and bivariate
were advised not to give any identifying information on the ques- relations of the constructs utilized in the study are summarized in
tionnaires. The survey was created on the basis of the previously vali- Table 1. Based on the results of the correlation matrix, it is revealed that
dated measures and the respondents were requested to complete the mindfulness positively relates to green purchase intention, social con-
surveys in good faith and to the best of their understanding. No benefits scious purchasing, frugal purchasing and life satisfaction. Materialism
in the form of incentives or remuneration were offered to the re- demonstrated a negative relation with mindfulness and life satisfaction.
spondents. Green purchase intention, social conscious purchasing, frugal pur-
chasing and life satisfaction depicted a positive and significant re-
3.2. Measures lationship.
In order to test the relationship between the constructs, regression
3.2.1. Mindfulness coefficients were computed. The purpose was to examine the different
In the present research, trait mindfulness was measured using the determinants of life satisfaction among the sustainable consumption
Mindful Attention Awareness Scale (MAAS), which focuses on the at- behaviors employed in the study. First, the impact of mindfulness on
tentional facet of mindfulness (Brown and Ryan, 2003). This concise life satisfaction was tested. The regression model (Model 1) confirmed
scale generally provides good reliability and has been adapted and that mindfulness has a significant positive relation with life satisfaction
validated in sustainable context. The MAAS (Brown and Ryan, 2003) is (β = 0.42, p < 0.001). Second, the relationship of green purchase in-
one of the most popular self-report measures which “reflect the ex- tention, social conscious purchasing, frugal purchasing and materialism
perience of mindfulness and mindlessness in general terms as well as in with life satisfaction was examined (Model 2). Green purchase intention
specific day-to-day circumstances, including variations in awareness of
and attention to actions, interpersonal communication, thoughts, Table 1
emotions, and physical states.” It consists of 15 items that describe the Descriptive statistics, reliabilities and correlation matrix.
general tendency to be attentive to and aware of present-moment ex- Constructs Mean S.D. α 1 2 3 4 5 6
periences in daily life and the mindless states that can be experienced
generally or in many specific situations. The respondents were asked to 1. MAT 3.76 1.27 0.88 1
2. MAAS 4.83 1.23 0.94 −0.34⁎⁎ 1
indicate the extent to which they experienced 15 statements on a 7- 3. SCP 4.68 1.11 0.79 −0.34⁎⁎ 0.43⁎⁎ 1
point Likert scale ranging from ‘1 = Almost Always’ to ‘7 = Never’, 4. FPB 4.87 1.39 0.62 −0.11⁎ 0.34⁎⁎ 0.38⁎⁎ 1
with higher scores implying high levels of mindfulness. The scale con- 5. GPI 5.35 1.30 0.90 −0.13⁎⁎ 0.37⁎⁎ 0.49⁎⁎ 0.39⁎⁎ 1
sists of items like; “I find it difficult to stay focused on what's happening 6. LS 4.92 1.28 0.88 −0.31⁎⁎ 0.42⁎⁎ 0.45⁎⁎ 0.28⁎⁎ 0.49⁎⁎ 1
in the present” and “I find myself doing things without paying atten-
Note: α = cronbach alpha; MAT = Materialism (Richins, 2004);
tion”.
MAAS = Mindfulness (Mindfulness Attention Awareness scale, Brown and
Ryan, 2003); SCP = Social Conscious Purchasing (Pepper et al., 2009);
3.2.2. Consumption behaviors FPB = Frugal Purchasing Behavior (Pepper et al., 2009); GPI = Green Purchase
Green purchase intention was assessed using Lee et al. (2014) scale. Intention (Lee et al., 2014); LS = Life Satisfaction (Diener et al., 1985).
The scale comprises of 6 items and is reported to possess good internal ⁎
Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level.
⁎⁎
consistency and excellent reliability (Lee et al., 2014). Materialism was Correlation is significant at the 0.001 level.

86
T.K. Dhandra Ecological Economics 161 (2019) 83–90

Table 2 Table 3
Determinants of life satisfaction. Summary of mediation analysis (N = 420).
