Understanding the interaction between Identity and ...

Understanding the interaction between Identity and Motivations in Sustainable Living Abstract Despite an increasing trend towards sustainable living and the adoption of sustainable lifestyles globally, it remains the case that relatively little is known about what motives such practices and about the interaction between motivations and identity in sustainable living. This paper contributes towards addressing these gaps by examining the impact of human drives on sustainable living and how this is moderated by individuals’ identity. The Four Drive Theory of human behaviour is used as the foundation of a conceptual framework that is then explored with reference to a qualitative study involving semi-structured interviews with 35 sustainable individuals living in the UK. The results of this research suggest that people are motivated to live sustainably for different reasons depending on the salience of their personal and social identities and the congruence between the layers which form their sustainable selves. The key contributions of this paper are the presentation of a conceptual framework and the introduction of a new typology of sustainable individuals based on the interaction between their identities and the motivations which drive them to live sustainably, which contribute to the understanding of the attitude-behaviour gap in the field of sustainable living by offering a deeper examination of the antecedents of sustainable behaviour and the aspects influencing them. List of authors/contributors & affiliations   

Garnelo Gomez, Irene ([email protected]). School of Marketing and Reputation at Henley Business School, University of Reading (UK) Littlewood, David ([email protected]). Sheffield University Management School (UK) Money, Kevin ([email protected]). School of Marketing and Reputation at Henley Business School, University of Reading (UK)

Main contact address and email Irene Garnelo Gomez Henley Business School, University of Reading, UK Greenlands, Henley-on-Thames, Oxfordshire RG9 3AU Email address: [email protected] Track 6B: Environmental Behaviour and Social Practices Word count: 7664

1

Understanding the interaction between Identity and Motivations in Sustainable Living Introduction Sustainable living is now a widespread phenomenon in the UK and globally, with consumer awareness and concern regarding social and environmental issues entering the mainstream. For example in a 2009 study, 27% of British said they were environmentally-friendly across most or everything they do in their everyday life, while 47% said quite a few of the things they do are environmentally-friendly (Thornton, 2009). Furthermore, in another study 84% of respondents declared they actively seek to support producers in developing countries, by buying fair trade products for instance (DEFRA, 2011b). Yet despite a growing trend towards sustainable lifestyles and sustainable living, substantial progress still needs to be made before such practices are fully adopted and accepted (Hobson, 2002), with researchers also often identifying gaps between individuals stated sustainable preferences and their actual behaviours (Eckhartd et al, 2010). Existing literature on sustainable lifestyles and sustainable behaviour has mainly focused on identifying the green consumer or citizen (Gilg, Barr and Ford, 2005), making categorisations (MORI, 2000) –looking at the consequences of behaviour instead of the causes of it- and studying the relationship between sustainable behaviour and altruistic values (Tapia-Fonllem et al., 2013). However, there are a limited number of studies focused on identity and sustainable behaviour. One of the latest and more significant is that carried out by Costa Pinto et al., looking at intentions and identity-based motivation in green consumption (2016). Nevertheless, as far as we know, there is no study looking at the interaction between identity and motivational drives in sustainable living, and how individual’s sense of self might affect motivations and the consequent behaviour. In the extant literature it is widely suggested that more research is needed to understand human behaviour in relation to sustainability (Prothero et al., 2011), particularly around what motivates sustainable living and sustainable consumption. Understanding these motivations is crucial if we are to increase public awareness of and foster sustainable practices. This research aims to understand how individuals are differently motivated to live sustainably depending on their identities. In particular, we are looking at the way people express their sustainable selves by examining the salience of both their personal and social identities and the congruence between the layers which form their selves. Drawing upon the Four Drive Theory of human behaviour (Lawrence and Nohria, 2002) as a theoretical framework it explores the role the drives to acquire (either material goods or a status), bond, learn (and teach others) and defend (values and beliefs, society and the environment) play in informing sustainable living practices. Identity is deployed as a mediator in this process drawing particularly upon the work of Hillenbrand and Money (2015) and their model of identity development which describes four different layers of the self, and which speaks to the interaction between the personal and social identities of individuals. A conceptual framework is introduced and then explored through empirical research entailing 35 qualitative interviews with individuals following sustainable lifestyles. From the results of this research a provisional typology of sustainable individuals is presented, based on the interaction between the motivations which drive them to live sustainably and the expression of their identities through sustainable living. This study will address the following research questions: (1) How do individuals express their identities through sustainable living? (2) Why are motivational drives affecting individuals following sustainable lifestyles differently depending on the identity of those individuals? (3) 2

