A Theory of Planned Behavior Approach to Prosocial Consumption Behaviors:

Incorporating Egoism as Motivation

By Spencer M. Ross

Submitted for PSYC 661

Prof. Icek Ajzen

21 December 2010

1

A Theory of Planned Behavior Approach to Prosocial Consumption Behaviors:

Incorporating Egoism as Motivation

The Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA; Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975) and the Theory of

Planned Behavior (TPB; Ajzen, 1985) have been seminal theories in the development of research

that links attitudes and behaviors. In particular, several studies have incorporated these theories

to predict prosocial behaviors—behaviors that have a positive impact on society, often through

outcomes that create positive benefits to others. Nonetheless, other studies have noted that

reasoned action approaches are limited in predicting behaviors; although they capture cognitive

reasoning, they fail to fully incorporate an individual’s affect toward the behavior (Mischel and

Shoda, 1995).

In this paper, I propose that the role of affect—with regard to prosocial behaviors—can

be captured using a new construct of egoism. Egoism is an affective motivational factor that

leads an individual to perform prosocial consumption behaviors. This proposed construct of

egoism serves to explain prosocial behaviors that simultaneously benefit both the self and others.

Contributing to this higher-order construct are dimensions of altruism (other-benefit) and

hedonism (self-benefit). Individuals face both affective and cognitive tradeoffs between their

other- and self-benefitting behaviors and utilize these dimensions in making such tradeoffs. In

the case of egoism however, these tradeoffs occur instantaneously and in conjunction with other

antecedents of behavioral intention, as predicted in the TPB model.

The goal of this paper is to extend the TPB model using this new construct of egoism,

thereby filling a significant gap in predicting prosocial behavioral intentions (and subsequently,

behavioral outcomes). In doing so, the new model should explain a larger proportion of variance

than is captured by the current model. The first part of the paper provides a brief outline of the

2

TPB model as an established basis of predicting behavioral intentions. Next, the proposed

construct of egoism is introduced along with a brief literature review of its component

dimensions. Finally, a conceptual model is developed, linking egoism with TPB dimensions in

predicting prosocial consumption intentions and their subsequent behaviors. By capturing the

affective component that motivates behavioral intentions, the egoism construct will help bolster

the predictive validity of the TPB model with regards to the domain of prosocial consumption

behaviors.

Theories of Reasoned Action

Several studies have approached the prediction of specific prosocial consumer behaviors

from a reasoned action approach. Contexts for using reasoned action approaches have included

―green consumerism‖ (Sparks and Shepherd, 1992; Minton and Rose, 1997) and charitable

giving (Konkoly and Perloff, 1990; Smith and McSweeney, 2007). In addition, Irwin and Naylor

(2009) discussed the relevance of ethical values and product attributes for different types of

consumption. Throughout the attitudes-behavior literature, there is a prevailing theme that

various components of identity influence the beliefs (and subsequently, the attitudes) that lead to

specific behaviors.

The theory of reasoned action (TRA; Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975) looks at behavioral

intentions as direct antecedents of the engagement in a particular behavior. The direct

antecedents that develop those behavioral intentions are the attitudes toward the behavior and the

subjective norms. The attitude toward the behavior represents beliefs about the likely

consequences of the behavior; the subjective norms are the perceived external pressures to

engage in the specific behavior. Both of these antecedents of behavioral intentions are best

3

represented by the expectancy-value model (Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975), wherein attitudes are

determined by a summated interaction between a belief probability of an outcome and an

evaluative component of that outcome. The model is represented in the following equation:

,

where, A represents the attitude toward the behavior, b represents a belief probability of outcome

i, and e represents an evaluation of outcome i. A similar expectancy-value function represents

the normative beliefs about engaging in a behavior (Eagly and Chaiken, 1993):

,

where, SN represents the subjective norm about the behavior, n represents a normative belief of

outcome i, and m represents a motivation to comply with the norm. Changing attitudes requires

a manipulation of the set of salient beliefs that motivate both particular attitudes and subjective

norms; this manipulation subsequently modifies the antecedent conditions of a behavioral

intention.

Ajzen later proposed a Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB; 1985, 1991), which added an

individual’s perceived volitional ability to engage in a behavior, similar to the self-efficacy

theory proposed by Bandura (1977, 1982). This behavioral control also follows the similar

summated interactive function, wherein:

,

where, PBC represents the perceived behavioral control of performing a behavior, c represents

the perceived frequency of occurrence of outcome i, and p represents the power of the control

belief.