Independent Model1: dependent Model 2: dependent Significance Relationship from To Path β SE t-value Sig.
variables variable variable
Mindfulness LS c 0.44 0.046 9.57 0.000
LS LS Mindfulness FPB a 0.38 0.052 7.37 0.000
SCP a 0.39 0.039 9.84 0.000
MAAS 0.42 0.000 MAT a −0.35 0.047 −7.42 0.000
FPB 0.03 0.469 GPI a 0.39 0.048 8.15 0.000
GPI 0.37 0.000 FPB LS b 0.003 0.041 0.081 0.934
SCP 0.20 0.000 SCP LS b 0.19 0.056 3.31 0.001
MAT −0.19 0.000 MAT LS b −0.16 0.043 −3.55 0.000
R2 0.18 0.34 GPI LS b 0.33 0.046 712 0.000
Mindfulness LS c’ 0.18 0.049 3.78 0.0002
Note: standardized regression coefficients; MAT = Materialism;
MAAS = Mindfulness (Mindfulness Attention Awareness scale); SCP = Social Note: Sig. = Significance; β coefficients are standardized.
Conscious Purchasing; FPB = Frugal Purchasing Behavior; GPI = Green Path “a” = direct effect of mindfulness on mediators (consumption behaviors);
Purchase Intention; LS = Life Satisfaction. “b” = direct effect of mediators on dependent variable; “c” = direct effect of
mindfulness on dependent variable and c′ = indirect effect of mindfulness on
and social conscious purchasing showed a significant and positive re- dependent variable after adding mediators.
MAT = Materialism; SCP = Social Conscious Purchasing; FPB = Frugal
lationship with life satisfaction (Table 2), whereas, materialism de-
Purchasing Behavior; GPI = Green Purchase Intention; LS = Life Satisfaction.
monstrated a negative relation with life satisfaction.
All the four consumption behaviors significantly related
(β = 0.33, p < 0.001), social conscious purchasing (β = 0.19,
(p < 0.001) to mindfulness (Table 1) and were found to be significant
p < 0.05) and materialism (β = −0.16, p < 0.001) have a significant
determinants of life satisfaction (Table 2). All the four behaviors were
relation with life satisfaction. Frugal purchasing (β = 0.003, p = 0.934)
considered as the potential mediators for further analysis. In order to
showed no significant association with life satisfaction (Table 3). The
assess the mediation, a macro developed by Preacher and Hayes (2008),
results revealed that the direct effect of mindfulness on life satisfaction
that is SPSS multiple mediation macro was utilized. Multiple mediation
became weak (β = 0.18, p < 0.05) when all the mediators were
model offers an added advantage of examining numerous mediators,
added, therefore recommending a partial mediation by green purchase
therefore presenting the values for each path model as other models
intention, social conscious purchasing and materialism. Since the paths
with different paths are characterized. 95% confidence interval (CI) was
“a” and “b” were found to be significant, bootstrapping method of bias-
composed by utilizing 5000 bootstrap samples to examine if the unique
corrected confidence intervals (CIs) was used to verify the results of the
contribution of each mediator is significantly different from zero. If the
mediation analysis (Preacher and Hayes, 2008).
intervals include a zero, then the effect of the mediator becomes non-
Table 4 represents the results of the bootstrapping analysis with
significant, that is the possible mediator does not mediate the re-
corresponding CIs and indirect effects. The results found from the
lationship between the predictor and criterion variable. In the present
bootstrapping analysis confirmed the mediating role of green purchase
mediation model, mindfulness was entered as a predictor and the four
intention, social conscious purchasing and materialism between mind-
consumption behaviors were entered as mediators.
