Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Is Ecofriendly Unmanly
Is Ecofriendly Unmanly
net/publication/305887861
CITATIONS READS
334 11,465
5 authors, including:
All content following this page was uploaded by Aaron R. Brough on 27 December 2017.
AARON R. BROUGH
JAMES E. B. WILKIE
JINGJING MA
MATHEW S. ISAAC
DAVID GAL
Why are men less likely than women to embrace environmentally friendly products
and behaviors? Whereas prior research attributes this gender gap in sustainable
consumption to personality differences between the sexes, we propose that it may
also partially stem from a prevalent association between green behavior and femi-
ninity, and a corresponding stereotype (held by both men and women) that green
consumers are more feminine. Building on prior findings that men tend to be more
concerned than women with gender-identity maintenance, we argue that this green-
feminine stereotype may motivate men to avoid green behaviors in order to pre-
serve a macho image. A series of seven studies provides evidence that the con-
cepts of greenness and femininity are cognitively linked and shows that, accordingly,
consumers who engage in green behaviors are stereotyped by others as more femi-
nine and even perceive themselves as more feminine. Further, men’s willingness to
engage in green behaviors can be influenced by threatening or affirming their mas-
culinity, as well as by using masculine rather than conventional green branding.
Together, these findings bridge literatures on identity and environmental sustainabil-
ity and introduce the notion that due to the green-feminine stereotype, gender-
identity maintenance can influence men’s likelihood of adopting green behaviors.
567
568 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
Past research has explained this gender gap in environ- be the result of the exemplars that come to mind when
mental sustainability by exploring differences in personality thinking of people who typically engage in green behavior.
traits typically observed in women versus men. For exam- If an association between greenness and femininity is
ple, women’s concern for the environment has been attrib- sufficiently strong, it may affect social judgments and self-
uted to their tendency to be more prosocial, altruistic, and perception. That is, men and women may judge those who
empathetic (Dietz et al. 2002; Lee and Holden 1999). engage in green behaviors as more feminine than those
Women also display superior perspective taking and a stron- who do not, and to the extent that such a stereotype is inter-
ger ethic of care, which have both been linked to environ- nalized, men and women who engage in green behaviors
mentalism (Zelezny et al. 2000). In addition, women may may experience a heightened sense of femininity. Thus a
exhibit greater commitment to the environment because green-feminine stereotype may be held by consumers of ei-
they are more inclined to adopt a future time perspective ther gender and could affect perceptions of the self and of
(Eisler and Eisler 1994) and are more concerned with health others.
and safety, particularly if their children are living at home Consumers’ response to the existence of a pervasive
(Davidson and Freudenburg 1996). green-feminine stereotype is likely to depend on both indi-
While we do not dispute that personality differences be- vidual differences (e.g., the extent to which the consumer
tween the sexes contribute to the gender gap in environ- is concerned with gender-identity maintenance) and situa-
mental sustainability, the present research offers a novel tional factors (e.g., gender cues that threaten or affirm gen-
explanation for this phenomenon. Specifically, we propose der identity). For example, a green-feminine stereotype is
that men’s resistance may stem in part from a prevalent as- likely to discourage consumers from engaging in green be-
sociation between the concepts of greenness and femininity havior who, either dispositionally or situationally, feel a
and a corresponding stereotype (held by both men and need to avoid feminine associations, but it may have less
women) that green consumers are feminine. As a result of impact when consumers are not as concerned with main-
this stereotype, men may be motivated to avoid or even op- taining a masculine gender identity. Based on this logic,
pose green behaviors in order to safeguard their gender consumers who feel motivated to undertake actions that
identity. The following section further explains the ratio- serve to reinforce gender identity as a central aspect of
nale behind our proposition that gender-identity mainte- their self-concept should be most influenced by the green-
nance, stemming from men’s desire to avoid a prevalent feminine stereotype.
green-feminine stereotype, contributes to the gender gap in
sustainable consumption.
Gender-Identity Maintenance
Social-identity theory contends that a portion of one’s
CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT self-concept is derived from perceived group membership
(Turner and Oakes 1986; Gal 2015 offers a review). This
The Green-Feminine Stereotype group membership may be a group to which one belongs,
Consistent with the idea that green products and behav- aspires to join, or actively avoids. In terms of identity sig-
iors are associated with femininity, survey data collected naling and maintenance, people tend to imitate the behav-
by OgilvyEarth suggest that “going green” is considered ior of positive (Berger and Heath 2007, 2008; Escalas and
more feminine than masculine by a majority of American Bettman 2003, 2005; McFerran et al. 2010; Wang, Zhu,
adults (Bennett and Williams 2011). There are several rea- and Shiv 2012) and aspirational ingroups (Englis and
sons why the concepts of greenness and femininity might Solomon 1995), while refraining from acting in a similar
be cognitively linked among both male and female con- fashion to dissociative outgroups (Berger and Heath 2007,
sumers. For example, many proenvironmental messages 2008; White, Argo, and Sengupta 2012; White and Dahl
use font styles and colors that are more feminine than mas- 2006, 2007).
culine. In addition, many green marketing efforts target Prior research suggests that gender identity, which has
areas in which women tend to be more involved than men, been defined as the extent to which one identifies with being
such as cleaning, food preparation, family health, laundry, masculine or feminine, is an integral part of one’s self-
and domestic maintenance. More fundamentally, environ- concept (Fischer and Arnold 1994; Spence 1985) and serves
mentalism and conservationism reflect caring and nurtur- as the fundamental scaffolding that allows individuals to
ing of the environment, which are prototypical feminine process information about themselves and the world around
traits (Gilligan 1982; Tavris 1999; Watson 1994), and them (Bem 1981; Palan 2001). Moreover, because posses-
green consumers are rated as more cooperative, altruistic, sions and behaviors can act as signals of identity (Berger
and ethical than their nongreen counterparts (Mazar and and Heath 2007, 2008) and prompt inferences about per-
Zhong 2010, study 1). Finally, to the extent that women are sonal characteristics (Calder and Burnkrant 1977), gender
in fact more green than men, this association could simply identity can be maintained through one’s choices.