When a person accurately assesses his perceived ability to carry out an action, develops

an attitude towards the behavior, and perceives whether people important to him approve of the

4

behavior, the three antecedents should provide good predictions of his behavioral intentions

(Conner and Sparks, 2005). Since the influence of perceived behavioral control on behavior is

partially mediated by behavioral intent, there may be a difference between a person’s perceived

ability to perform a behavior and their actual ability to perform that behavior (Sheeran and

Orbell, 1999; Ajzen and Cote, 2008). Furthermore, Gollwitzer and Sheeran (2006) performed a

meta-analysis (N = 63 articles, 91 tests) that found implementation of intentions promote goal

achievement. However, reasons why intentions may not lead to behaviors include attitude

strength and attitude accessibility with respect to the principle of compatibility (Ajzen and

Fishbein, 1977; Ajzen 1988).

A meta-analysis by Armitage and Conner (2001) (N = 161 articles, 185 TPB tests)

demonstrates sufficient efficacy of the TPB model, despite questions of the operational impact of

PBC in a reasoned action model. Since consumption in the marketing context requires a pure

value-exchange (Bagozzi, 1975), the function of the PBC component may be limited—either an

individual has the goods or services to offer for exchange or he doesn’t. In fact, several studies

suggest additional limitations of reasoned action models, due to their exclusion of affect and

personality (Triandis, 1977; Richard, van der Pligt, and de Vries, 1996; Conner and Abraham,

2001).

Regardless, the TPB model is useful for studying how attitudes affect prosocial

consumption behaviors because it provides a framework for exploring the concept of attitude-

behavior consistency within a subset of behavior types. Studies of prosocial behavior often run

into a problem of social desirability bias, which may be explained by Bem’s self-perception

theory (1967, 1972). This theory suggests that counter-attitudinal behaviors force changes in the

underlying attitudes of the behavior, eliciting attitudes that are congruent with the behavior itself.

5

Self-image congruency theory suggests that individuals prefer to interact with products that fit

with their self-image, and they tend to hold more favorable attitudes towards these products

(Sirgy et al., 1997). As the new egoism construct is largely born out of antecedent conditions in

social and moral identity theories (Tajfel and Turner, 1979; Oakes and Turner, 1980; Abrams

and Hogg, 1988; Kohlberg, 1969; Blasi, 1983; Hoffman, 2000; Aquino and Reed, 2002),

discussions of prosocial consumption must incorporate both altruistic and hedonistic affect

toward these prosocial consumption behaviors and how the behaviors fit with self-image.

It is important to examine the extent to which the egoism construct can influence

prosocial consumption behaviors by using beliefs and attitudes to predict behavioral intentions

and subsequently, behaviors themselves. Therefore attitudes, subjective norms, and perceptions

of control are derived from an individual’s set of salient beliefs and affectively associated with

the egoism construct. By conceptualizing an extended TPB model that captures affect to

stimulate attitude-behavior consistency in prosocial consumption contexts, we may then

determine how consistent prosocial consumption attitudes may predict prosocial consumption

behaviors.

In order to understand how egoism contributes to increasing the proportion of variance

explained by the TPB model, the next section defines the proposed construct and provides a brief

literature review of its dimensional components. This follows with a discussion of an extended

TPB model that incorporates egoism, thereby increasing the model’s predictive validity, and

provides propositions for future empirical testing.

Literature Review of Egoism as Motivation for Prosocial Consumption Behavior

6

Although prosocial behavior has been mildly addressed in previous marketing literature

(Osterhus, 1997), more often than not, it has been regarded solely through the lens of altruism

and charitable donations or volunteerism; it is therefore difficult to discuss the development of

the egoism construct without acknowledging research on its coincidental counterpart: altruism.

According to Batson et al. (1987), altruism itself may be a special form of egoism wherein the

benefits of prosocial actions are self-administered, rather than socially-administered. However,

since normal consumption contexts tend to rely heavily on an assumption of need-satisfaction

(utility), a definition of egoism and development of egoistic theory would help frame need-

satisfaction in terms of an individual’s utility.

As defined below, egoism is a prosocial motivation that primarily results in behaviors

that benefit the self (self-benefit). As contemporary consumer society places more emphasis on

the self, it is important that marketers understand how self-benefitting behaviors can be tied to

understanding other marketing issues. In particular, the recent research on social responsibility

has assessed the congruency between prosocial attitudes and prosocial behaviors in the consumer

domain (Ehrich and Irwin, 2005). Nonetheless, differentiating between altruism and egoism

adds complexity to these structural relationships and further enriches prior research on the effects

of prosocial behavior on consumer behavior. I propose a definition of the egoism construct that

relates to the consequences of these prosocial behaviors as follows:

Egoism is a construct that explains prosocial behaviors as both self- and other-benefitting,

reinforcing an individual’s social and moral identities. These identities dictate that an

individual makes moral tradeoffs to engage in behaviors that are generated by both positive and

negative affect, however individuals who express higher tendencies to increase their own

7

happiness will engage in prosocial behaviors that are egoistic. High levels of egoism—while

highly correlated with altruism—are likely to lead to patterns of increased volumes of

consumption, increased consumption of discretionary goods and services, and/or increased

consumption of ethical goods and services.