fulness and life satisfaction. The effect contrasts revealed a significant
A multiple mediation analysis was employed to analyze the effects
difference between the indirect effects of SCP-FPB, FPB-GPI, FPB-MAT
of each variable as the proposed mediator (Fig. 1). The direct effect of
and GPI-MAT (Table 4). The indirect effect of social conscious pur-
mindfulness on life satisfaction showed a positive relation (β = 0.44,
chasing was higher than that of frugal purchasing in C1, depicting the
p < 0.001). Mindfulness was also found to be positively related to
significant role of social conscious purchasing as a mediator between
green purchase intention (β = 0.39, p < 0.001), frugal purchasing
mindfulness and life satisfaction. The indirect effect of green purchase
(β = 0.38, p < 0.001) and social conscious purchasing (β = 0.39,
intention was also greater than frugal purchasing and materialism in C4
p < 0.001), and negatively related to materialism (β = −0.35,
and C6 respectively, demonstrating the significant role played by green
p < 0.001). The results indicated that green purchase intention
purchase intention in generating greater life satisfaction. The effect

Green Purchase Intention

0.39*** 0.33***

0.39*** Social Conscious 0.19**

Dispositional Purchasing Life Satisfaction
Mindfulness 0.38*** 0.003

Frugal Purchasing
-0.35***
-0.16***

Materialism

Fig. 1. Multiple mediation model analyzing the total, direct and indirect effects of mindfulness on Life satisfaction; figure represents the indirect effects of mind-
fulness on life satisfaction with different types of sustainable and unsustainable behaviors. The effect of mindfulness on Life Satisfaction (β = −0.44, p < 0.001;
path c).
Path “a” = direct effect of mindfulness on mediators (consumption behaviors); “b” = direct effect of mediators on dependent variable; “c” = direct effect of
mindfulness on dependent variable.
Note. Standardized regression coefficients are reported.*p < 0.01 **p < 0.05; ***p < 0.001.

87
T.K. Dhandra Ecological Economics 161 (2019) 83–90

Table 4 Social conscious purchasing is intended for safeguarding and im-

Summary of the bootstrapping with mindfulness as the predictor and life sa- proving the social and individual welfare (Pepper et al., 2009) there-
tisfaction as the outcome variable. fore, it aligns positively with mindfulness. Barber and Deale (2014)
Path Indirect Effect Bias corrected confidence intervals suggested that individuals with higher mindfulness show greater con-
cern for other individuals and society and pursue products that have
Lower Upper less environmental impact. Mindfulness both dispositional and devel-
oped through practice or meditation has the ability to enhance empathy
Mindfulness–GPI–LS 0.129a 0.081 0.190
Mindfulness–SCP–LS 0.073a 0.030 0.124 and concern for other individuals (Atkins, 2013). A usual outcome of
Mindfulness–FPB–LS 0.001 −0.037 0.035 the enhanced empathy and concern makes mindful individuals more
Mindfulness–MAT–LS 0.054a 0.020 0.102 likely to include other people's interest into their individual consump-
C1 0.072a 0.013 0.141
tion choices and therefore make balanced (as against to self-centered)
C2 −0.055 −0.129 0.012
C3 0.019 −0.050 0.087
and comprehensive decisions. Furthermore, results show that in-
C4 −0.128a −0.205 −0.064 dividuals with greater mindfulness have an inclination towards frugal
C5 0.053a −0.113 −0.003 purchasing. For limiting acquisitions, frugal consumption shares simi-
C6 0.074a 0.009 0.145 larities with voluntary simplicity. It is one of the important doctrines of
voluntary simplicity and such behavior arises due to altruistic motiva-
Note: C1 = SCP – FRP; C2 = SCP – PG; C3 = SCP – MAT; C4 = FRP – PG;
tions (Shaw and Newholm, 2002) or to reduce stress and bring balance
C5 = FRP – MAT; C6 = PG - MAT.
MAT = Materialism; SCP = Social Conscious Purchasing; FPB = Frugal in life (Hamilton, 2003). In both the situations, frugal purchasing relate
Purchasing Behavior; GPI = Green Purchase Intention; LS = Life Satisfaction. positively with mindfulness. As a consumption pattern, frugality is an
a
95% CI does not overlap with zero (p < 0.05). appropriate goal for both individuals and societies and deserves more
attention.