BROUGH ET AL. 569
The notion of gender-identity maintenance is consistent feminine association and its effect on social judgments
with the idea that self-discrepancies, which are inconsisten- and self-perception, men will be more likely than
cies between actual and desired self-views (Higgins 1987), women to avoid green products and behaviors, particu-
prompt compensatory actions. Indeed, threats to one’s mem- larly when their masculinity is threatened.
bership status in a meaningful group can lead to compen- While the basic thesis of our research is that men may be
satory efforts to reestablish ingroup status and restore a motivated to eschew green choices in order to maintain their
positive self-view. These efforts may include engaging in gender identity, there might be boundary conditions under
follow-up behaviors that are representative of the ingroup which men may be willing to be associated with green prod-
(Branscombe et al. 2002; Maass et al. 2003; Munsch 2012; ucts and behaviors in spite of their feminine connotation.
Schmitt and Branscombe 2001) and/or distancing oneself For example, prior research suggests that men may be more
from outgroup members (Branscombe et al. 1993; Maass likely to engage in an activity that is perceived as stereotypi-
et al. 2003; Quillian 1995; Tajfel and Turner 1986). In line cally feminine if their masculinity has been affirmed, but
with this, threatening men’s gender identity can lead to that they may be reluctant to do so when their masculinity
derogation of women and greater explicit identification has been threatened (Gal and Wilkie 2010). Building on this
with a masculine identity (Maass et al. 2003; Schmitt and research, we predict that when their masculine identity is af-
Branscombe 2001). The affirmation of group status, how- firmed, men will feel less compelled to reassert their mascu-
ever, can have the opposite effect. For instance, when mascu- linity through nongreen behaviors and will therefore be
linity had been previously affirmed through a self-reflection more open to engaging in environmentally friendly behav-
task, men were more inclined to choose prototypically femi- iors. We likewise predict that when the association between
nine food options that were listed in a menu (Gal and Wilkie greenness and femininity is weakened (e.g., through mascu-
2010; experiment 4). line branding), men will be more likely to engage in green
Interestingly, research suggests that men and women are (vs. nongreen) behaviors.
differentially sensitive to maintaining their gender identity. Across a series of seven studies, we test our hypotheses
In particular, men tend to be more attentive than women to that both men and women mentally associate greenness
maintaining their gender identity because they face greater with femininity, which leads them to stereotype green con-
penalties for gender-inconsistent transgressions (Bosson sumers as more feminine than nongreen consumers (studies
and Michniewicz 2013; Carter and McCloskey 1984; 1, 2, and 3), and that as a result of this green-feminine ste-
Martin 1990; McCreary 1994; Moller, Hymel, and Rubin reotype, men’s willingness to engage in green behavior is
1992). For instance, research has shown that boys are pun- sensitive to gender-related cues that threaten or affirm their
ished more severely than girls for displaying gender- gender identity or influence a brand’s gender associations
incongruent forms of play (Langlois and Downs 1980) and (studies 4, 5, 6A, and 6B). Together, these studies aim to
that gay men are perceived more negatively than lesbians provide support for our prediction that due to the prevalent
in various domains (Herek 2000). Further, research has cognitive link between greenness and femininity, gender-
shown that men experience greater psychological damage identity maintenance contributes to men’s relatively low
following gender-inconsistent behavior than women (Aubé engagement in green behaviors.
and Koestner 1992). Thus given the greater price they pay
for making gender-incongruent choices, men may be more
responsive to the subtle ways in which gender is often STUDY 1
cued, such as through colors, shapes, sounds, numbers, and
foods (Gal and Wilkie 2010). For instance, prior research The objective of study 1 was to test for an implicit cogni-
has found that men tend to avoid products associated with tive association between the concepts of greenness and femi-
female reference groups (White and Dahl 2006) and fear ninity. To do this, we used a Single Category Implicit
gender contamination of products and brands (Avery Association Test (SC-IAT; Karpinski and Steinman 2006) to
2012). measure participants’ implicit attitudes toward the perceived
gender-affiliation and greenness of products. The rationale
underlying the SC-IAT is that when asked to categorize
Hypothesis Development stimuli, participants will respond more quickly when paired
In accord with the notion that behavior is often categories match (vs. mismatch) their subjective mental rep-
guided by the need to maintain gender identity, particu- resentation. For example, if participants cognitively repre-
larly among male consumers, we posit that one plausi- sent green products as feminine, response latencies should
ble explanation for men’s avoidance of environmentally be shorter when the label “Female” is paired with the com-
friendly behaviors is that a pervasive mental association patible label “Environmentally Friendly” rather than the in-
exists between greenness and femininity, such that en- compatible label “Environmentally Unfriendly.” In a
gaging in green behaviors could threaten men’s mascu- separate SC-IAT, we examined the extent to which green-
line identity. Thus we predict that due to the green- ness is associated with masculinity.
570 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
individuals’ perceptions of the gender affiliations of these target’s gender was also observed; F(1, 190) ¼ 8.39,
traits (Hoffman and Borders 2001; Holt and Ellis 1998) p ¼ .004, g2p ¼ .04, such that the female target (M ¼ 2.40,
and our own pretesting. SD ¼ 1.04, N ¼ 95) was perceived as more feminine than
Following this task, participants were asked to guess the male target (M ¼ 2.04, SD ¼ .88, N ¼ 99). The interac-
what this study was designed to test. They then reported tion was not significant; F(1, 190) ¼ 2.42, p ¼ .12, g2p ¼ .01,
their age, gender, gender identity, interest in dating men, indicating that both male and female targets were judged as
interest in dating women, and indicated whether they were more feminine when they engaged in green (vs. nongreen)
currently single or in a relationship. behavior. Next, we examined whether the results were influ-
enced by participants’ gender, age, gender identity, interest
in dating men, interest in dating women, or relationship sta-
Results tus. Across all these demographics, participants seemed to
An analysis of responses to the hypothesis-guessing hold the same stereotypes about the heightened femininity
question showed that 21 participants explicitly linked gen- of consumers who engage in green behaviors; when these
der or gender stereotypes to environmental behavior. variables were included as covariates, the target’s gender
However, the pattern of results does not change when these and environmental behavior remained significant predictors
participants are excluded, so the analysis here includes the of femininity (p’s < .01) but none of the covariates was sig-
full set of respondents. Our between-participant manipula- nificant (p’s > .37).
