0
Research Papers: Design Theory and Methodology

Exploring the Effects of a Product's Sustainability Triggers on Pro-Environmental Decision-Making

[+] Author and Article Information
Jinjuan She

The MathWorks,
Natick, MA 01760
e-mail: shejinjuan@gmail.com

Erin F. MacDonald

Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Stanford University,
Stanford, CA 94305
e-mail: erinmacd@stanford.edu

Contributed by the Design Theory and Methodology Committee of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF MECHANICAL DESIGN. Manuscript received September 9, 2016; final manuscript received September 7, 2017; published online November 10, 2017. Assoc. Editor: Harrison M. Kim.

J. Mech. Des 140(1), 011102 (Nov 10, 2017) (13 pages) Paper No: MD-16-1629; doi: 10.1115/1.4038252 History: Received September 09, 2016; Revised September 07, 2017

The gap between consumers saying that they want and selecting sustainable products can be addressed through product design. Our previous research proposed a method for creating visible product features that trigger pro-environmental behavior in consumers, termed sustainability triggers (STs). The study below designed two experiments to mimic real-world decision scenarios and demonstrated that exposure to these STs caused pro-environmental behavior in two test versus control experiments. The experiments used both realistic prototypes and images of toasters. In experiment 1, a qualitative preference-elicitation method demonstrated that exposure to STs increased thoughts of sustainability—related decision criteria. In experiment 2, subjects' prioritization of “hidden” sustainability-related attributes, shipping method and energy usage, was higher if exposed to the STs. This was indicated by choice, information search, importance rating, and eye tracking. Thus, the novel design method to create product STs is demonstrated effective in the test case and has the potential to broadly benefit the success of sustainable products in the market.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2017 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Vining, J. , Ebreo, A. , Bechtel, R. B. , and Churchman, A. , 2002, “ Emerging Theoretical and Methodological Perspectives on Conservation Behavior,” Handbook of Environmental Psychology, Wiley, New York, pp. 541–558.
Bennett, J. , and Blamey, R. , 2001, The Choice Modelling Approach to Environmental Valuation, Anonymous ed., Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, Northhampton, MA.
Soskin, M. , and Squires, H. , 2013, “ Homeowner Willingness to Pay for Rooftop Solar Electricity Generation,” Environ. Econ., 4(1), pp. 102–111. https://businessperspectives.org/journals/environmental-economics/issue-218/homeowner-willingness-to-pay-for-rooftop-solar-electricity-generation
Schubert, R. , and Stadelmann, M. , 2015, “ Energy-Using Durables—Why Consumers Refrain From Economically Optimal Choices,” Front. Energy Res., 3, p. 7.
MacDonald, E. F. , Gonzalez, R. , and Papalambros, P. , 2009, “ The Construction of Preferences for Crux and Sentinel Product Attributes,” J. Eng. Des., 20(6), pp. 609–626. [CrossRef]
O'Rourke, D. , and Ringer, A. , 2016, “ The Impact of Sustainability Information on Consumer Decision Making,” J. Ind. Ecology, 20(4), pp. 882–892. [CrossRef]
Bao, Q. , Shaukat, M. M. , Elantary, A. , and Yang, M. C. , 2016, “ Eco-Feedback Designs: A Balance Between the Quantitative and the Emotional,” ASME Paper No. DETC2016-59376.
Slovic, P. , 1995, “ The Construction of Preference,” Am. Psychol., 50(5), pp. 364–371. [CrossRef]
Goucher-Lambert, K. , and Cagan, J. , 2015, “ The Impact of Sustainability on Consumer Preference Judgments of Product Attributes,” ASME J. Mech. Des., 137(8), p. 081401. [CrossRef]
MacDonald, E. F. , Whitefoot, K. , Allison, J. T. , Papalambros, P. Y. , and Gonzalez, R. , 2010, “ An Investigation of Sustainability, Preference, and Profitability in Design Optimization,” ASME Paper No. DETC2010-29055.
MacDonald, E. , and She, J. , 2015, “ Seven Cognitive Concepts for Successful Eco-Design,” J. Cleaner Prod., 92, pp. 23–36. [CrossRef]
D'Souza, C. , 2004, “ Ecolabel Programmes: A Stakeholder (Consumer) Perspective,” Corp. Commun.: An Int. J., 9(3), pp. 179–188. [CrossRef]
Krishna, A. , and Morrin, M. , 2008, “ Does Touch Affect Taste? The Perceptual Transfer of Product Container Haptic Cues,” J. Consum. Res., 34(6), pp. 807–818. [CrossRef]
Krishna, A. , 2012, “ An Integrative Review of Sensory Marketing: Engaging the Senses to Affect Perception, Judgment and Behavior,” J. Consum. Psychol., 22(3), pp. 332–351. [CrossRef]
Lwin, M. O. , Morrin, M. , and Krishna, A. , 2010, “ Exploring the Superadditive Effects of Scent and Pictures on Verbal Recall: An Extension of Dual Coding Theory,” J. Consum. Psychol., 20(3), pp. 317–326. [CrossRef]
Sayin, E. , Krishna, A. , Ardelet, C. , Briand Decré, G. , and Goudey, A. , 2015, “ ‘Sound and Safe’: The Effect of Ambient Sound on the Perceived Safety of Public Spaces,” Int. J. Res. Mark., 32(4), pp. 343–353. [CrossRef]