contrasts between frugal purchasing and materialism in C5 depicted the It is evident from the above results that mindfulness relates nega-
vital role of materialism as a significant mediator between mindfulness tively with materialism. When individuals live mindfully they have a
and life satisfaction. However, the results of the effect contrast revealed better opportunity to reconnect with their intrinsic needs because they
that social conscious purchasing, green purchase intention and mate- are less compelled by or absorbed in their fantasies about money or
rialism play a considerable role in the relationship between mindfulness attractive cues around them. Brown et al. (2009) demonstrated that
and life satisfaction. mindful individuals are less dissatisfied with their economic situations,
less receptive to consumerist messages and are less stressed by aspira-
tions for more. Based on the findings of the present study it is postulated
5. Discussion that individuals with higher levels of mindfulness will emphasize more
on the choices that benefit society and environment as against any
The present research aimed at achieving two main objectives. First, socially desirable or acceptable choices like status or success. It is ar-
to examine the relationship between dispositional mindfulness and gued that mindful individuals are less likely to be preoccupied by self-
sustainable consumption behaviors along with irresponsible consump- enhancing products and less likely to be satisfied with the material
tion that is materialism. The second objective was to find out whether possessions and wealth. The results suggest that more focus on the
dispositional mindfulness was related to life satisfaction through dif- acquisition and ownership of the material objects will lead to less life
ferent sustainable behaviors. The study aimed to demonstrate that satisfaction. Previous studies demonstrate that materialistic individuals
mindfulness helps achieve triple dividend by enhancing more sustain- consider consumption as an escape, lack control over consumption,
able consumption behaviors, reducing unsustainable consumption which results in lower well-being (Burroughs and Rindfleisch, 2002;
patterns and achieving greater satisfaction. In line with the previous Richins and Dawson, 1992; Richins, 2004). Paying more attention to-
research (Amel et al., 2009; Barbaro and Pickett, 2016; Brown and wards material possessions lead to neglect in other domains of life, like
Kasser, 2005; Jacob et al., 2009), different sustainable behaviors in- personal and social relationships (Kasser and Ahuvia, 2002). Therefore,
cluding green purchase intention, social conscious purchasing and the present study provides a unique contribution to the sustainability
frugal purchasing showed a positive relation with trait mindfulness. research by proposing a relationship between mindfulness and mate-
This study is the first to propose a possible relationship between rialism, thereafter with life satisfaction.
mindfulness and social conscious purchasing and frugal purchasing. Results indicate that socially conscious purchasing, green purchase
With regards to materialism a negative relationship was found dis- intention as specific indicators of pro-social and pro-environmental
playing a consistent pattern with previous study (Brown et al., 2009). behavior are indeed positively related to life satisfaction. It is in line
To date, the literature lacks in studies that examine the effect of with the other studies exploring the link between different pro-social
mindfulness on sustainable behaviors especially temperance in con- behavior such as socially responsible behavior, volunteering and pro-
sumption behavior. Sheth et al. (2011) highlighted the importance to social spending behavior (Liu and Aaker, 2008; Meier and Stutzer,
recognize factors that enhance a sense of caring in mindset, which re- 2008; Nassani et al., 2013), environmental behavior (Brown and Kasser,
sults in temperance in behavior. Furthermore, it was hypothesized and 2005; Jacob et al., 2009; Xiao and Li, 2011) and well-being. The ra-
found that social conscious purchasing, green purchase intention and tionale behind a positive relationship between social conscious pur-
materialism significantly mediated the relationship between mind- chasing behavior and life satisfaction could be that pro-social acts make
fulness and life satisfaction. A few previous studies have reported the the benefactor feel valued and useful. Moreover, engaging in a re-
relation between pro-social or pro-environmental behaviors with well- sponsible consumption behavior or willingness to purchase environ-
being and life satisfaction (Brown and Kasser, 2005; Schmitt et al., mental friendly products might make individuals confident and more
2018; Xiao and Li, 2011). The fact that mediation model holds with life self-assured, which in turn promote higher satisfaction with life. The
satisfaction increases confidence in the belief that mindfulness can help results of the present study imply that mindfulness helps individuals to
achieve ‘triple dividend’ by enhancing environmental or social re- engage in pro-social and pro-environmental behavior, helps find new
sponsible consumption behavior, reducing irresponsible consumption purpose in already held products and discourages materialistic con-
behavior and enhancing life satisfaction. This framework places mind- sumption patterns that diminish satisfaction with life, thereby pro-
fulness within sustainability literature, which may result in more varied viding benefits for all.