The correlation between the altruism and hedonism constructs should demonstrate that

the two dimensions are discriminant (Figure 1). However, both the altruism and hedonism

constructs should have a strong relationship with behavioral intentions—creating the higher-

order factor of egoism as they also correlate with the other antecedents of behavioral intentions

as presented in the TPB model.

Altruism as a Dimension of Egoism

Prior research in the domain of prosocial behaviors has yielded scant literature on the

construct of egoism, which is defined as the motivation of self-interested prosocial behaviors

(Slote, 1964). As mentioned before, the altruism construct is defined as a goal that is motivated

by other-benefit. Although definitions of altruism have varied over the centuries, they have

typically included attributes such as prosocial behavior, helping of others (other-benefit), a moral

imperative to doing ―good,‖ and so forth (Simon, 1990; Batson and Shaw, 1991; Krebs, 1991).

Previously, altruism has been assessed in economic literature with regards to the notion that

―rational man‖ stands in conjunction with self-preservation. Altruism therefore runs contrary to

evolutionary principles in that it, de facto, places the needs of others as an individual’s primary

motivational factor.

8

Social psychology literature—in particular the Negative-State Relief Model (NSRM;

Cialdini and Kenrick, 1976; Cialdini, Kenrick, and Baumann, 1982; Cialdini et al., 1987) and the

Empathy-Altruism model (Batson, 1991; Batson and Shaw 1991)—has contrasted the

motivational factors of other-benefit in behaviors. The NSRM better explains the other-benefit

of altruism as a primary motivational factor, but that self-benefit is a by-product of those actions.

Therefore the NSRM is particularly important in light of Festinger’s (1957) dissonance theory.

Empathetic appeal cannot necessarily be responsible for eliciting moral obligation; rather, the

activation of moral responsibility comes from a desire to reduce uncomfortable affectations.

Furthermore, the negative-state relief model lends itself better to understanding the structural

extensions of the egoism construct, as it relates to marketing.

In the marketing domain, altruism has largely guided recent literature dealing with non-

profit marketing. Of particular interest to marketing researchers has been the impact of altruism

and other-benefitting versus self-benefitting behaviors on non-profit, charitable donations

(Strahilevitz and Myers, 1998; White and Peloza, 2009). However, most of these studies focus

solely on refining and explaining the altruism construct, leaving out the potential explanation that

alternate prosocial behaviors may be responsible for different types of consumption patterns.

In recent years, business practice has increasingly emphasized the role of morality and

ethics. Both firms and consumers have demonstrated an increased desire to be more socially

responsible. However, this moral imperative is often viewed through the lens of altruistic action

– that is, action that puts the interest of others ahead of the self (Schwartz, 1977; Sober and

Wilson, 1998). In return, the actor does not necessarily expect to receive self-benefit. Bagozzi

(2000) has suggested further research on singular and group intentions to explain social

interactions. In the marketing domain, the continued research has largely focused the altruism

9

construct on the impact of charitable donations (Strahilevitz and Myers, 1998; Reed, Aquino, and

Levy, 2007). Additional research has looked at some of the motives (Straughan and Roberts,

1999; Stern, 1999) and effects (Ger and Belk, 1999) of altruism in a consumer context.

Hedonism as a Dimension of Egoism

Incorporating the hedonism construct provides the definition of egoism with a dimension

that explains the derivation of self-benefit from prosocial behavior. Hedonism has previously

been assessed in the literature, particularly with respect to the benefits provided by goods and

services. Batra and Ahtola (1990) find support for distinct hedonic (affective) and utilitarian

components of consumption. However the sheer implication (self- versus other-benefit) of

prosocial behaviors is that a prosocial behavior leads to embedded utilitarianism by default; if

utility is a given consequence of a behavior, then we are concerned with the locus of that utility.

Since hedonism elicits eudemonic affect, there is higher propensity for that affect to

continue to drive self-interested behavior (Deci and Ryan, 2008). If the locus of utility

(pleasure) is the self, there should also be a high probability for a prosocial behavior to continue

to drive individual hedonism (regardless of morality). Therefore, in order to compensate for any

decreasing utility in a hedonic calculus, individuals should theoretically continue to engage in

prosocial behaviors to maintain a eudemonic state. Interestingly, Cialdini and Kenrick (1976)

suggested that altruism may be a specific form of hedonism, as individuals regulate affective

states in order to produce pleasure. However this notion is only partially valid if subjective

wellbeing is a direct function of eudemonia (Deci and Ryan, 2008).