tion of green versus nongreen behavior was successful; We then examined perceptions of the targets’ masculin-
participants in the two green conditions rated the trait eco- ity. The masculinity index also differed significantly across
friendly as more descriptive of the target (M ¼ 4.54, conditions, but this effect was driven entirely by the target’s
SD ¼ .68, N ¼ 94) than participants in the two nongreen gender, such that the male target (M ¼ 1.67, SD ¼ .74,
conditions (M ¼ 1.43, SD ¼ .88, N ¼ 100; t(192) ¼ 27.42, N ¼ 99) was perceived as more masculine than the female
p < .001). Conversely, participants in the two green condi- target (M ¼ 1.38, SD ¼ .63, N ¼ 95); F(1, 190) ¼ 8.52,
tions rated the trait wasteful as less descriptive of the target p < .01, g2p ¼ .04. There was neither a main effect of envi-
(M ¼ 1.07, SD ¼ .30) than participants in the two nongreen ronmental behavior; F(1, 190) ¼ .28, p ¼ .60, nor a signifi-
conditions (M ¼ 2.44, SD ¼ 1.09; t(192) ¼ 11.68, p < .001). cant interaction; F(1, 190) ¼ .70; p ¼ .40. The different
To test our prediction that the green target would be per- patterns observed for masculinity and femininity in this
ceived as more feminine than the nongreen target, we first study and in study 1 are consistent with prior research that
formed a femininity index by averaging the three feminine conceptualizes these constructs as independent rather than
traits (a ¼ .80) and a masculinity index by averaging the mutually exclusive (Hoffman and Borders 2001).
three masculine traits (a ¼ .76). The creation of these indi- Our claim is that because green behavior is cognitively
ces was supported by principal component exploratory fac- associated with femininity, targets who engage in green be-
tor analysis with oblique rotation (Promax), which showed havior will be perceived not only as more green, but also
that these six traits loaded on the two hypothesized factors, as more feminine. To test this claim, we examined whether
together explaining 71.2% of the total variance. Moreover, the effect of green versus nongreen behavior on a target’s
a confirmatory factor analysis with the same six traits on perceived femininity was mediated by perceptions of the
two factors yielded a chi-square residual of 413 (df ¼ 15, target’s eco-friendliness. For this analysis, we used the
p < .001), a goodness-of-fit index of .95, a root square femininity index as the dependent variable and a dummy
mean residual of .07, and a comparative fit index of .95. variable to indicate the type of environmental behavior
These statistics indicate a reasonable fit to the data, and the (1 ¼ Green; 0 ¼ Nongreen) as the independent variable.
/ coefficient of .25 provides evidence of discriminant va- The moderator was an eco-friendliness index we created
lidity. Each loading estimate was highly significant by averaging the wasteful (reverse-coded) and eco-friendly
(p < .001), and the .80 and .76 reliability of the feminine traits (a ¼ .71). Then, using Hayes’s (2013, model 4)
and masculine factors, respectively, was acceptable PROCESS macro, we found that the indirect effect of envi-
(table A in online appendix H shows the results of the fac- ronmental behavior through eco-friendliness was positive
tor analysis). Together, these results provide support for (B ¼ .59, SE ¼ .26) and statistically different from zero
the notion that ratings on these six traits adequately capture (95% confidence interval [CI], .12–1.12), thus providing
perceptions of a target’s masculinity versus femininity. evidence of the suggested mediation.
As expected, the femininity index differed significantly
based on the target’s environmental behavior;
F(1, 190) ¼ 44.00, p < .001, g2p ¼ .19, such that the green
Discussion
target (M ¼ 2.64, SD ¼ .90, N ¼ 94) was perceived as more Consistent with our predictions, results of study 2 showed
feminine than the nongreen target (M ¼ 1.82, SD ¼ .86, that consumers who engaged in green behavior were per-
N ¼ 100); table B in online appendix H lists the mean rat- ceived by both male and female participants as more femi-
ings for each trait. Not surprisingly, a main effect of the nine than consumers who engaged in nongreen behavior.
572 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
The fact that none of the covariates we measured in study 2 participant independent variables and participants’ self-
moderated the effect is consistent with the results of study 1 reported femininity score as the dependent variable.
in suggesting that the green-feminine association is preva- A marginal main effect of environmental behavior
lent across both genders. We argue that this association may emerged; F(1, 130) ¼ 2.94, p ¼ .09, g2p ¼ .02, such that
discourage men from engaging in green behaviors, particu- people reported feeling more feminine in the green condi-
larly if they are motivated to maintain a macho image and tion (M ¼ 3.84, SD ¼ 1.90, N ¼ 67) than in the nongreen
wish to avoid being stereotyped as feminine. condition (M ¼ 3.56, SD ¼ 2.04, N ¼ 64). A main effect of
participant gender also emerged; F(1, 130) ¼ 138.86,
p < .001, g2p ¼ .52, such that women (M ¼ 5.34, SD ¼ 1.36,
STUDY 3 N ¼ 55) reported feeling more feminine than men
Study 3 tests whether the green-feminine association can (M ¼ 2.51, SD ¼ 1.40, N ¼ 76). As expected, no interaction
affect not only social judgments about others but also self- between the two independent variables emerged; F(1,
perception. Central to our hypothesis that gender-identity 130) ¼ 1.23, p ¼ .27, g2p ¼ .01 indicating that both sexes
maintenance can affect sustainable consumption is the no- showed similar patterns in terms of femininity perceptions.