understanding and perceptions, stimulate action, and enhance sus- Having understood the positive relationship of mindfulness with life
tainable change. satisfaction and different consumption behaviors as depicted in the

88
T.K. Dhandra
present study, individuals must be encouraged to live and behave more
mindfully. Mindfulness can be promoted through mindfulness practices
or meditation (Brown and Ryan, 2003; Schutte and Malouff, 2011). It
helps individuals to pay greater attention towards their purchasing
decisions, such as, by being careful in purchasing a product in order to
prevent harmful consequences on self, society and nature. It enables
them to identify their habitual reactions to certain “triggers” like con-
flicting situation, impulsivity and through this they are less likely to
behave automatically, have more self-determination, notice more
choices and sense more freedom in choosing their actions. Therefore,
mindfulness enables consumers to make their consumption choices or
decisions with diligent care (Brown and Ryan, 2003). Mindfulness
provides insights into the working of the mind, nature of the material
world and relieves an individual from any needless suffering (Siegel
et al., 2009). Mindfulness-based cognitive therapy, mindfulness-based
stress reduction and dialectical behavior therapy are important medi-
tation therapies (Bishop et al., 2004) that could be useful in helping the
materialists in the real world as well as to evaluate the practical benefits
of mindfulness. Along with it, promotion of alternative lifestyles, such
as voluntary simplicity (Ross, 2015) and alternatives of sustainable
production can become an approach looking for a change in un-
sustainable behavior.
6. Limitations
The results of the study may be affected by a few limitations, as this
study does not provide causal conclusions, which require an experi-
mental design. For the purpose of making reliable conclusions about the
causal mechanisms highlighting the relationship between mindfulness,
consumption behaviors and life satisfaction studies using mindfulness
meditation or momentarily induced mindfulness experimental designs
are required. In future work, other environmentally relevant realms of
consumption could be incorporated to investigate the difference in the
potential of mindfulness for enhancing sustainable consumption pat-
terns and lifestyle. The fact that the sample was collected from a
University and consists of highly educated as well as young and middle
age respondents may have a bearing on the findings. Education and age
of respondents is generally correlated with sustainable behavior
(Diamantopoulos et al., 2003) and mindfulness (Olano et al., 2015).
The present study provides evidence that awareness of the impact of
one's consumption on the environment, dwindling resources, and the
need for a more holistic approach towards personal well-being are at
the heart of mindful consumer. In India, mindfulness meditation is part
of a larger system of Buddhist belief and practice with strong ethical
and moral dimensions. While Western scientific research has validated
and opened up the practice of mindfulness to the entire world. How-
ever, the depth of the concepts is still deeply embedded in Eastern
philosophy from where it originated. While the exact vision of con-
sumption and consumption behaviors can vary across different cultural
systems but the goals are same universally. A future study undertaken
by collecting data from respondents with different level of education,
age groups and cultural backgrounds may provide additional explana-
tion.
7. Conclusion
This study highlights the significance of mindfulness as a path that
provides “triple dividend” with respect to enhancing more sustainable
lifestyles, reducing unsustainable patterns of consumption and
achieving greater satisfaction with life. The study also shows how social
conscious purchasing, green purchase intention and materialism are
related to life satisfaction. Since materialism is considered as a cause for
environmental degradation and low life satisfaction, reducing materi-
alism can help improve life satisfaction of people. Understanding the
beneficial effects of mindfulness in enhancing sustainable lifestyles,
reducing materialistic tendencies and consequently having a relation
89
Ecological Economics 161 (2019) 83–90
with life satisfaction, the study offers useful insights for researchers,
practitioners, policy makers and marketers for implementing various
sustainable strategies.
References
Amel, E.L., Manning, C.M., Scott, B.A., 2009. Mindfulness and sustainable behavior:
pondering attention and awareness as means for increasing green behavior.
Ecopsychology 1 (1), 14–25.
Armstrong, A.J., 2012. Mindfulness and Consumerism: A Social Psychological
Investigation. PhD Thesis, Surrey.
Atkins, P.W., 2013. Empathy, self-other differentiation, and mindfulness training. In:
Organizing Through Empathy. Routledge, pp. 61–82.
Bahl, S., Milne, G.R., Ross, S.M., Chan, K., 2013. Mindfulness: a long-term solution for
mindless eating by college students. J. Public Policy Mark. 32 (2), 173–184.
Bajaj, B., Gupta, R., Pande, N., 2016. Self-esteem mediates the relationship between
mindfulness and well-being. Personal. Individ. Differ. 94, 96–100.
