How to SHIFT Consumer Behavior and Scale Sustainability Initiatives with Psychology
Photo: Tainá Bernard
As sustainability continues to move from niche to mainstream, consumers have become increasingly more aware of their environmental and social footprint and how they can use their purchasing decisions to drive change.
While shoppers agree that the onus shouldn’t be entirely on them to fix fashion’s broken system, they are aware of their role in the industry’s sustainable future and are demanding brands clean up their environmental act by setting high expectations for the brands they engage with.
However, despite growing concern, there’s an “attitude-behavior” gap between consumers’ sustainability intentions and actions. Though attributes like transparency, ethical labor practices, material makeup, and end-of-life solutions are important to shoppers, many people rarely actively seek out this information during the purchasing process.
From a psychological standpoint, we know that numerous factors impact our purchasing decisions and influence us to buy the things we buy. Now that we know this, how can we translate intent into actual action? Can we apply a behavioral science lens to the sustainability conversation to close the “attitude-behavior” gap and shift consumer behavior?
In part one, we explored the psychology of consumption and what truly motivates consumer behavior. Now, in part two, we speak with Katherine White, Professor of Marketing and Behavioral Science at the University of British Columbia’s Sauder School of Business about closing the attitude-behavior gap with behavioral science.
Below, the co-author of academic article, “How to SHIFT Consumer Behaviors to be More Sustainable: A Literature Review and Guiding Framework,” discusses how to SHIFT consumer behavior using a comprehensive framework for conceptualizing and encouraging sustainable consumer behavior change.
SFF: Price and size accessibility aside, what is the root cause of the “attitude-behavior” gap in sustainable fashion?
Katherine White: One reason for this is simply because of how our brains work. As humans, we use two modes of thinking to make everyday decisions: System 1 and System 2.
We use System 1 when we make decisions in ways that are automatic, quick, intuitive, and with little effort. This kind of decision making is driven by instinct and experiences. When we make decisions that require careful and reflective thinking, we use System 2. System 2 is slower and requires more effort. When processing information via System 2, we rely on logic and weigh our options carefully before making decisions.
For the most part, when we create sustainability intentions, we think carefully and consider the evidence—that is, we are using System 2. However, because many of us tend to operate on autopilot, our day-to-day actions and decisions are made intuitively and automatically (via System 1). Therefore we can be swayed by other people, environmental cues, price, accessibility, attractiveness, etc., even though in System 2, we may have made a different decision.
Several additional psychological factors also come into play when making decisions around sustainability. For example, sustainable actions often mean experiencing a perceived or real cost to oneself (such as increased effort, higher price point, or inferior quality) to help something outside oneself, such as other people or the environment. We call this the self-other trade-off.
Additionally, sustainability calls for collective action, meaning we need multiple people to change their behaviors to make an impact. Thus, creating a meaningful difference in sustainable outcomes can feel somewhat overwhelming, making an individual’s potential sustainable actions feel insignificant, like a “drop in a bucket.”
Another psychological factor at play is that humans tend to be very focused on the present and respond well to immediate, proximal, “in your face” types of issues and threats. We respond better to events that are in the here and now. We aren’t very good at responding to potential future outcomes that are gradual, longer-term, uncertain, and in the future. We call this the challenge of the long-time horizon.
All of these factors can lead to the “attitude-behavior” gap creating arguably the biggest challenge for marketers, companies, public policymakers, and nonprofit organizations aiming to promote sustainable consumption.
Photo: Tainá Bernard
SFF: What is the most effective way to shift consumer behavior to be more sustainable?
Katherine White: That said, there is no one size fits all way to encourage sustainable behavior. The best approach is considering what will work best based on your unique context. That is, consider the specific behavior you want to influence, the context in which the behavior will occur, the intended target of the intervention or message, and the barriers (and benefits) associated with the behavior. Once completed, the marketer or communicator can consider what elements to leverage to influence sustainable behavior. Our SHIFT framework gives a starting point for the types of factors that can be used to influence sustainable behavior.
SFF: What is the SHIFT framework?
Katherine White: The SHIFT framework is based on a systematic review of what the research says are the more effective ways to influence consumers to act more sustainably. It is evidence-based and draws on marketing, consumer behavior, psychology, and behavioral economics research. The acronym SHIFT represents the framework because it proposes that consumers are more inclined to engage in pro-environmental behaviors when the message or context leverages the following psychological factors: Social influence, Habit formation, Individual self, Feelings and cognition, and Tangibility.
SFF: The “S” in SHIFT stands for social influence. How does social influence impact consumer behavior?