Therefore, one of the primary outcomes of hedonistic behavior is consumption, as the

literature has traditionally regarded consumption as the ability of a product or service to provide

10

utility to the consumer (Holbrook and Hirschman, 1982; Batra and Ahtola, 1990). Thus the

psychosocial interplay of the consumption environment plays a key factor in the hedonistic

utility. For example, Arnold and Reynolds (2003) studied the hedonistic components of

shopping motivations and creating a scale that would predict such motivations of shopping

behavioral outcomes. Dimensions such as ―role shopping‖ and ―social shopping‖ tied into

Holbrook and Hirschman’s (1982) theory that experiential components of the consumption

process elevate hedonistic response.

In line with literature on hedonism via goods and experiences (Holbrooke and

Hirschman, 1982), other studies have assessed the impact of a phenomenon termed the ―hedonic

treadmill,‖ which suggests exponential increases in material happiness ultimately lead to quicker

adaptation to happiness levels and marginal happiness returns and may even form an inverted U-

curve (Nicolao, Irwin, and Goodman, 2009). A form of this inverted U-curve was also proposed

as the Wundt curve, proposed by Berlyne (1971) to demonstrate that extreme levels of hedonic

arousal would produce unpleasant affect. In order to increase happiness beyond the marginal

point (the hedonic treadmill), one must participate in experiences—shared experiences, in

particular. This results in self-actualization of needs and reinforces self-concept.

The hedonism construct acknowledges a locus of utility that emphasizes the self, due to

affective impact. It is possible that under certain conditions, affect elicits negative, immoral

behaviors in the scope of antisocial behaviors, however in the scope of prosocial behaviors, the

positive affect of the hedonism construct is of greater concern to developing the egoism

construct.

Extending the Theory of Planned Behavior Using Egoism

11

Conceptual Model

Having discussed the considerations of attitudes toward the behavior, subjective norms,

and perceived behavioral control, as well as conceptualized the egoism construct, I focus on the

role of egoism in relation to the established TPB model. This relationship of egoism as it

extends the TPB model to explain prosocial consumption behaviors is shown in Figure 2. I

propose the nature of the egoism construct positively correlates both altruism and hedonism with

prosocial behavioral intentions. The aggregate positive correlations of altruism and hedonism

would imply egoism as a higher-order construct. However, I also propose that the contextual

nature of the consumption behavior may play an important, relevant role in the correlations

between the first-order egoism dimensions and behavioral intentions. This has vast implications

for the direction of research on prosocial behaviors in the marketing literature.

P1: Altruism provides affective other-benefit motivation on prosocial behavioral

intentions.

P2: Hedonism provides affective self-benefit motivation on prosocial behavioral

intentions.

The nature of charitable appeals tends to have significantly correlated with altruistic

intent (Strahilevitz and Myers 2002; White and Peloza, 2009). Therefore in the context of

charitable appeals, the correlation between altruism and behavioral intentions should not only be

positive, but be higher than that of hedonism, as hedonism in the marketing context relates

highly to positive, individual affect of need and utility (Holbrooke and Hirschman, 1982).

12

P3: Altruism will have stronger relationship than will hedonism with prosocial

behavioral intention in charitable donation and volunteerism contexts.

Holt (1995) takes a qualitative approach to identify how individuals relate to the objects

that they are consuming. His questions mirror the Belk (1988) approach to possessions, however

Holt’s typological approach seems to identify only two types of consumption: experiential

consumption and play consumption. It is possible that he has neglected what may be considered

―utility consumption,‖ which is an item that is consumed for utilitarian reasons only. These

utility consumptions may include certain purchases of automobiles, a tube of toothpaste, or even

food. Therefore, in the context of normal consumption contexts (i.e., purchasing ethical goods,

purchasing fewer discretionary goods, etc.), the correlation between hedonism and behavioral

intentions will not only be positive, but be higher than that of altruism.

P4: Hedonism will have a stronger relationship than altruism with prosocial behavioral

intention in normal consumption contexts.

Additionally, there should be a strong correlation between the altruism construct and the

attitude toward the behavior, as beliefs about prosocial behaviors tend to be positive (hence, they

are prosocial), particularly due to the belief saliency of other-benefit outcomes. There should

also be a strong correlation between the hedonism construct and the normative expectations

about the behavior, since an individual will likely have salient beliefs that others will think

positively of the individual for performing the prosocial behavior, subsequently eliciting the

positive affect explained by hedonism.