tion that the perception of one’s gender identity can be Next, the same analysis was conducted with participants’
influenced by environmentally friendly (vs. environmen- self-reported masculinity score as the dependent variable.
tally unfriendly) actions. Correlational data from a pretest The main effect of environmental action was nonsignificant;
(online appendix H offers details) showed that participants F(1, 130) ¼ 2.38, p ¼ .13, g2p ¼ .02, but a significant main
who indicated a higher [lower] degree of greenness per- effect of participant gender emerged; F(1, 130) ¼ 149.88,
ceived themselves as more [less] feminine, but in order to p < .001, g2p ¼ .54, such that women (M ¼ 2.40, SD ¼ 1.49,
argue that this association promotes gender-identity main- N ¼ 55) reported feeling less masculine than men
tenance, there must be evidence of a causal link between (M ¼ 5.31, SD ¼ 1.26, N ¼ 76). As expected, no interaction
recalling green behavior and feeling a heightened sense of emerged between the two independent variables;
femininity. Therefore, in this study we tested whether peo- F(1, 130) ¼ .04, p ¼ .84, indicating that both sexes showed
ple feel more feminine after being randomly assigned to re- similar patterns in terms of masculinity perceptions.
call a time that they performed a green versus nongreen
action.
Discussion
Method Whereas the findings of study 2 showed that people
Participants were 131 individuals (58.0% male; mean judge others who engage in green (vs. nongreen) behavior
age ¼ 35.21) recruited on Mechanical Turk (MTurk) to as more feminine, the findings of study 3 show that the
participate in an online study session. After completing an same stereotype is applied to perceptions of the self.
unrelated study, participants were randomly assigned to a Specifically, recalling green (vs. nongreen) behavior led to
green versus nongreen condition (between-participants) a higher self-perception of femininity among both men and
and prompted to recall and write about a time in which women. The similar patterns observed across male and fe-
they performed an action that was good [bad] for the envi- male participants in the first three studies suggest that the
ronment (online appendix C describes the stimuli). green-feminine association is held by both men and women
Following this task, participants indicated their gender and and that participants of both genders are influenced by this
then indicated on two separate scales the degree to which association as they make judgments about others’ feminin-
they felt masculine and feminine (1 ¼ Not at all to ity and about their own femininity.
7 ¼ Extremely). After completing other demographic infor- In the next four studies, we examine whether consumers’
mation (i.e., gender, age, race, and nationality), participants response to this prevalent green-feminine stereotype is a
were prompted to guess the purpose of the study. function of gender-identity maintenance by testing how con-
sumers’ likelihood to engage in sustainable behavior is
influenced by gender-related cues. Given the findings of
Results past research that men are more likely than women to be
Eleven participants correctly surmised that the environ- influenced by gender-identity maintenance motives (Bosson
mental writing task was related to the gender-identity per- and Michniewicz 2013; Carter and McCloskey 1984; Gal
ceptions. However, the pattern of results does not change and Wilkie 2010; Martin 1990; McCreary 1994; Moller
when these participants are excluded, so the analysis here et al. 1992), in study 4 we restrict our sample to men and
includes the full set of respondents. test whether a gender-identity threat will lead men to reas-
First, a univariate analysis of variance was run with the sert their masculinity through nongreen choices. In subse-
environmental action manipulation (green vs. nongreen) quent studies, we examine the extent to which women may
and participant gender (male vs. female) as the between- also be influenced by gender-identity maintenance motives.
BROUGH ET AL. 573
STUDY 4 two items (one green and one nongreen) and asked to
choose between them. The order in which each pair of
The objective of study 4 was to test whether a gender- items were presented was counterbalanced across partici-
identity threat can decrease men’s preference for green pants. Participants then provided their general attitude to-
products. If our theory is correct that men avoid green be- ward Walmart and completed demographic information
haviors in order to maintain their gender identity, then (i.e., nationality, first language, age, and gender).
choice of green (vs. nongreen) products should decrease in
response to threats that are specific to gender identity, but
not to other kinds of ego threats (e.g., an age-related Results
threat). Moreover, given the findings of studies 2 and 3 Although only mem had been recruited to participate in
that engaging in green behavior leads to greater percep- this study, 14 participants reported their gender as female
tions of femininity by both others and the self, we wanted and were therefore excluded. This left 389 participants for
to test whether the effect of a threat would differ in a public the analysis. The choice data were analyzed using a logit
versus private context. Although prior research has found model with threat type (gender vs. age) and shopping con-
that gender-identity threats have a greater effect on men’s text (public vs. private) as two between-participant vari-
public versus private behavior (White and Dahl 2006), the ables and product category as a repeated measure. Results
findings of study 3 that recalling green behavior can in- showed a main effect of threat type, such that across all
crease self-perceptions of femininity suggest that threats three product categories, participants were less likely to
may also influence private behavior. choose a green product following a gender threat
(M ¼ 41.9%, N ¼ 198) than an age threat (M ¼ 49.6%,
N ¼ 191); z ¼ 2.51, p < .01. In each of the three individual
Method product categories, the choice share of the green product
A total of 403 American men (mean age ¼ 32.68) were was lower following gender versus age threat. For batter-
recruited from MTurk to participate in the study. ies, this effect was significant (Mgender ¼ 35.9% vs.
