The relationship between social status and green consumption is pivotal in addressing the climate crisis, yet previous research reveals conflicting perspectives. We analyze a nationally representative panel survey of more than 63,000 British respondents, tracking their green consumption, attitudes, and behaviors across multiple years. The findings reveal a previously unidentified S-shaped relationship between social status and green consumption, challenging existing models that propose inverted U-shaped, negative linear, or positive linear associations. This S curve demonstrates a gradual increase in green consumption at lower levels of social status, followed by a steep rise in the middle range and then a leveling off among the highest-status individuals. Crucially, this pattern persists even when we control for income, with high-status individuals exhibiting stronger proenvironmental attitudes and engaging more in nonpecuniary green behaviors. These findings offer insights for policymakers and marketers aiming to promote eco-friendly behaviors across socioeconomic segments.
AbrahamseW.StegL.VlekC.RothengatterT. (2005). A review of intervention studies aimed at household energy conservation. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25(3), 273–291.
2.
AndersonC.KrausM. W.GalinskyA. D.KeltnerD. (2012). The local-ladder effect: Social status and subjective well-being. Psychological Science, 23(7), 64–71.
3.
BellezzaS. (2023). Distance and alternative signals of status: A unifying framework. Journal of Consumer Research, 50(2), 322–342.
4.
BollenK.LennoxR. (1991). Conventional wisdom on measurement: A structural equation perspective. Psychological Bulletin, 110(2), 305–314.
5.
BrewerM. B. (1991). The social self: On being the same and different at the same time. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 475–482.
6.
BroughA. R.WilkieJ. E. B.MaJ.IsaacM. S.GalD. (2016). Is eco-friendly unmanly? The green-feminine stereotype and its effect on sustainable consumption. Journal of Consumer Research, 43(4), 567–582.
7.
CarfagnaL. B.DuboisE. A.FitzmauriceC.OuimetteM. Y.SchorJ. B.WillisM.LaidleyT. (2014). An emerging eco-habitus: The reconfiguration of high cultural capital practices among ethical consumers. Journal of Consumer Culture, 14(2), 158–178.
8.
ChatzitheochariS.ArberS. (2012). Class, gender, and time poverty: A time-use analysis of British workers’ free time resources. British Journal of Sociology, 63(3), 451–471.
9.
ChenS.YangS.ChenH. (2023). Nonmonotonic effects of subjective social class on pro-environmental engagement. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 90, 102098.
10.
Climate Change Committee. (2022). Progress in reducing emissions: 2022 Report to Parliament.
11.
DietzT.FitzgeraldA.ShwomR. (2005). Environmental values. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 30, 335–372.
12.
ElbækC. T.MitkidisP.AarøeL.OtterbringT. (2023). Subjective socioeconomic status and income inequality are associated with self-reported morality across 67 countries. Nature Communications, 14(1), 5453.
13.
ElHaffarG.DurifF.DubéL. (2020). Towards closing the attitude-intention-behavior gap in green consumption: A narrative review of the literature and an overview of future research directions. Journal of Cleaner Production, 275, 122556.
14.
GiffordR.NilssonA. (2014). Personal and social factors that influence pro-environmental concern and behavior: A review. International Journal of Psychology, 49(3), 141–157.
15.
GignacG. E.SzodoraiE. T. (2016). Effect size guidelines for individual differences researchers. Personality and Individual Differences, 102, 74–78.
16.
GleimM. R.SmithJ. S.AndrewsD.CroninJ. J.Jr. (2013). Against the green: A multi-method examination of the barriers to green consumption. Journal of Retailing, 89(1), 44–61.
17.
GriskeviciusV.TyburJ. M.Van den BerghB. (2010). Going green to be seen: Status, reputation, and conspicuous conservation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(3), 392–404.
18.
HawsK. L.WinterichK. P.Walker NaylorR. (2014). Seeing the world through green-tinted glasses: Green consumption values and responses to environmentally friendly products. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 24(3), 336–354.
19.
HofstedeG. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Sage.
20.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2018). Global warming of 1.5 oC. https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/
21.