13

The self-preservation aspect of consumption should also be considered when discussing

consumption volumes. Fisk (1973) argued for ―responsible consumption‖ including a four-

faceted means of managing diminishing resources in the face of high mass consumption. A

demarketing communication strategy was also suggested to shrink different types of demand

patterns (Kotler and Levy, 1971). Ehrich and Irwin (2005) found that under certain

circumstances, consumers would remain ―willfully ignorant‖ in asking for ethical product

attributes. It is therefore possible that salient appeals to other-benefit may have a significant

impact on certain egoistic consumption contexts.

Furthermore, as the normative expectations of carrying out a prosocial consumption

behavior increase, the individual is expected to derive greater hedonic affect. Coincidentally, as

the attitude toward a prosocial consumption behavior increases, the individual is expected to act

in a more altruistic manner. The dimensions of the egoism construct are therefore likely to have

significant correlation with the existing antecedents of the TPB model.

P5: Hedonism and subjective norms of behavioral outcomes are highly correlated in

motivating prosocial behavioral intentions.

P6: Altruism and attitudes toward behavioral outcomes are highly correlated in

motivating prosocial behavioral intentions.

In both charitable and everyday consumption contexts, an individual may maintain both a

positive attitude toward the behavior and regard the normative expectations of others to be

positive, yet still not perform a prosocial consumption behavior. Egoism functions as a

motivator of the intent to perform such a behavior. The hypothesized correlational differences

14

between the impacts of altruism and hedonism on behavioral intentions conceptually delineate

studies of charitable behaviors and studies of everyday prosocial consumption as two distinct

subsets of marketing research.

P6: Egoism (composed of altruism and hedonism) will positively correlate with attitudes,

subjective norms, and behavioral control in predicting prosocial behavioral intentions.

Consumer Behavior, Egoism, and Theory of Planned Behavior

Consumption is one of the primary drivers of marketing research. Much attention has

been given to a broad variety of consumption patterns and benefits (Holbrooke and Hirschman,

1982). Individual (resources, task definition, type of involvement, search activity, and individual

differences) and environmental inputs (products, stimulus properties, and communication

content) are processed in a response function that accounts for an experiential function of

consumption.

The notion that egoism may play a motivating role both in consumption typology and in

volumes of consumption has heretofore been overlooked. Elliot (1997) explores five

consumption dialectics that seem to fit the notion of egoism: 1) the material versus the symbolic;

2) the social versus the self; 3) desire versus satisfaction; 4) rationality versus irrationality; and,

5) creativity versus constraint. These dialectics—particularly the social versus the self—may

play a role in explaining the functional aspect of egoism in consumer behaviors; as well, they

explain why the new construct of egoism fills an important gap in the TPB model, when

explaining prosocial consumption behaviors.

15

P7: Egoism (composed of altruism and hedonism) will positively correlate with attitudes,

subjective norms, and behavioral control in predicting prosocial consumption intentions.

Discussion and Further Research

The initial model of the Theory of Planned Behavior (Ajzen, 1985) has sufficiently

predicted behaviors in certain contexts, but in the realm of prosocial behaviors, it has failed to

capture an affective antecedent that may contribute better predictive validity. Although the

egoism construct has not been fully operationalized yet in the literature, this proposed construct

extends the TPB model, leaving open the possibility for empirical testing to explain a greater

proportion of variance than does the current model. Understanding the predisposition toward

these self-benefitting prosocial consumption behaviors provides marketers with an opportunity to

understand how product consumption can be increased.

A TPB approach to explaining prosocial consumption behaviors may also encourage

further testing on how antecedents of prosocial behavioral intentions can be mediated or

moderated to increase the propensity to engage in other-benefit consumption behaviors. The

extended model could be manipulated to encourage socially responsible consumption—both in

socially responsible volume of consumption and in socially responsible consumption typology.

In conjunction with measures of egoism, attitude modification using persuasion may therefore

also impact the likelihood of an individual to engage in prosocial consumption behaviors.

Further understanding of the extended relationship of egoism in the TPB model has

several implications on the stream of prosocial behavior research in consumption contexts. First,

it is possible that by slowing down the instantaneity of information processing, may lead to

different types of consumption patterns. Mindfulness – a practice that allows for reflective, rather

16

than reflexive, response to stimuli – is a potentially impactful moderating variable that has

previously been studied in psychology (Baer, 2003; Bishop et al., 2004; Brown and Kasser,

2005), but is starting to make its way into marketing literature. By encouraging practices that

heighten the individual’s sense of awareness, mindfulness has the potential to lead to socially

responsible consumption by functioning as a moderator of information on impulsive behavior.

Greater awareness of both the self and the community may function to dampen the effects of

egoist behavior, thereby fostering more altruistic outcomes.