Participants were randomly assigned to one of four condi- Mage ¼ 48.7%; v2(1) ¼ 6.57, p ¼ .01); for backpacks, the
tions in a 2 (threat type: gender vs. age) 2 (shopping con- effect was marginally significant (Mgender ¼ 28.8% vs.
text: public vs. private) between-participant design. All Mage ¼ 37.2%; v2(1) ¼ 3.10, p ¼ .08), and for lamps, the ef-
participants were instructed to imagine receiving a $150 fect was not significant (Mgender ¼ 61.1% vs.
gift card from coworkers with a note saying “we thought Mage ¼ 62.8%; v2(1) ¼ 0.12, p ¼ .73). There was no main
this card was perfect for you—happy birthday!” effect of shopping context (z ¼ .53, p ¼ .60), nor a signifi-
Next, participants were shown a Walmart gift card de- cant interaction between threat type and shopping context
signed to threaten their ego by making them feel either (z ¼ 1.03, p ¼ .30).
feminine (gender threat) or old (age threat). The gender-
threat card featured a floral design on a pink background
with the words “Happy Birthday” in a frilly font. The age-
Discussion
threat card featured a surprised emoji below the text Consistent with our theory that due to gender-identity
“You’re HOW Old?!” with the words “Happy Birthday” in maintenance, men’s environmental choices can be influ-
a standard font (online appendix D shows the stimuli). enced by gender cues, results showed that following a
Pretests showed that compared to the age-threat card, the gender-identity (vs. age) threat, men were less likely to
gender-threat card was perceived as more feminine; choose green products. The fact that shopping context did
t(185) ¼ 15.9, p < .001, and less masculine; t(185) ¼ 16.5, not appear to influence participants’ choices could be ex-
p < .001. The shopping context was manipulated by asking plained by the notion that men seek to maintain their gen-
participants in the public condition to think about how they der identity not only in public, but also in private, shopping
would feel taking the gift card to a store and handing it to contexts. Building on the findings of studies 2 and 3, this
the cashier. In contrast, participants in the private condition interpretation is consistent with the notion that men may be
were asked to think about how they would feel using the affected by both impression management and self-
gift card to shop online at home. On the following screen, perception concerns when making choices between green
to reinforce our manipulation and ensure that participants and nongreen products. Another possible explanation could
had paid attention to the threat, we asked participants to de- be that the subtlety of the shopping context manipulation
scribe the card’s appearance. or the hypothetical nature of the study caused participants
Next, participants were asked to imagine using the gift to underestimate the true impact of a public versus private
card to purchase three different products—a lamp, back- shopping context on their decisions. In any case, the signif-
pack, and batteries. Product descriptions were adapted icant main effect of threat type was consistent with our key
from Griskevicius, Tybur, and Van den Bergh (2010). prediction that a gender threat would be more likely than
Within each product category, participants were shown an age threat to lead men to avoid green products.
574 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
In the next study, we further examine the influence of Laboratory. The cover story further explained that in tests
gender-identity maintenance on sustainable choices by test- conducted with more than 12,000 participants, the algo-
ing whether affirming a man’s masculinity affects his pref- rithm was shown to be over 97% accurate in predicting
erence for a green (vs. nongreen) product. We also explore personal characteristics of the writer. Participants in the
how feeling more masculine will influence women’s likeli- masculine affirmation condition were informed that the
hood of engaging in green behavior. Considering that the analysis strongly indicated that they write more like a man
results of studies 1, 2, and 3 were not gender dependent than a woman, whereas participants in the control condi-
and were observed among women as well as men, it is tion were given no feedback. The idea for this feedback
plausible that the gender gap in environmental behavior manipulation was prompted by prior research that docu-
could be explained by a combination of both dissociative ments the use of an algorithm to guess an author’s gender
identity goals among men and associative identity goals based on a writing sample (Koppel, Argamon, and
among women (White et al. 2012). That is, perhaps men Shimoni 2002). After rating how masculine and feminine
shun green behaviors to avoid feeling feminine, but women they currently perceived themselves to be (1 ¼ Not at all to
seek out green behaviors in order to feel more feminine. 11 ¼ Extremely), participants were thanked and began a
However, it is also possible, considering the findings of purportedly separate study.
prior research that women are less motivated to maintain In the second part of our study, participants were asked
their gender identity than men (Bosson and Michniewicz to read about a new household drain cleaner, with green
2013; Carter and McCloskey 1984; Gal and Wilkie 2010; versus nongreen descriptions adapted from Newman,
Martin 1990; McCreary 1994; Moller et al. 1992), that Gorlin, and Dhar (2014). In the green condition, the prod-
while the green-feminine stereotype is prevalent among uct was described as being “better for the environment”
both men and women, it is more likely to influence the en- and in the nongreen condition, it was described as being
vironmental choices of men than women. “better at dissolving grease.” The remaining text was iden-
tical across conditions (online appendix E shows the
stimuli).
STUDY 5 Upon reading the description, participants were asked to
The objective of study 5 was to test whether masculine complete three measures of product preference
affirmation can differentially influence preferences for (1 ¼ Definitely wouldn’t try it, definitely wouldn’t buy it,
green products (vs. product preferences more generally). likely to be worse than current drain cleaner to
Building on the notion that self-affirmation can attenuate 9 ¼ Definitely would try it, definitely would buy it, likely
the impact of a social-identity threat (Gal and Wilkie to be better than current drain cleaner) and to provide a ra-
2010; White and Argo 2009), we reasoned that if our tionale for their ratings. Participants then rated how mascu-
theory is correct that men avoid green behaviors in order line and feminine they found the cleaner on two bipolar
to maintain their gender identity, then affirming their scales (1 ¼ Not at all feminine/masculine to 11 ¼ Very
masculinity should increase their comfort expressing a feminine/very masculine).
preference for green products. It was less clear to what To ascertain if participants suspected that the first half
extent women would be influenced by gender-identity of the study was meant to make them feel more masculine
motives. in order to see how that would impact their choices in the
second half of the study, participants were asked to hypoth-
esize the purpose of the studies. Specifically, they were
Method asked, “What do you think was the purpose of the two
A total of 472 participants (49.4% male; mean studies you conducted today? Be specific.” Finally, given
age ¼ 35.29) recruited from MTurk completed the study. that this study measured product preferences on an evalua-
The experiment involved a 2 (gender identity: control vs. tion scale, we wanted to capture individuals’ dispositional
masculinity affirmation) 2 (product type: green vs. non- tendency to have positive versus negative attitudes toward
green) 2 (participant gender: male vs. female) between- objects. Therefore, participants were asked to complete the
participant design, of which the former two factors were 16 item Dispositional Attitude Measure (DAM) (Hepler
randomly determined. The primary dependent variable was and Albarracin 2013). While this measure was primarily
product preference. included to control for individual variance, there is some
As a cover story, participants were informed that the evidence that dispositional attitudes vary by gender
study session consisted of two short unrelated studies being (Hepler and Albarracin 2013, study 2); thus including
conducted by two separate teams of researchers. In the first DAM as a covariate was also expected to help control for
study, participants were asked to write about what they did gender differences in product evaluations (particularly
the previous day and were informed that their writing sam- since gender was a factor in our experimental design that
ple would be analyzed in real time using a propriety algo- could not be randomly assigned). No other potential covar-
rithm developed by the National Linguistics Research iates were included.
