How materialism relates to attitude toward corporate social responsibility among Chinese college students? Mediation role of environmental concern
Vol 8, Issue 2, 2023, Article identifier:
VIEWS - 284 (Abstract) 266 (PDF)
Abstract
This paper aimed (a) to examine whether materialism is related to attitude to corporate social responsibility (CSR) and (b) to test whether environmental concern mediates the relationship between materialism (and its dimensions: acquisition centrality, happiness, and success) and attitude to CSR among undergraduate students. This study used a cross-sectional research design. A questionnaire survey was used to obtain the study data. Participants were recruited from students in Chinese universities. Hayes’s PROCESS and SPSS 22 were employed to analyze the data. The results showed that materialism is negatively related to attitude toward CSR among students. Environmental concern does not mediate the relationship between materialism and attitude to CSR. The relationship between centrality and attitude to CSR was statistically significant in the two models. Happiness and attitude to CSR are positively related. The mediating effect of environmental concern on the relationship between centrality and attitude to CSR was statistically significant.
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
1. Smith B, Monforte J. Stories, new materialism and pluralism: Understanding, practising and pushing the boundaries of narrative analysis. Methods in Psychology 2020; 2: 100016. doi: 10.1016/j.metip.2020.100016
2. Atanasova A, Eckhardt GM. The broadening boundaries of materialism. Marketing Theory 2021; 21(4): 481–500. doi: 10.1177/14705931211019077
3. Khan KA, Yansheng WU, Aigerim D. Gratitude: Building bridges between buddhism and positive psychology. Journal of Contemporary Issues in Business and Government 2021; 27(2): 929. doi: 10.47750/cibg.2021.27.02.110
4. Bowen HR. Social Responsibilities of the Businessman. University of Iowa Press; 2013.
5. Marco-Lajara B, Zaragoza-Sáez P, Falcó JM, Millan-Tudela LA. Corporate social responsibility: A narrative literature review. In: Frameworks for Sustainable Development Goals to Manage Economic, Social, and Environmental Shocks and Disasters. Engineering Science Reference; 2022. pp. 16–34.
6. Teixeira A, Ferreira MR, Correia A, Lima V. Students’ perceptions of corporate social responsibility: Evidences from a Portuguese higher education institution. International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing 2018; 15(2): 235–252. doi: 10.1007/s12208-018-0199-1
7. Jiang W, Wong JK. Key activity areas of corporate social responsibility (CSR) in the construction industry: A study of China. Journal of Cleaner Production 2016; 113: 850–860. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.10.093
8. King A, Bartels W. The KPMG survey of corporate responsibility reporting 2015. Available online: https://assets.kpmg.com/content/dam/kpmg/pdf/2015/12/KPMG-survey-of-CR-reporting-2015.pdf (accessed on 6 April 2018).
9. Do H, Sum CC. Business student attitudes toward corporate social responsibility: A Vietnamese study. Journal of Management & Organization 2021: 1–24. doi: 10.1017/jmo.2021.28
10. Minson JA, Dorison CA. Toward a psychology of attitude conflict. Current Opinion in Psychology 2022; 43: 182–188. doi: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2021.07.002
11. Kuzey C, Uyar A, Nizaeva M, Karaman AS. CSR performance and firm performance in the tourism, healthcare, and financial sectors: Do metrics and CSR committees matter? Journal of Cleaner Production 2021; 319: 128802. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.128802
12. Mazereeuw-van der Duijn Schouten C, Graafland J, Kaptein M. Religiosity, CSR attitudes, and CSR behavior: An empirical study of executives’ religiosity and CSR. Journal of Business Ethics 2014; 123: 437–459. doi: 10.1007/s10551-0
13. Uyar A, Kuzey C, Kilic M, Karaman AS. Board structure, financial performance, corporate social responsibility performance, CSR committee, and CEO duality: Disentangling the connection in healthcare. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 2021; 28(6): 1730–1748. doi: 10.1002/csr.2141
14. Hamamura T. A cultural psychological analysis of cultural change. Asian Journal of Social Psychology 2018; 21(1–2): 3–12. doi: 10.1111/ajsp.12194
15. Richins ML, Dawson S. A consumer values orientation for materialism and its measurement: Scale development and validation. Journal of Consumer Research 1992; 19(3): 303–316. doi: 10.1086/209304.
16. Ward S, Wackman D. Family and media influences on adolescent consumer learning. American Behavioral Scientist 1971; 14(3):415–427. doi: 10.1177/000276427101400315
17. Belk RW. Materialism: Trait aspects of living in the material world. Journal of Consumer Research 1985; 12(3): 265–280. doi: 10.1086/208515
18. Ajzen I. The theory of planned behavior. Organızational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 1991; 50(2): 179–211. doi: 10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
19. Richins ML. Special possessions and the expression of material values. Journal of Consumer Research 1994; 21(3): 522–533. doi: 10.1086/209415
20. Jones TM. Corporate social responsibility revisited, redefined. California Management Review 1980; 22(3): 59–67. doi: 10.2307/41164877
21. Kolodinsky RW, Madden TM, Zisk DS, Henkel ET. Attitudes about corporate social responsibility: Business student predictors. Journal of Business Ethics 2010; 91: 167–181.