Second, certain incentives may also alter the outcomes of egoistic behavior in favor of

more other-benefitting outcomes. Although Caporael et al. (1989) suggested that egoistic

incentives were unnecessary motivators, it is possible that a different behavioral pattern will arise

with respect to consumption patterns. For instance, prior research by Stern (1999) observes that

rebates for energy-efficient home appliances may stimulate consumption patterns for these items.

The type/size of incentive may therefore alter egoistic behavior and affect consumption patterns

that provide other-benefit.

Third, it is possible that deconsumption or demarketing information (Kotler and Levy,

1971; Grinstein and Nisan, 2009) may change the nature of consumption, either as a direct

manipulation of impulsiveness or as a moderator of materialism. This type of information would

serve as a disincentive of sorts, counteracting the effects of impulsiveness and materialism and

leading to different consumption patterns in both typology and in volume.

It is therefore possible that future research should incorporate additional understandings

of selfishness and antisocial behavior and their impacts on consumer behavior issues. The ideas

of malignant behaviors are worth addressing with respect to other-benefit actions and the course

of marketing. It may be possible however, that certain outcomes of marketing practice may

17

work in reverse, thereby reversing the proposed model and causing an endogeneity problem for

marketers.

It is important to note the limitations of using a TPB approach to predicting prosocial

consumer behaviors. Applications of TPB tend to rely on self-report data, leaving open the

possibility that future testing of the egoism construct with respect to attitude-behavior

consistency in an experimental context may be necessary to validate the construct against actual

behaviors. As a means of removing social desirability bias (Crowne and Marlowe, 1960), future

research may require virtual environments as a medium that simulates field experiments in which

subjects are given stimuli. This type of research environment may elicit more accurate

behavioral responses. This type of research may also help us distinguish when an individual

perceives tradeoffs between the altruism and hedonism constructs and when those constructs act

in a synergistic manner.

18

References

Abrams, D. and Hogg, M. A. (1988). Comments on the Motivational Status of Self-Esteem in

Social Identity and Intergroup Discrimination. European Journal of Social Psychology, 18, 317-

334.

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision

Processes, 50, 179-211.

Ajzen, I. (1988). Attitudes, Personality and Behaviour. England: Open University Press.

Ajzen, I. (1985). From Intentions to Actions: A Theory of Planned Behavior. In J. Kuhl and J.

Beckmann (Eds.), Action Control: From Cognition to Behavior. Berlin, Heidelber, New York:

Springer-Verlag.

Ajzen, I., and Gilbert Cote, N. (2008). Attitudes and the prediction of behavior. In W. D. Crano

and R. Prislin (Eds.), Attitudes and Attitude Change (pp. 289-311). New York: Psychology Press.

Ajzen, I., and Fishbein, M. (1977). Attitude-behavior relations: A theoretical analysis and review

of empirical research. Psychological Bullettin, 84, 888-918.

Aquino, K. and Reed, II, A. (2002). The Self-Importance of Moral Identity. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 83(6), 1423-1440.

Armitage, C. J., and Conner, M. (2001). Efficacy of the theory of planned behaviour: A meta-

analytic review. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 471-499.

Arnold, M. J. and Reynolds, K. E. (2003). Hedonic Shopping Motivations. Journal of Retailing,

79(2), 77-95.

Baer, R. A. (2003) Mindfulness Training as a Clinical Intervention: A Conceptual and Empirical

Review. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 10, 125-143.

Bagozzi, R. P. (2000). On the Concept of Intentional Social Action in Consumer Behavior.

Journal of Consumer Research, 27(3), 388-396.

Bagozzi, R. P. (1975). Marketing as Exchange. Journal of Marketing, 39(4), 32-39.

Bandura, A. (1977). Social Learning Theory. New York: General Learning Press.

Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37, 122-

147.

Batra, R. and Ahtola, O. T. (1990). Measuring the Hedonic and Utilitarian Sources of Consumer

Attitudes. Marketing Letters, 2(2), 159-170.

19

Batson, C. D. (1987). Prosocial Motivation: Is it Ever Truly Altruistic? In Advances in

Experimental Social Psychology, 20, 65-122. Ed. L. Berkowitz. New York: Academic Press.

Batson, C. D. (1991). The Altruism Question: Toward a Social-Psychological Answer, Hillsdale,

New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Batson, C. D and Shaw, L. L. (1991). Evidence for Altruism: Toward a Pluralism of Prosocial

Motives. Psychological Inquiry, 2(2), 107-122.

Belk, R. W. (1988). Possessions and the Extended Self. Journal of Consumer Research, 15 (2),

139-168.

Bem, D. J. (1967). Self-Perception: An Alternative Interpretation of Cognitive Dissonance

Phenomena. Psychological Review, 74, 183-200.