Barbaro, N., Pickett, S.M., 2016. Mindfully green: examining the effect of connectedness
to nature on the relationship between mindfulness and engagement in pro-environ-
mental behavior. Personal. Individ. Differ. 93, 137–142.
Barber, N.A., Deale, C., 2014. Tapping mindfulness to shape hotel guests' sustainable
behavior. Cornell Hosp. Q. 55 (1), 100–114.
Bishop, S.R., Lau, M., Shapiro, S., Carlson, L., Anderson, N.D., Carmody, J., Segal, Z.V.,
Abbey, S., Speca, M., Velting, D., Devins, G., 2004. Mindfulness: a proposed opera-
tional definition. Clin. Psychol. Sci. Pract. 11 (3), 230–241.
Boujbel, L., d'Astous, A., 2012. Voluntary simplicity and life satisfaction: exploring the
mediating role of consumption desires. J. Consum. Behav. 11 (6), 487–494.
Brown, P.M., Cameron, L.D., 2000. What can be done to reduce overconsumption? Ecol.
Econ. 32 (1), 27–41.
Brown, K.W., Kasser, T., 2005. Are psychological and ecological well-being compatible?
The role of values, mindfulness, and lifestyle. Soc. Indic. Res. 74 (2), 349–368.
Brown, K.W., Ryan, R.M., 2003. The benefits of being present: mindfulness and its role in
psychological well-being. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 84, 822–848.
Brown, K.W., Ryan, R.M., Creswell, J.D., 2007. Mindfulness: theoretical foundations and
evidence for salutary effects. Psychol. Inq. 18, 211–237.
Brown, K.W., Kasser, T., Ryan, R.M., Linley, P.A., Orzech, K., 2009. When what one has is
enough: mindfulness, financial desire discrepancy, and subjective well-being. J. Res.
Pers. 43 (2009), 727–736.
Burroughs, J.E., Rindfleisch, A., 2002. Materialism and well-being: a conflicting values
perspective. J. Consum. Res. 29 (3), 348–370.
Cowe, R., Williams, S., 2001. Who are the Ethical Consumers? Co-operative Bank. Mori
Survey.
Daig, I., Herschbach, P., Lehmann, A., Knoll, N., Decker, O., 2009. Gender and age dif-
ferences in domain-specific life satisfaction and the impact of depressive and anxiety
symptoms: a general population survey from Germany. Qual. Life Res. 18 (6),
669–678.
De Young, R., 2000. New ways to promote proenvironmental behavior: expanding and
evaluating motives for environmentally responsible behavior. J. Soc. Issues 56 (3),
509–526.
Demarque, C., Charalambides, L., Hilton, D.J., Waroquier, L., 2015. Nudging sustainable
consumption: the use of descriptive norms to promote a minority behavior in a
realistic online shopping environment. J. Environ. Psychol. 43, 166–174.
Diamantopoulos, A., Schlegelmilch, B.B., Sinkovics, R.R., Bohlen, G.M., 2003. Can socio-
demographics still play a role in profiling green consumers? A review of the evidence
and an empirical investigation. J. Bus. Res. 56, 465–480.
Diener, E.D., Emmons, R.A., Larsen, R.J., Griffin, S., 1985. The Satisfaction With Life
Scale. J. Pers. Assess. 49 (1), 71–75.
Eigner, S., 2001. The relationship between “protecting the environment” as a dominant
life goal and subjective well-being. In: Schmuck, P., Sheldon, K.M. (Eds.), Life Goals
and Well-Being: Towards a Positive Psychology of Human Striving. Hogrefe and
Huber, Seattle, WA, pp. 182–201.
Ericson, T., Kj.Nstad, B.G., Barstad, A., 2014. Mindfulness and sustainability. Ecol. Econ.
104, 73–79.
Evans, D., 2011. Thrifty, green or frugal: reflections on sustainable consumption in a
changing economic climate. Geoforum 42 (5), 550–557.
Fischer, D., Stanszus, L., Geiger, S., Grossman, P., Schrader, U., 2017. Mindfulness and
sustainable consumption: a systematic literature review of research approaches and
findings. J. Clean. Prod. 162, 544–558.
George, L.K., 2002. Life satisfaction. In: Principles and Practice of Geriatric Psychiatry,
Second edition. pp. 75–77.