Cian, L. , Krishna, A. , and Elder, R. S. , 2015, “ A Sign of Things to Come: Behavioral Change Through Dynamic Iconography,” J. Consum. Res., 41(6), pp. 1426–1446. [CrossRef]
Sengupta, J. , and Gorn, G. J. , 2002, “ Absence Makes the Mind Grow Sharper: Effects of Element Omission on Subsequent Recall,” J. Mark. Res., 39(2), pp. 186–201. [CrossRef]
Tybout, A. M. , and Hauser, J. R. , 1981, “ A Marketing Audit Using a Conceptual-Model of Consumer Behavior: Application and Evaluation,” J. Mark., 45(3), pp. 82–101. [CrossRef]
Withanage, C. , Ashok, R. , Hölttä-Otto, K. , and Otto, K. , 2014, “ Identifying and Categorizing Opportunities for Design for Sustainable User Behavior,” ASME Paper No. DETC2014-34798.
Hauser, J. R. , 1978, “ Testing the Accuracy, Usefulness, and Significance of Probabilistic Choice Models: An Information-Theoretic Approach,” Oper. Res., 26(3), pp. 406–421. [CrossRef]
Long, M. , and Ross Morrow, W. , 2015, “ Should Optimal Designers Worry about Consideration?,” ASME J. Mech. Des., 137(7), p. 071411. [CrossRef]
She, J. , 2013, “ Designing Features That Influence Decisions About Sustainable Products,” Ph.D. thesis, Iowa State University, Ames, IA. http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/etd/13584/
She, J. , and MacDonald, E. , 2014, “ Priming Designers to Communicate Sustainability,” ASME J. Mech. Des., 136(1), p. 011001. [CrossRef]
Payne, J. W. , Bettman, J. R. , and Johnson, E. J. , 1992, “ Behavioral Decision Research: A Constructive Processing Respective,” Annu. Rev. Psychol., 43, pp. 87–131. [CrossRef]
Mandel, N. , and Johnson, E. J. , 2002, “ When Web Pages Influence Choice: Effects of Visual Primes on Experts and Novices,” J. Consum. Res., 29(2), pp. 235–245. [CrossRef]
Haubl, G. , and Murray, K. B. , 2003, “ Preference Construction and Persistence in Digital Marketplaces: The Role of Electronicrecommendation Agents,” J. Consum. Psychol., 13(1–2), pp. 75–91. [CrossRef]
Brown, C. L. , and Carpenter, G. S. , 2000, “ Why Is the Trivial Important? A Reasons-Based Account for the Effects of Trivial Attributes on Choice,” J. Consum. Res., 26(4), pp. 372–385. [CrossRef]
Chen, H. Q. , Honda, T. , and Yang, M. C. , 2013, “ Approaches for Identifying Consumer Preferences for the Design of Technology Products: A Case Study of Residential Solar Panels,” ASME J. Mech. Des., 135(6), p. 061007. [CrossRef]
Jansen, S. J. T. , Coolen, H. C. C. H. , and Goetgeluk, R. W. , 2011, Discussion and Directions for Future Research, the Measurement and Analysis of Housing Preference and Choice, Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, pp. 253–264.
Park, Y.-H. , Ding, M. , and Rao, V. R. , 2008, “ Eliciting Preference for Complex Products: A Web-Based Upgrading Method,” J. Mark. Res., 45(5), pp. 562–574. [CrossRef]
Srinivasan, V. , 1988, “ A Conjunctive-Compensatory Approach to the Self-Explication of Multiattributed Preferences,” Decis. Sci., 19(2), pp. 295–305. [CrossRef]
de Medeiros, J. F. , and Ribeiro, J. L. D. , 2017, “ Environmentally Sustainable Innovation: Expected Attributes in the Purchase of Green Products,” J. Cleaner Prod., 142(Pt. 1), pp. 240–248. [CrossRef]
Ding, M. , Hauser, J. R. , Dong, S. , Dzyabura, D. , Yang, Z. , Su, C. , and Gaskin, S. P. , 2011, “ Unstructured Direct Elicitation of Decision Rules,” J. Mark. Res., 48(1), pp. 116–127. [CrossRef]
Hauser, J. R. , Dahan, E. , Yee, M. , and Orlin, J. , 2006, “ ‘Must Have’ Aspects Vs. Tradeoff Aspects in Models of Customer Decisions,” Sawtooth Software Conference, Del Ray Beach, FL, Mar. 29--31, pp. 169–181. http://www.mit.edu/~hauser/Papers/Greedoid%20Sawtooth%20Conference%20Paper%2006_19_06.pdf
Wang, M. , and Chen, W. , 2015, “ A Data-Driven Network Analysis Approach to Predicting Customer Choice Sets for Choice Modeling in Engineering Design,” ASME J. Mech. Des., 137(7), p. 071410. [CrossRef]
Orsborn, S. , Cagan, J. , and Boatwright, P. , 2009, “ Quantifying Aesthetic Form Preference in a Utility Function,” ASME J. Mech. Des., 131(6), p. 061001. [CrossRef]
Hauser, J. R. , and Rao, V. R. , 2004, Conjoint Analysis, Related Modeling, and Applications, Advances in Markeing Research: Progress and Prospects, Kluwer Academic, Norwell, MA, pp. 141–168.
Hauser, J. R. , Ding, M. , and Gaskin, S. P. , 2009, “ Non-Compensatory (and Compensatory) Models of Consideration-Set Decisions,” Sawtooth Software Conference, Delray Beach, FL, Mar. 25–-27, pp. 207–232. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.499.1017&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Dzyabura, D. , Jagabathula, S. , and Muller, E. , 2016, “ Using Online Preference Measurement to Infer Offline Purchase Behavior,” Marketing Sci., in press. http://people.stern.nyu.edu/ddzyabur/index_files/DzyaburaJagabathulaMuller2017.pdf
She, J. , and MacDonald, E. , 2013, “ Trigger Features on Prototypes Increase Preference for Sustainability,” ASME Paper No. DETC2013-12973.
Goucher-Lambert, K. , Moss, J. , and Cagan, J. , 2017, “ Inside the Mind: Using Neuroimaging to Understand Moral Product Preference Judgments Involving Sustainability,” ASME J. Mech. Des., 139(4), p. 041103. [CrossRef]