BROUGH ET AL. 575
FIGURE 1
5
6.69
6.38 6.38
5.57
4
3
Male Participants Female Participants
NOTE.—In a no-feedback control, men preferred a green product less than women. However, following masculine affirmation, men’s preference for the green product
increased significantly.
FIGURE 2
MASCULINE BRANDING REDUCES MEN’S INHIBITIONS TO DONATE TO A GREEN NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION (STUDY 6A)
4.44
4.20
3 4.05
3.63
2
Male Participants Female Participants
NOTE.—Following exposure to conventional green branding, men were less likely than women to donate to a green nonprofit. However, following exposure to mascu-
line green branding, men and women were similarly likely to donate.
missions, but that the masculine-branded green organiza- perceived as similarly proenvironmental (M ¼ 6.29,
tion would be perceived as more masculine and less femi- SD ¼ .92 vs. M ¼ 6.46, SD ¼ .76); t(149) ¼ 1.27, p ¼ .21
nine than the conventional-branded green organization. (rated on 7 point scales from 1 ¼ Not at all to 7 ¼ Very
The perception of masculinity could be attributed to a com- much). There were no significant differences in these per-
bination of the more masculine color scheme, font, sym- ceptions by gender. In the main study, participants reported
bols (wild animal vs. tree), and word choice (wilderness they would feel more masculine wearing a T-shirt featuring
vs. nature). Although both symbols reflect the natural envi- the masculine-branded logo than a T-shirt featuring the
ronment and use the term “wilderness” or “nature” to refer conventional-branded logo (M ¼ 3.83, SD ¼ 1.62, N ¼ 163
to the unspoiled natural environment, we surmised that the vs. M ¼ 3.43, SD ¼ 1.55, N ¼ 159); t(320) ¼ 2.27, p ¼ .02;
former, being tied to the stereotypical male traits of adven- likewise, participants reported they would feel less femi-
ture seeking and nonconformity (Zuckerman and Kuhlman nine wearing a T-shirt featuring the masculine-branded
2000), would have a more masculine connotation. To as-
logo than a T-shirt featuring the conventional-branded logo
sess the impact of the difference in logos on participants’
(M ¼ 3.03, SD ¼ 1.50, N ¼ 163 vs. M ¼ 3.49, SD ¼ 1.58,
perceptions of the masculinity and femininity of the differ-
ent organizations, after indicating their likelihood of donat- N ¼ 159); t(320) ¼ 2.69, p < .01. Thus consistent with the
ing to the organization, participants were also asked to intent of our manipulations, the conventional-branded logo
indicate how masculine and how feminine they would feel was perceived as similarly proenvironmental, but more
wearing a T-shirt featuring the logo of the organization, feminine than the masculine-branded logo.
both on 7 point scales ranging from 1 ¼ Not at all to Our analysis revealed a main effect of participant gender
7 ¼ Extremely. on donation likelihood, such that women (M ¼ 4.33,
SD ¼ 1.72, N ¼ 131) were more likely to donate than men
(M ¼ 3.85, SD ¼ 1.67, N ¼ 191); F(1, 318) ¼ 6.27, p ¼ .01,
Results g2p ¼ .02. There was no main effect of branding, with a
Pretesting among 151 participants confirmed that the similar likelihood of donating to the conventional-branded
masculine- and conventional-branded organizations were (M ¼ 3.99, SD ¼ 1.63, N ¼ 159) and masculine-branded
578 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
Calder, Bobby J. and Robert E. Burnkrant (1977), “Interpersonal Test: I. An Improved Scoring Algorithm,” Journal of
Influence on Consumer Behavior: An Attribution Theory Personality and Social Psychology, 85 (2), 197–216.
Approach,” Journal of Consumer Research, 4 (1), 29–38. Griskevicius, Vladas, Joshua M. Tybur, and Bram Van den Bergh
Carter, D. Bruce and Laura A. McCloskey (1984), “Peers and the (2010), “Going Green to Be Seen: Status, Reputation, and
Maintenance of Sex-Typed Behavior: The Development of Conspicuous Conservation,” Journal of Personality and
Children’s Conceptions of Cross-Gender Behavior in Their Social Psychology, 98 (3), 392–404.
Peers,” Social Cognition, 2 (4), 294–314. Hayes, Andrew F. (2013), Introduction to Mediation, Moderation,
Corbett, Greville (1991), Gender, Cambridge, MA: Cambridge and Conditional Process Analysis, New York: Guilford Press.
University Press. Hepler, Justin and Dolores Albarracin (2013), “Attitudes Without
Cottrell, Stuart P. (2003), “Influence of Sociodemographics and Objects: Evidence for a Dispositional Attitude, Its
Environmental Attitudes on General Responsible Measurement, and Its Consequences,” Journal of Personality
Environmental Behavior Among Recreational Boaters,” and Social Psychology, 104 (6), 1060–76.