Hamilton, C., 2003. Downshifting in Britain: A Sea-Change in the Pursuit of Happiness.
The Australia Institute, Canberra.
Hurst, M., Dittmar, H., Bond, R., Kasser, T., 2013. The relationship between materialistic
values and environmental attitudes and behaviors: a meta-analysis. J. Environ.
Psychol. 36, 257–269.
Jackson, T., 2005. Motivating sustainable consumption: a review of evidence on con-
sumer behaviour and behavioral change. In: Sustainable Development Research
Network. Policy Studies Institute, London.
Jackson, T., Michaelis, L., 2003. Policies for Sustainable Consumption. Sustainable
Development Commission, London.
Jacob, J., Jovic, E., Brinkerhoff, M.B., 2009. Personal and planetary well-being: mind-
fulness meditation, pro-environmental behavior and personal quality of life in a
survey from the social justice and ecological sustainability movement. Soc. Indic. Res.
93 (2), 275–294.
T.K. Dhandra
Kabat-Zinn, J., 1990. Full Catastrophe Living. How to Cope with Stress, Pain and Illness
Using Mindfulness Meditation. Antony Rowe, Wiltshire.
Kabat-Zinn, J., 2003. Mindfulness-based interventions in context: past, present, and fu-
ture. Clin. Psychol. 10, 144–156.
Kasser, T., 2002. The Value of Materialism: A Psychological Inquiry. MIT Press,
Cambridge, MA.
Kasser, T., Ahuvia, A., 2002. Materialistic values and well-being in business students. Eur.
J. Soc. Psychol. 32 (1), 137–146.
Kong, F., Wang, X., Zhao, J., 2014. Dispositional mindfulness and life satisfaction: the role
of core self-evaluations. Personal. Individ. Differ. 56, 165–169.
Lastovicka, J.L., Bettencourt, L.A., Hughner, R.S., Kuntze, R.J., 1999. Lifestyle of the tight
and frugal: theory and measurement. J. Consum. Res. 26 (1), 85–98.
Lau, M.A., Bishop, S.R., Segal, Z.V., Buis, T., Anderson, N.D., Carlson, L., Shapiro, S.,
Carmody, J., Abbey, S., Devins, G., 2006. The Toronto mindfulness scale: develop-
ment and validation. J. Clin. Psychol. 62 (12), 1445–1467.
Lee, Y.K., Kim, S., Kim, M.S., Choi, J.G., 2014. Antecedents and interrelationships of three
types of pro-environmental behavior. J. Bus. Res. 67 (10), 2097–2105.
Liu, W., Aaker, J., 2008. The happiness of giving: the time-ask effect. J. Consum. Res. 35
(3), 543–557.
Lyubomirsky, S., King, L., Diener, E., 2005. The benefits of frequent positive affect: does
happiness lead to success? Psychol. Bull. 131, 803–855.
Meier, S., Stutzer, A., 2008. Is volunteering rewarding in itself? Economica 75 (297),
39–59.
Mick, D.G., 1996. Are studies of dark side variables confounded by socially desirable
responding? The case of materialism. J. Consum. Res. 23 (2), 106–119.
Nassani, A.M., Khaderb, J.A., Abd-el Moemenb, M., Ali, I., 2013. Consumer environ-
mental activism, sustainable consumption behavior and satisfaction with life. Life Sci.
J. 10 (2), 1000–1006.
Nordlund, A.M., Garvill, J., 2003. Effects of values, problem awareness and personal
norm on willingness to reduce personal car use. J. Environ. Psychol. 23 (4), 339–347.
Olano, H.A., Kachan, D., Tannenbaum, S.L., Mehta, A., Annane, D., Lee, D.J., 2015.
Engagement in mindfulness practices by US adults: sociodemographic barriers. J.
Altern. Complement. Med. 21 (2), 100–102.
Oslo Roundtable on Sustainable Production and Consumption. http://www.iisd.ca/
consume/oslo004.html.
Pagiaslis, A., Krontalis, A.K., 2014. Green consumption behavior antecedents: environ-
mental concern, knowledge, and beliefs. Psychol. Mark. 31 (5), 335–348.
Panno, A., Giacomantonio, M., Carrus, G., Maricchiolo, F., Pirchio, S., Mannetti, L., 2017.