Bem, D. J. (1972). Self-Perception Theory. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental

Social Psychology. (Vol. 6, pp.1-62). New York: Academic Press.

Berlyne, D. E. (1971). Aesthetics and Psychobiology. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Bishop, S. R., Lau, M., Shapiro, S., Carlson, L., Anderson, N. D., Carmody, J., Segal, Z. V.,

Abbey, S., Speca, M., Velting, D., and Devins, G. (2004). Mindfulness: A Proposed Operational

Definition. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 11(3), 230-241.

Blasi, A. (1983). Moral Cognition and Moral Action: A Theoretical Perspective. Developmental

Review, 3(2), 178-210.

Brown, K. W. and Kasser, T. (2005). Are Psychological and Ecological Well-Being Compatible?

The Role of Values, Mindfulness, and Lifestyle. Social Indicators Research, 74, 349-368.

Caporael, L. R., Dawes, R. M., Orbell, J. M., and van de Kragt, A. J. C. (1989). Selfishness

examined: Cooperation in the absence of egoistic incentives. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12,

683-699.

Cialdini, R. B. and Kenrick, D. T. (1976). Altruism as hedonism: A social development

perspective on the relationship of negative mood state and helping. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 34(5), 907-914.

Cialdini, R. B., Kenrick, D. T., and Baumann, D.J. (1982). Mood as a determinant of prosocial

behavior in children and adults. In N. Eisenberg (Ed.), The Development of Prosocial Behavior,

339- 359, New York: Academic Press.

Cialdini, R. B., Schaller, M., Houlihan, D., Arps, K., Fultz, J., and Beaman, A. L. (1987),

―Empathy-based helping: Is it selflessly or selfishly motivated? Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 52(4), 749-758.

20

Conner, M. T. and Abraham, C. (2001). Conscientiousness and the Theory of Planned Behavior:

Toward a More Complete Model of the Antecedents of Intentions and Behavior. Personality and

Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(11), 1547-1561.

Conner, M. T. and Sparks, P. (2005). Theory of planned behaviour and health behaviour. In M.T.

Conner and P. Norman (Eds.), Predicting Health Behaviour. Milton Keynes: Open University

Press.

Crowne, D. P., and Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale of social desirability independent of

psychopathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24, 349-354.

Deci, E. L. and Ryan, R. M. (2008). Hedonia, Eudaimonia, and Well-Being: An Introduction.

Journal of Happiness Studies, 9(1), 1-11.

Eagly, A. H. and Chaiken, S. (1993). The Psychology of Attitudes, San Diego: Harcourt, Brace

and Jovanovich.

Ehrich, K. R. and Irwin, J. R. (2005). Willful Ignorance in the Request for Product Attribute

Information. Journal of Marketing Research, 42(3), 266-277.

Elliott, R. (1997). Existental consumption and irrational desire. European Journal of Marketing,

31(3-4), 285-296.

Festinger, L. (1957). A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Palo Alto, California: Stanford

University Press.

Fishbein, M., and Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to

Theory and Research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Fisk, G. (1973). Criteria for a Theory of Responsible Consumption. Journal of Marketing, 37(2),

24-31.

Ger, G. and Belk, R. W. (1999). Accounting for Materialism in Four Cultures. Journal of

Material Culture, 4(2), 183-204.

Gollwitzer, P. M. and Sheeran, P. (2006). Implementation Intentions and Goal Achievement: A

Meta-Analysis of Effects and Processes. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 69-

119.

Grinstein, A. and Nisan, U. (2009). Demarketing, Minorities, and National Attachment. Journal

of Marketing, 73(2), 105-122.

Hoffman, M. L. (2000). Empathy and Moral Development: Implications for Caring and Justice.

Cambridge, U.K.: University Press.

21

Holbrook, M. B. and Hirschman, E. C. (1982). The Experiential Aspects of Consumption:

Consumer Fantasies, Feelings, and Fun. Journal of Conusmer Research, 9(2), 132-140.

Holt, D. B. (1995). How Consumers Consume: A Typology of Consumption Practices. Journal

of Consumer Research, 22(1), 1-16.

Irwin, J. R. and Naylor, R. W. (2009). Ethical Decisions and Response Mode Compatibility:

Weighting of Ethical Attributes in Consideration Sets Formed by Excluding Versus Including

Product Alternatives, Journal of Marketing Research, 46(2), 234-246.

Kohlberg, L. (1969). Stage and Sequence: The Cognitive-Developmental Approach to

Socialization. Handbook of Socialization Theory and Research, ed. D. A. Goslin, Chicago: Rand

McNally.