Environment and Behavior, 35 (3), 347–75. Herek, Gregory M. (2000), “Sexual Prejudice and Gender: Do
Davidson, Debra J. and Wiluam R. Freudenburg (1996), “Gender Heterosexuals’ Attitudes Toward Lesbians and Gay Men
and Environmental Risk Concerns: A Review and Analysis Differ?” Journal of Social Issues, 56 (2), 251–66.
of Available Research,” Environment and Behavior, 28 (3), Higgins, E. Tory (1987), “Self-Discrepancy: A Theory Relating
302–39. Self and Affect,” Psychological Review, 94 (3), 319–40.
Davies, Jim (2002), “Judgment Hot Type: Can Typography and Hoffman, Rose Marie and L. DiAnne Borders (2001), “Twenty-
Sex Live Together?” Design Week, 17 (49), 23–24. Five Years After the Bem Sex-Role Inventory: A
Dietz, Thomas, Linda Kalof, and Paul C. Stern (2002), “Gender, Reassessment and New Issues Regarding Classification
Values, and Environmentalism,” Social Science Quarterly, Variability,” Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling
83 (1), 353–64. and Development, 34 (1), 39–55.
Eisler, Anna D. and Hannes Eisler (1994), “Subjective Time Holt, Cheryl L. and Jon B. Ellis (1998), “Assessing the Current
Scaling: Influence of Age, Gender, and Type A and Type B Validity of the Bem Sex-Role Inventory,” Sex Roles, 39 (11-
Behavior,” Chronobiologia, 21 (3-4), 185–200. 12), 929–41.
Englis, Basil G. and Michael R. Solomon (1995), “To Be and Not Jung, Kiju, Sharon Shavitt, Madhu Viswanathan, and Joseph M.
to Be: Lifestyle Imagery, Reference Groups, and the Hilbe (2014), “Female Hurricanes Are Deadlier Than Male
Clustering of America,” Journal of Advertising, 24 (1), Hurricanes,” Proceedings of the National Academy of
13–28. Sciences, 111 (24), 8782–87.
Escalas, Jennifer Edson and James R. Bettman (2003), “You Are Kallgren, Carl A., Raymond R. Reno, and Robert B. Cialdini
What They Eat: The Influence of Reference Groups on (2000), “A Focus Theory of Normative Conduct: When
Consumers’ Connections to Brands,” Journal of Consumer Norms Do and Do Not Affect Behavior,” Personality and
Psychology, 13 (3), 339–48. Social Psychology Bulletin, 26 (8), 1002–12.
——— (2005), “Self-Construal, Reference Groups, and Brand Karpinski, Andrew and Ross B. Steinman (2006), “The Single
Meaning,” Journal of Consumer Research, 32 (3), 378–89. Category Implicit Association Test as a Measure of Implicit
Fischer, Eileen and Stephen J. Arnold (1994), “Sex, Gender Social Cognition,” Journal of Personality and Social
Identity, Gender Role Attitudes, and Consumer Behavior,” Psychology, 91 (1), 16–32.
Psychology and Marketing, 11 (2), 163–83. Kidwell, Blair, Adam Farmer, and David M. Hardesty (2013),
Fugate, Douglas L. and Joanna Phillips (2010), “Product Gender “Getting Liberals and Conservatives to Go Green: Political
Perceptions and Antecedents of Product Gender Congruence,” Ideology and Congruent Appeals,” Journal of Consumer
Journal of Consumer Marketing, 27 (3), 251–61. Research, 40 (2), 350–67.
Gal, David (2015), “Identity-Signaling Behavior,” in The Koppel, Moshe, Shlomo Argamon, and Anat Rachel Shimoni
Cambridge Handbook of Consumer Psychology, ed. Michael (2002), “Automatically Categorizing Written Texts by Author
I. Norton, Derek D. Rucker, and Cait Lamberton, New York: Gender,” Literary and Linguistic Computing, 17 (4), 401–12.
Cambridge University Press, 257–81. Langlois, Judith H. and A. Chris Downs (1980), “Mothers,
Gal, David and James Wilkie (2010), “Real Men Don’t Eat Fathers, and Peers as Socialization Agents of Sex-Typed Play
Quiche Regulation of Gender-Expressive Choices by Men,” Behaviors in Young Children,” Child Development, 51 (4),
Social Psychological and Personality Science, 1 (4), 1237–47.
291–301. Lee, Julie Anne and Stephen JS Holden (1999), “Understanding
Gilligan, Carol (1982), In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory the Determinants of Environmentally Conscious Behavior,”
and Women’s Development, Cambridge, MA: Harvard Psychology and Marketing, 16 (5), 373–92.
University Press. Levin, Gary (1990), “Consumers Turning Green: JWT Survey,”
Goldstein, Noah J., Robert B. Cialdini, and Vladas Griskevicius Advertising Age, 61 (12), 3–7.
(2008), “A Room with a Viewpoint: Using Social Norms to Maass, Anne, Mara Cadinu, Gaia Guarnieri, and Annalisa
Motivate Environmental Conservation in Hotels,” Journal of Grasselli (2003), “Sexual Harassment Under Social Identity
Consumer Research, 35 (3), 472–82. Threat: The Computer Harassment Paradigm,” Journal of
Greenwald, Anthony G., Debbie E. McGhee, and Jordan LK Personality and Social Psychology, 85 (5), 853–70.
Schwartz (1998), “Measuring Individual Differences in Martin, Carol Lynn (1990), “Attitudes and Expectations About
Implicit Cognition: The Implicit Association Test,” Journal Children with Nontraditional and Traditional Gender Roles,”
of Personality and Social Psychology, 74 (6), 1464–80. Sex Roles, 22 (3-4), 151–66.
Greenwald, Anthony G., Brian A. Nosek, and Mahzarin R. Banaji Mazar, Nina and Chen-Bo Zhong (2010), “Do Green Products Make
(2003), “Understanding and Using the Implicit Association Us Better People?” Psychological Science, 21 (4), 494–98.