22. Kasser T, Ahuvia A. Materialistic values and well‐being in business students. European Journal of social psychology 2002; 32(1): 137–146. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.85
23. Naatu F, Nyarko SA, Munim ZH, Alon I. Crowd-out effect on consumers attitude towards corporate social responsibility communication. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 2022; 177: 121544. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2022.121544
24. Abdul Z, Ibrahim S. Executive and management attitudes towards corporate social responsibility in Malaysia. Corporate Governance: International Journal of Business in Society 2002; 2(4): 10–16. doi: 10.1108/14720700210447641
25. Giacalone RA, Jurkiewicz CL, Deckop JR. On ethics and social responsibility: The impact of materialism, postmaterialism, and hope. Human Relations 2008; 61(4): 483–514. doi: 10.1177/0018726708091019
26. Davidson RH, Dey A, Smith AJ. CEO materialism and corporate social responsibility. Accounting Review 2019; 94(1): 101–126. doi: 10.2308/accr-52079
27. Mathur A. Materialism and charitable giving: Can they co‐exist? Journal of Consumer Behaviour 2013; 12(3): 149–158. doi: 10.1002/cb.1404
28. Tandon AK, Mishra SK, Singh E. What discriminates the prospective manager’s attitude towards corporate social responsibility? An insight from psychological variables. IUP Journal of Corporate Governance 2011; 10(3): 52–70.
29. Takács-Sánta A. Barriers to environmental concern. Human Ecology Review 2007; 14(1): 26–38.
30. Gatersleben B, Jackson T, Meadows J, et al. Leisure, materialism, well-being and the environment. European Review of Applied Psychology 2018; 68(3): 131–139. doi: 10.1016/j.erap.2018.06.002
31. Segev S, Shoham A, Gavish Y. A closer look into the materialism construct: The antecedents and consequences of materialism and its three facets. Journal of Consumer Marketing 2015; 32(2): 85–98. doi: 10.1108/JCM-07-2014-1082
32. Banerjee B, McKeage K. How green is my value: Exploring the relationship between environmentalism and materialism. In: Chris TA, Deborah RJ (editors). Advances in Consumer Research. Association for Consumer Research; 1994. Volume 21. pp. 147–152.
33. Hurst M, Dittmar H, Bond R, Kasser T. The relationship between materialistic values and environmental attitudes and behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Environmental Psychology 2013; 36: 257–269. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2013.09.003
34. Maio GR, Pakizeh A, Cheung WY, Rees KJ. Changing, priming, and acting on values: Effects via motivational relations in a circular model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 2009; 97(4): 699. doi: 10.1037/a0016420
35. Kilbourne W, Pickett G. How materialism affects environmental beliefs, concern, and environmentally responsible behavior. Journal of Business Research 2008; 61(9): 885–893. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2007.09.016.
36. Schwartz SH. Normative influences on altruism. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 1977; 10: 221–279. doi: 10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60358-5
37. Jain SK, Kaur G. Green marketing: An attitudinal and behavioural analysis of Indian consumers. Global Business Review 2004; 5(2): 187–205. doi: 10.1177/097215090400500203
38. Schultz PW. New environmental theories: Empathizing with nature: The effects of perspective taking on concern for environmental issues. Journal of Social Issues 2000; 56(3): 391–406. doi: 10.1111/0022-4537.00174
39. Nath V, Kumar R, Agrawal R, et al. Consumer adoption of green products: Modeling the enablers. Global Business Review 2013; 14(3): 453–470. doi: 10.1177/0972150913496864
40. Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Podsakoff NP. Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology 2012; 63: 539–569. doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100452
41. Kim Y, Choi SM. Antecedents of green purchase behavior: An examination of collectivism, environmental concern, and PCE. North American Advances 2005; 32(1): 592–599.
42. Khurshid MA, Al-Aali A, Soliman AA, et al. Awareness of corporate social responsibility in an emerging economy. Life Science Journal 2013; 10(4): 2229–2240.
43. Titko J, Svirina A, Tambovceva T, Skvarciany V. Differences in attitude to corporate social responsibility among generations. Sustainability 2021; 13(19): 10944. doi: 10.3390/su131910944
44. Murphy MJ, MacDonald JB, Antoine GE, Smolarski JM. Exploring Muslim attitudes towards corporate social responsibility: Are Saudi business students different? Journal of Business Ethics 2019; 154: 1103–1118. doi: 10.1007/s10551-016-3383-4
45. Kline TJ. Psychological Testing: A Practical Approach to Design and Evaluation. Sage Publications; 2005.
46. Cortina JM. What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. Journal of Applied Psychology 1993; 78(1): 98. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.78.1.98
47. Hu L, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal 1999; 6(1): 1–55. doi: 10.1080/10705519909540118
48. Change S, Witteloostuijn AV, Eden L. From the editors: Common method variance in international research. Journal of International Business Studies 2010; 41(2): 178–184. doi: 10.1057/jibs.2009.88
49. Tatzel M. “Money worlds” and well-being: An integration of money dispositions, materialism and price-related behavior. Journal of Economic Psychology 2002; 23(1): 103–126. doi: 10.1016/S0167-4870(01)00069-1
50. Jung CG, Schmid-Guisan H. The Question of Psychological Types. Princeton University Press; 2012.
51. Haski-Leventhal D, Pournader M, McKinnon A. The role of gender and age in business students’ values, CSR attitudes, and responsible management education: Learnings from the PRME international survey. Journal of Business Ethics 2017; 146: 219–239. doi: 10.1007/s10551-015-2936-2
52. Wisse B, van Eijbergen R, Rietzschel EF, Scheibe S. Catering to the needs of an aging workforce: The role of employee age in the relationship between corporate social responsibility and employee satisfaction. Journal of Business Ethics 2018; 147: 875–888. doi: 10.1007/s10551-015-2983-8
DOI: https://doi.org/10.54517/esp.v8i2.1591
(284 Abstract Views, 266 PDF Downloads)
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
Copyright (c) 2023 Shaoping Qiu, Sarayu Sankar, Larry M. Dooley, Naizhu Huang, Wansong Tang
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/