Mindfulness, pro-environmental behavior, and belief in climate change: the med-
iating role of social dominance. Environ. Behav. 0013916517718887.
Park, H.J., Dhandra, T.K., 2017. Relation between dispositional mindfulness and im-
pulsive buying tendency: role of trait emotional intelligence. Personal. Individ. Differ.
105, 208–212.
Pavot, W., Diener, E., 2009. Review of the satisfaction with life scale. In: Assessing Well-
being. Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 110–117.
Pepper, M., Jackson, T., Uzzell, D., 2009. An examination of the values that motivate
socially conscious and frugal consumer behaviour. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 33 (2),
90
Ecological Economics 161 (2019) 83–90
126–136.
Preacher, K.J., Hayes, A.F., 2008. Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and
comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behav. Res. Methods 40,
879–891.
Ramayah, T., Lee, J.W.C., Mohamad, O., 2010. Green product purchase intention: some
insights from a developing country. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 54 (12), 1419–1427.
Richins, M.L., 2004. The material values scale: measurement properties and development
of a short form. J. Consum. Res. 31 (1), 209–219.
Richins, M.L., Dawson, S., 1992. Consumer values orientation for materialism and its
measurement: scale development and validation. J. Consum. Res. 19, 303–316.
Rosenberg, E.L., 2004. Mindfulness and consumerism. In: Kasser, T., Kanner, A.D. (Eds.),
Psychology and Consumer Culture: The Struggle for a Good Life in a Materialistic
World. American Psychological Association, Washington, DC.
Ross, S.M., 2015. Whither simplicity? An exploratory study of the antecedents of vo-
luntary simplicity. In: Marketing Dynamism & Sustainability: Things Change, Things
Stay the Same…. Springer, Cham, pp. 20–29.
Ryan, R.M., Deci, E.L., 2001. On happiness and human potentials: a review of research on
hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 52 (1), 141–166.
Schmitt, M.T., Aknin, L.B., Axsen, J., Shwom, R.L., 2018. Unpacking the relationships
between pro-environmental behavior, life satisfaction, and perceived ecological
threat. Ecol. Econ. 143, 130–140.
Schutte, N.S., Malouff, J.M., 2011. Emotional intelligence mediates the relationship be-
tween mindfulness and subjective well-being. Personal. Individ. Differ. 50 (7),
1116–1119.
Shapiro, D.H., 1992. A preliminary study of long-term meditators: goals, effects, religious
orientation, cognitions. J. Transpers. Psychol. 24 (1), 23–39.
Shaw, D., Newholm, T., 2002. Voluntary simplicity and the ethics of consumption.
Psychol. Mark. 19 (2), 167–185.
Sheth, J.N., Sethia, N.K., Srivinas, S., 2011. Mindful consumption: a customer-centric
approach to sustainability. Acad. Market. Sci. 39 (21), 21–39.
Siegel, R.D., Germer, C.K., Olendzki, A., 2009. Mindfulness: What is it? Where did it come
from? In: Clinical Handbook of Mindfulness. Springer, New York, NY, pp. 17–35.
Speth, J.G., 2008. The Bridge at the Edge of the World: Capitalism, the Environment, and
Crossing from Crisis to Sustainability. Yale University Press.
Stern, P.C., 2000. Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behaviour. J.
Soc. Issues 56 (3), 407–424.
Van den Bergh, J.C., 2008. Environmental regulation of households: an empirical review
of economic and psychological factors. Ecol. Econ. 66 (4), 559–574.
Verhofstadt, E., Van Ootegem, L., Defloor, B., Bleys, B., 2016. Linking individuals' eco-
logical footprint to their subjective well-being. Ecol. Econ. 127, 80–89.
Wang, G., Liu, L., Tan, X., Zheng, W., 2017. The moderating effect of dispositional
mindfulness on the relationship between materialism and mental health. Personal.
Individ. Differ. 107, 131–136.
Welsch, H., Kühling, J., 2009. Determinants of pro-environmental consumption: the role
of reference groups and routine behavior. Ecol. Econ. 69 (1), 166–176.
Xiao, J.J., Li, H., 2011. Sustainable consumption and life satisfaction. Soc. Indic. Res. 104
(2), 323–329.