Konkoly, T. H., and Perloff, R. M. (1990). Applying the theory of reasoned action to charitable

intent. Psychological Reports, 67, 91-94.

Kotler, P. and Levy, S. J. (1971). Demarketing, Yes, Demarketing. Harvard Business Review,

49, 74-80.

Krebs, D. L. (1991). Altruism and Egoism: A False Dichotomy. Psychological Inquiry, 2(2),

137-139.

Minton, A. P. and Rose, R. L. (1997). The Effects of Environmental Concern on

Environmentally Friendly Consumer Behavior: An Exploratory Study. Journal of

Business Research, 40 (1), 37-48.

Mischel, W. and Shoda, Y. (1995). A cognitive-affective system theory of personality:

Reconceptualizing situations, dispositions, dynamics, and invariance in personality structure.

Psychological Review, 102, 246-268.

Nicolao, L., Irwin, J. R., and Goodman, J. K. (2009). Happiness for Sale: Do Experiental

Purchases Make Consumers Happier than Material Purchases. Journal of Consumer Research,

36(2), 188-198.

Oakes, P. J. and Turner, J. C. (1990). Is Limited Information Processing Capacity the Cause of

Social Stereotyping? European Review of Social Psychology, 1, 111-135.

Osterhus, T. L. (1997). Pro-Social Consumer Influence Strategies: When and How Do They

Work? Journal of Marketing, 61(4), 16-29.

Reed II, A., Aquino, K., and Levy E. (2007). Moral Identity and Judgments of Charitable

Behaviors. Journal of Marketing, 71(1), 178-193.

Richard, R., van der Pligt, J., and de Vries, N. (1996). Anticipated affect and behavioral choice.

Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 18, 111-129.

22

Schwartz, S. H. (1977). Normative Influences on Altruism. In Advances in Experimental Social

Psychology, 10, 65-122. Ed. L. Berkowitz. New York: Academic Press.

Sheeran, P. and Orbell, S. (1999). Augmenting the predictive validity of the theory of planned

behavior: Roles for anticipated regret and descriptive norms. Journal of Applied Social

Psychology, 29, 2107-2142.

Simon, H. A. (1990). A Mechanism for Social Selection and Successful Altruism. Science,

250(4988), 1665-1668.

Sirgy, M. J., Grewal, D., Mangleburg, T.F., Park, J.-O., Chon, K.-S., Claiborne, C. B., Johar, J.

S., and Berkman, H. (1997). Assessing the Predictive Validity of Two Methods of Measuring

Self-Image Congruence. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 25, 229-241.

Slote, M. S. (1964). An Empirical Basis for Psychological Egoism. Journal of Philosophy,

61(18), 530-537.

Smith, J. R. and McSweeney, A. (2007). Charitable giving: the effectiveness of a revised theory

of planned behaviour model in predicting donating intentions and behaviour. Journal of

Community and Applied Social Psychology, 17(5), 363-386.

Sober, E. and Wilson, D.S. (1998). Unto Others: The Evolution and Psychology of Unselfish

Behavior, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Sparks, P. and Shepherd, R. (1992). Self-identity and the Theory of Planned Behavior: Assessing

the Role of Identification with "Green Consumerism. Social Psychology Quarterly, 55, 388-399.

Stern, P. C. (1999). Information, Incentives, and Proenvironmental Consumer Behavior. Journal

of Consumer Policy, 22(4), 461-478.

Strahilevitz, M. and Myers, J. G. (1998). Donations to Charity as Purchase Incentives: How Well

They Work May Depend on What You Are Trying to Sell. Journal of Consumer Research, 24,

434-446.

Straughan, R. D. and Roberts, J. A. (1999). Environmental segmentation alternatives: A look at

green consumer behavior in the new millennium. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 16(6), 558-

575.

Tajfel, H. and Turner, J. C. (1979). An Integrative Theory of Intergroup Conflict. In The Social

Psychology of Intergroup Relations, Eds. William G. Austin and Stephen Worchel, Monterey:

Brooks-Cole, 33-47.

Triandis, H. C. (1977). Interpersonal behavior. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.

23

White, K. and Peloza, J. (2009). Self-Benefit Versus Other-Benefit Marketing Appeals: Their

Effectiveness in Generating Charitable Support. Journal of Marketing, 73(4), 109-124.

24

Figure 1 – Conceptual Model of Egoism

Altruism (Other-Benefit)

Hedonism (Self-Benefit)

Egoism (Self- and

Other-Benefit)

25

Figure 2 – A Theory of Planned Behavior Approach to Prosocial Behaviors

Altruism

Hedonism

EGOISM

Perceived Behavioral

Control

Attitudes Toward the

Behavior

Subjective Norms

Intentions Prosocial Consumption

Behavior