Advertisement

“Sharing is Caring”: About Personal Values Driving Environmentally Friendly Behavior

  • Sarah SelinkaEmail author
  • Vanessa Reit
  • Natalie de Jong
Conference paper
Part of the Developments in Marketing Science: Proceedings of the Academy of Marketing Science book series (DMSPAMS)

Abstract

Carsharing could be one opportunity to counteract the problem of raising CO2 emissions. Despite its positive environmental effects, Carsharing still has potential for greater usage by the broad public. It can be assumed that advertisement plays an important role by providing Carsharing advantages. By combining an eye tracking analysis with standardized interviews of 39 German consumers, we evaluate if consumers who consider themselves as “sustainable” perceive sustainable communication (slogans and icons) differently from those consumers without a “sustainable attitude.” The Mann-Whitney U test for statistical analysis did not find any significant differences between the two groups of biospheric/altruistic and egoistic/hedonistic persons. Therefore, findings reject the use of adapted communication strategies for specific target groups regarding Carsharing. Furthermore, results indicate the importance of advertisement elements that symbolize biospheric values.

Keywords

Carsharing Value orientations Eye tracking Advertisement design Environmentally significant behavior (ESB) 

References

  1. Bardi, A., & Schwartz, S. H. (2003). Values and behavior: Strength and structure of relations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 1207–1220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Belz, F.-M. (2001). Integratives Öko-Marketing. Erfolgreiche Vermarktung sozial-ökologischer Produkte und Leistungen. Wiesbaden: Gabler.Google Scholar
  3. Belz, F.-M., & Peattie, K. (2010). Sustainability marketing. A global perspective. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  4. Bilharz, M. (2009). Key points nachhaltigen Konsums. Marburg: Metropolis.Google Scholar
  5. Corraliza, J. A., & Berenguer, J. (2000). Environmental values, beliefs, and actions. A situational approach. Environment and Behavior, 32, 832–848.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. De Groot, L., & Steg, J. (2008). Value orientations to explain beliefs related to environmental significant behavior. Environment and Behavior, 40(3), 330–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Duchowski, A. (2007). Eye tracking methodology, theory and practice. London: Springer.Google Scholar
  8. Firnkorn, J., & Müller, M. (2011). What will be the environmental effects of new free-floating car-sharing systems? The case of car2go in Ulm. Ecological Economics, 70(8), 1519–1528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Garcia, M. M., & Greenwood, K. (2015). Visualizing CSR: A visual framing analysis of US multinational companies. Journal of Marketing Communications, 21(3), 167–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Glotz-Richter, M. (2012). Car-sharing—“Car-on-call” for reclaiming street space. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 48, 1454–1463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hausman, J. A. (1993). Contingent valuation: A critical assessment. Amsterdam: North-Holland.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1984). Using eye fixations to study reading comprehension. In D. E. Kieras & M. A. Just (Eds.), New methods in reading comprehension research (pp. 151–182). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  13. Karp, D. G. (1996). Values and their effects on pro-environmental behavior. Environment and Behavior, 28, 111–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lesemann, E., & Wilms, U. (2007). Reliabilität von Eye Tracking-Untersuchungen: Wie viele Probanden werden benötigt? In H. Brau & K. Röse (Eds.), Tagungsband UP07 (pp. 35–40). Stuttgart: Fraunhofer Verlag.Google Scholar
  15. Martin, E. W., & Shaheen, S. (2011). Greenhouse gas emission impacts of carsharing in North America. IEEE Transactions of Intelligent Transportation System, 12(4), 1074–1086.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Meffert, H., Burmann, C., & Kirchgeorg, M. (2008). Marketing, Grundlagen marktorientierter Unternehmensführung. Wiesbaden: Gabler.Google Scholar
  17. Nielsen, J., & Pernice, K. (2010). Eye tracking web usability. Berkeley: Nielsen Norman Group.Google Scholar
  18. Nordlund, A. M., & Garvill, J. (2002). Value structures behind proenvironmental behavior. Environment and Behavior, 34, 740–756.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Öko-Institut e.V. (Eds.) (2011). Autos unter Strom. Retrieved October 30, 2016 from www.oeko.de/oekodoc/1283/2011-413-de.pdf
  20. Salvucci, D. D., & Goldberg, J. H. (2000). Identifying fixations and saccades in eye-tracking protocols. In Proceedings of the eye tracking research and applications symposium (pp. 71–78). New York: ACM Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Schwatz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structures of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In: M. Zanna (ed.). Advances in Experimental Psychology, vol 25, Orlando, FL, Academic Press, 1–65.Google Scholar
  22. Shaheen, S., Cohen, A., & Roberts, J. D. (2006). Carsharing in North America: Market growth, current developments, and future potential. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 1986, 116–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Steg, L., Perlaviciute, G., van der Werff, E., & Lurvink, J. (2014). The significance of hedonic values for environmentally relevant attitudes, preferences, and actions. Environment and Behav-ior, 46(2), 163–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Stern, P. C. (2000). Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behaviour. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 407–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Wedel, M., & Pieters, R. (2008). Eye tracking for visual marketing. Delft: now Publishers Inc.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Academy of Marketing Science 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Baden-Wuerttemberg Cooperative State UniversityStuttgartGermany
  2. 2.Bertrandt Ingenieurbüro GmbHMunichGermany

Personalised recommendations