Katherine White: We are highly influenced by the presence of others, what others are doing, what they approve of, etc. These types of social influences are particularly impactful in sustainable behaviors. One specific example is the notion that social norms influence us. We learn what is socially appropriate by seeing people do the desired behavior. One study found that just by simply knowing that other online shoppers were purchasing sustainably, this knowledge led to a 65% increase in others buying at least one sustainable option.
SFF: How does habit formation impact consumer behavior?
Katherine White: Many unsustainable behaviors have been shaped over time to become ingrained habits. Habits are behaviors that have become relatively automatic and performed without much effort or conscious thought in response to regularly encountered contextual cues. Several tools can be used to shape habits (for example, prompts, feedback, and incentives). One of the most effective ways to form more positive habits is simply to make the desired behavior easy. Can we somehow make unsustainable alternatives more difficult and make the sustainable option as easy and as seamless as possible?
One example is setting up the situation so that the sustainable option is the default. Defaults work with our psychology by taking away the need to think carefully and make a huge effort to be sustainable – instead, the sustainable action becomes the automatic, default choice. An example of this in the context of fashion could be an app that transparently vets and then curates an offering of only sustainable options for the consumer to choose from.
SFF: How does the individual self impact consumer behavior?
Katherine White: How consumers see themselves and want to be seen by others can drive whether they choose sustainable options. Fashion is an interesting context because sometimes the most desirable option from an identity curation and signaling point of view isn’t necessarily the most sustainable choice. Thus, offering sustainable options that appeal to how people view themselves and want to be seen by others can motivate sustainable behaviors.
What are your customers motivated by? What do they deeply care about? Yes, sustainable options could be linked to positive environmental values (think: Patagonia), but they could also be linked to different attributes depending on the product and the target market, such as uniqueness, comfort, innovative fabrics, luxury, or saving money in the case of second-hand goods. Are there specific benefits, values, and identities that are important to your consumer that you can appeal to when communicating about a desired sustainable action?
SFF: How do feelings and xognition impact consumer behavior?
Katherine White: When communicating to consumers, practitioners often have the choice of focusing on messages related to feelings or more rational arguments that appeal to cognition. One commonly used tactic to encourage sustainable choices is to activate negative feelings of guilt or fear. It often feels like if we want to encourage urgent change, we should use negative emotions to prompt behavior change.
While this is sometimes true, it will only get you so far. Some negative emotion can motivate action, but too much can cause people to feel psychologically paralyzed and not act at all. Thus, guilt can be an effective, sustainable behavior change motivator, but it should be used carefully. Subtly reminding consumers about what they care about (spending time outside, their children’s future, etc.) may be an effective strategy, but using very heavy-handed messages to make people feel guilty can backfire.
Another strategy that goes along with negative emotions is to think about what cognitions you are conveying simultaneously. One important cognition—self-efficacy—has two facets. First, consumers must believe that they can engage in the desired behavior. Second, the consumers need to think that the action can be effective in making a difference. Making consumers feel a sense of efficacy increases the likelihood of their engaging in sustainable behaviors and continuing such actions long-term.
SFF: How does tangibility impact consumer behavior?
Katherine White: By their very nature, sustainable behaviors involve putting aside immediate individual interests to contribute to some broader social or environmental good that will only be realized in the future. Because of this, sustainability is a concept that feels psychologically distant, abstract, and difficult for consumers to grasp. Thus, making actions and outcomes tangible by giving examples and using visual imagery can encourage consumers to engage in sustainable behaviors. For instance, in one advertisement, the brand Matt and Nat makes outcomes tangible by communicating that they recycle over a million plastic bottles in making the liners for their bags.
Photo: Tainá Bernard
SFF: The SHIFT framework represents the role of marketing in shifting consumer behaviors to encourage sustainable consumption but can marketing really be used for good if its sole purpose is to promote consumption?
Katherine White: At first glance, it might appear that marketing goals are incompatible with those of sustainability. Traditional marketing encourages growth, satisfying needs and wants, and seems to view resources as ever-abundant. On the other hand, sustainability advocates for using resources in ways that can be renewed by mimicking the circular flows of nature and respecting that natural resources are limited. Because of this, marketers need to acknowledge the potential adverse effects of marketing on sustainability.
However, there is an opportunity to flip the narrative and use marketing for good. We can use traditional marketing principles and practices to encourage sustainable behaviors in the same ways they are used to enable others.
Comments, questions or feedback? Email us at hello@thesustainablefashionforum.com