582 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
McCreary, Donald R. (1994), “The Male Role and Avoiding Tight, Daniel (2006), “The Relationship Between Perceived
Femininity,” Sex Roles, 31 (9-10), 517–31. Gender in L1 English and Grammatical Gender in L2
McFerran, Brent, Darren W. Dahl, Gavan J. Fitzsimons, and Andrea Spanish,” in Selected Proceedings of the 7th Conference on
C. Morales (2010), “I’ll Have What She’s Having: Effects of the Acquisition of Spanish and Portuguese as First and
Social Influence and Body Type on the Food Choices of Second Languages, Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings,
Others,” Journal of Consumer Research, 36 (6), 915–29. 149–60.
Moisio, Risto, Eric J. Arnould, and James W. Gentry (2013), Tiller, LLC (2014), “Nationwide Survey Finds: Americans
“Productive Consumption in the Class-Mediated Believe Environmental Issues Pose Greater Long-Term
Construction of Domestic Masculinity: Do-It-Yourself (DIY) Threat to Their Health and Well-Being Than Terrorism or
Home Improvement in Men’s Identity Work,” Journal of Global Epidemics Like Ebola,” http://www.prnewswire.com/
Consumer Research, 40 (2), 298–316. news-releases/nationwide-survey-finds-americans-believe-en
Moller, Lora C., Shelley Hymel, and Kenneth H. Rubin (1992), vironmental-issues-pose-greater-long-term-threat-to-their-
“Sex Typing in Play and Popularity in Middle Childhood,” health-and-well-being-than-terrorism-or-global-epidemics-
Sex Roles, 26 (7-8), 331–53. like-ebola-300014118.html.
Munsch, Christin (2012), “Gender Identity Threat and Trudel, Remi, Jennifer J. Argo, and Matthew D. Meng (2016),
Compensation in Young American Men,” http://hdl.handle. “The Recycled Self: Consumers’ Disposal Decisions of
net/1813/31408. Identity-Linked Products,” Journal of Consumer Research,
Newman, George E., Margarita Gorlin, and Ravi Dhar (2014), 43 (2), 246–64.
“When Going Green Backfires: How Firm Intentions Shape Turner, John C. and Penelope J. Oakes (1986), “The Significance
the Evaluation of Socially Beneficial Product Enhancements,” of the Social Identity Concept for Social Psychology with
Journal of Consumer Research, 41 (3), 823–39. Reference to Individualism, Interactionism and Social
Palan, Kay M. (2001), “Gender Identity in Consumer Behavior Influence,” British Journal of Social Psychology, 25 (3),
Research: A Literature Review and Research Agenda,” 237–52.
Academy of Marketing Science Review, 10, 1–31. Wang, Jing, Rui Zhu, and Baba Shiv (2012), “The Lonely
Quillian, Lincoln (1995), “Prejudice as a Response to Perceived Consumer: Loner or Conformer?” Journal of Consumer
Group Threat: Population Composition and Anti-immigrant Research, 38 (6), 1116–28.
and Racial Prejudice in Europe,” American Sociological Watson, Carol (1994), “Gender Differences in Negotiating
Review, 60 (4), 586–611. Behavior and Outcomes: Fact or Artifact,” in Conflict and
R€aty, Riitta and A. Carlsson-Kanyama (2010), “Energy Gender, ed. Anita Taylor and Judi Beinstein Miller,
Consumption by Gender in Some European Countries,” Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press, 191–210.
Energy Policy, 38 (1), 646–49. White, Katherine and Jennifer J. Argo (2009), “Social Identity
Rozin, Paul, Julia M. Hormes, Myles S. Faith, and Brian Wansink Threat and Consumer Preferences,” Journal of Consumer
(2012), “Is Meat Male? A Quantitative Multimethod Psychology, 19 (3), 313–25.
Framework to Establish Metaphoric Relationships,” Journal White, Katherine, Jennifer J. Argo, and Jaideep Sengupta (2012),
of Consumer Research, 39 (3), 629–43. “Dissociative Versus Associative Responses to Social
Schmitt, Michael T. and Nyla R. Branscombe (2001), “The Good, Identity Threat: The Role of Consumer Self-Construal,”
the Bad, and the Manly: Threats to One’s Prototypicality and Journal of Consumer Research, 39 (4), 704–19.
Evaluations of Fellow In-group Members,” Journal of White, Katherine and Darren W. Dahl (2006), “To Be or Not Be?
Experimental Social Psychology, 37 (6), 510–17. The Influence of Dissociative Reference Groups on
Spence, Janet T. (1985), “Gender Identity and Its Implications for Consumer Preferences,” Journal of Consumer Psychology,
the Concepts of Masculinity and Femininity,” Psychology 16 (4), 404–14.
and Gender, 32, 59–96. ——— (2007), “Are All Out-Groups Created Equal? Consumer
Stafford, Edwin R. and Cathy L. Hartman (2012), “Making Green Identity and Dissociative Influence,” Journal of Consumer
More Macho,” Solutions Journal, 3 (4), 25–29. Research, 34 (4), 525–36.
Stoeffel, Kat (2014), “Nation’s Masculinity Intact Thanks to Coke Wolin, Lori D. (2003), “Gender Issues in Advertising—An
for ‘Bros’,” http://nymag.com/thecut/2014/08/nations-mascu Oversight Synthesis of Research: 1970–2002,” Journal of
linity-intact-with-bros-coke.html. Advertising Research, 43 (1), 111–29.
Tajfel, Henri and John C. Turner (1986), “The Social Identity Zelezny, Lynnette C., Poh-Pheng Chua, and Christina Aldrich
Theory of Intergroup Behavior,” in The Psychology of (2000), “Elaborating on Gender Differences in
Intergroup Relations, ed. Stephen Worshel and William G. Environmentalism,” Journal of Social Issues, 56 (3),
Austin, Chicago: Nelson-Hall, 276–93. 443–58.
Tavris, Carol (1999), “The Science and Politics of Gender Zuckerman, Marvin and D. Michael Kuhlman (2000),
Research: The Meanings of Difference,” Gender and “Personality and Risk-Taking: Common Bisocial Factors,”
Motivation, 45, 1–24. Journal of Personality, 68 (6), 999–1029.