KrausM. W.PiffP. K.Mendoza-DentonR.RheinschmidtM. L.KeltnerD. (2012). Social class, solipsism, and contextualism: How the rich are different from the poor. Psychological Review, 119(3), 546–572.
22.
LeavittK.MitchellT. R.PetersonJ. (2010). Theory pruning: Strategies to reduce our dense theoretical landscape. Organizational Research Methods, 13(4), 644–667.
23.
LeeS.WinterichK. P. (2022). The price entitlement effect: When and why high price entitles consumers to purchase socially costly products. Journal of Marketing Research, 59(6), 1141–1160.
24.
LevineD. S.StrubeM. (2012). Environmental attitudes, knowledge, intentions and behaviors among college students. Journal of Social Psychology, 153(3), 308–326.
MilfontT. L.EvansL.SibleyC. G.RiesJ.CunninghamA. (2014). Proximity to coast is linked to climate change belief. PLOS ONE, 9(7), Article e103180.
27.
MullainathanS.ShafirE. (2013). Scarcity: Why having too little means so much. Macmillan.
28.
NielsenK. S.NicholasK. A.CreutzigF.DietzT.SternP. C. (2021). The role of high-socioeconomic-status people in locking in or rapidly reducing energy-driven greenhouse gas emissions. Nature Energy, 6(11), 1011–1016.
29.
NoppersE. H.KeizerK.BolderdijkJ. W.StegL. (2014). The adoption of sustainable innovations: Driven by symbolic and environmental motives. Global Environmental Change, 25, 52–62.
30.
OluwadipeS.GarelickH.McCarthyS.PurchaseD. (2022). A critical review of household recycling barriers in the United Kingdom. Waste Management & Research, 40(7), 905–918.
31.
OttoI. M.KimK. M.DubrovskyN.LuchtW. (2019). Shift the focus from the super-poor to the super-rich. Nature Climate Change, 9(2), 82–84.
32.
ParkH. J.LinL. M. (2020). Exploring attitude–behavior gap in sustainable consumption: Comparison of recycled and upcycled fashion products. Journal of Business Research, 117, 623–628.
33.
RobertsJ. A. (1995). Profiling levels of socially responsible consumer behavior: A cluster analytic approach and its implications for marketing. Journal of Marketing Theory & Practice, 3(4), 97–118.
34.
SextonS. E.SextonA. L. (2014). Conspicuous conservation: The Prius halo and willingness to pay for environmental bona fides. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 67(3), 303–317.
35.
StegL.VlekC. (2009). Encouraging pro-environmental behavior: An integrative review and research agenda. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29(3), 309–317.
36.
SternP. C.DietzT.AbelT.GuagnanoG. A.KalofL. (1999). A value-belief-norm theory of support for social movements: The case of environmentalism. Human Ecology Review, 6(2), 81–97.
37.
TanJ. J.KrausM. W.CarpenterN. C.AdlerN. E. (2020). The association between objective and subjective socioeconomic status and subjective well-being: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 146(11), 970.
38.
ThorntonA. (2009). Public attitudes and behaviors towards the environment—Tracker survey: A report to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
39.
TierneyW.HardyJ. H. I.EbersoleC. R.LeavittK.ViganolaD.ClementeE. G.UhlmannE. L. (2020). Creative destruction in science. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 161, 291–309.
40.
WardM. K.Loughran DommerS.DahlD. W. (2019). Hurts so good: Status products that incur environmental costs are preferred by status striving consumers. In BagchiR.BlockL.LeeL. (Eds.), Advances in consumer research (pp. 51–56). Association for Consumer Research.
41.
WiedmannT.LenzenM.KeyßerL. T.SteinbergerJ. K. (2020). Scientists’ warning on affluence. Nature Communications, 11(1), 3107.
42.
YanL.KehH. T.ChenJ. (2021). Assimilating and differentiating: The curvilinear effect of social class on green consumption. Journal of Consumer Research, 47(6), 914–936.
43.
ZabkarV.HostaM. (2013). Willingness to act and environmentally conscious consumer behaviour: Can prosocial status perceptions help overcome the gap. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 37(3), 257–264.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