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

(a) Tybout and Hauser's [19] consumer behavior model, and (b) the adaptation to the study-at-hand

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Sustainability triggers: (a) flip-cover to retain heat, (b) two bread-depressing levers, (c) power-save button, (d) embossed leaf pattern, and (e) power levels on dial

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Toasters as shown in a decision task, test condition (STs on some toasters)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Experimental flow for the main procedures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

For the email task, (a) more test subjects Yes/Pos mention sustainability; (b) test subjects Yes/Pos mention sustainability more frequently; error bars show±1 standard error

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Example information card from experiment 2, shown with toaster images/prototypes. Note hidden sustainability information on shipping method and energy usage.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

An illustration for task 3: (a) The attribute information of a pair that cannot be obtained directly by visual inspection of the physical prototypes is concealed under strips of paper. (b) After a subject ranks the attributes, the first three attributes in the subject's rank are revealed: (a) attribute configurations are concealed and (b) top three attribute configurations are revealed.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

An example of the AOIs generated for a stimulus

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Sustainable toasters are more likely to be selected in the test condition, i.e., H1 is marginally supported (p < 0.1, compare test to control)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Average ranking of each attribute in revealed information task. Sustainable attribute average ranking is higher in the test condition (“*” p < 0.05. H3)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

The presence of STs increases importance of and attention to sustainable attributes (“.” p < 0.1, “*” p < 0.05, error bars show ±1 standard error): (a) attention to sustainable attributes is greater in the test condition, eye-tracking task (H4 and H5) and (b) Δimportance of sustainable attributes relative to other nonsustainable attributes is greater in the test condition (H6)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Nominal logistic regressions reveal that hypothesis H1 is strongly supported by choice in pair 3 (“*” p < 0.05)

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In