How could we classify sustainable individuals by looking at the alignment between the expression of their identities and the motivations which drive them to live sustainably? The paper is structured as follows. We first review existing literature on sustainable living, identity and motivational drives, locating our study and contributions in relation to this work and drawing upon it to develop the study’s conceptual framework. We then introduce our empirical study outlining the methodology employed before discussing its key findings. We conclude with reflection on the study’s key contributions and outline areas for future research. Literature review Sustainable living Sustainable lifestyles have been defined as: “patterns of action and consumption, used by people to affiliate and differentiate themselves from other people, which: meet basic needs, provide a better quality of life, minimise the use of natural resources and emissions of waste and pollutants over the lifecycle and do not jeopardise the needs of future generations” (Bedford et al., 2004). Sustainable living aims to reduce the negative impact human’s actions have on the environment by modifying ways of transportation, consumption and diet (everyday practices); and which involves accepting the obligation to search for harmony with other members of the society and with the environment (Munro and Holdgate, 1991). According to Winter, sustainable living is a goal that cannot be completely achieved in our industrialised society, but which can be attempted (2007) at home –reducing energy and water consumption, recycling or growing our own food, for example- and when being out of the house e.g. walking or riding a bike instead of driving a car or supporting the local community by joining local organisations or helping local or independent businesses. A large part of the literature on sustainable behaviour focuses on sustainable consumption, offering insides on intentions of buying, purchase patterns and post-consumption behaviours. However, we believe individuals following sustainable lifestyles cannot be treated the same way as sustainable consumers, as even though individuals refer to green consumption practices when talking about sustainable living, consumption practices are not essential to follow a sustainable lifestyle (Black and Cherrier, 2010). For instance, some of the participants of this study have a clear anti-consumerism attitude and try to buy only what is needed and therefore are not consumers of expensive –and sometimes elitist- sustainable products. Nevertheless, engaging in sustainable consumption might lead to other pro-environmental behaviours (Gilg, Barr and Ford, 2005), and therefore consumption becomes a very important factor to look at when researching about sustainable living. The SPREAD Sustainable Lifestyles 2050 European project identified four key areas of a sustainable lifestyle which are: consuming, which consists of efficient, different and sufficient consumption practices; living, involving more efficient housing and infrastructure practices, as well as efficient users of buildings and appliances; moving, in terms of shifting from individual car use to more sustainable modes of transports such as car sharing, using public transport, cycling or walking; and health and society, related to diet and social inequality (Backhaus et al., 2011). These dimensions have been taken into account in this study, which also aims to develop a deeper understanding of what following a sustainably lifestyle means to different kinds of sustainable individuals. In another work DEFRA presented a more extended classification of behaviours through which sustainable living could be achieved. According to them, key behaviours and sub-groups of 3

behaviours which could drive individuals to live sustainably can be summarised in nine headline behaviours –or groups of behaviours that represent priority areas (2011a). Ecoimproving your home (retrofitting), e.g. generating own energy or insulating your home; using energy and water wisely; extending the life of things, in order to minimise waste; cooking and managing a sustainable and healthier diet; choosing eco-products and services; travelling sustainably; setting up and using resources in your community; using and future-proofing outdoors spaces; and being part of improving the environment. This framework for sustainable lifestyles was developed from the results of a previous study in which DEFRA established an environmental segmentation, dividing the British population into seven different segments (figure 1) which have been largely cited in studies on sustainable behaviour (e.g. Corner and Randal, 2011; Anderton and Jack, 2011). (1) Positive Greens, (3) Concerned Consumers and (4) Sideline Supporters have –in different degrees- the ability and willingness to act, even though Sideline Supporters are beginners; (2) Waste watchers and (5) Cautious Participants have the potential to do more but need encouragement; while (6) Stalled Starters and (7) Honestly Disengaged have low potential and willingness. Our study is focused on persons who self-identified as individuals following a sustainable lifestyle, and therefore segments five, six and seven will not be represented in our sample.

Figure 1. Adapted from DEFRA Seven Population Segments (2008)

4

Identity development Individuals act –and therefore are motivated- in congruence with their identities (Oyserman, 2009a); and they understand situations in different ways depending on the congruence between the context and their salient identities (Oyserman and Destin, 2010); as choices are identitybased and identity-congruent. In order to understand the self in relation to lifestyle practices, consumer culture theories study personality traits e.g. the characteristics through which one person differs from another such as interpersonal trust or dogmatism (Arnould, Price and Zinkhan, 2002), and have also used them in analysing the self-concept. The self-concept is defined as the set of ideas individuals have about themselves and who they are. It functions as a repository of memories and experiences, and as a motivational resource (Markus and Wurf, 1987), and encompasses both personal and social identity. Personal identity consists of characteristics, personal values, goals and ways of being (Leary and Tangney, 2003) whilst social identity is the awareness a person has of belonging to a certain group (Hogg and Abrams, 1988). A recently introduced model of identity development (Hillenbrand and Money, 2015) presents the idea that the self consists of four different layers which represent the interaction between the personal and social identities of individuals. In this model personal identity is composed of the core, learned and lived selves, while social identity is formed by the interaction between lived and perceived selves. The core self is defined as the past, current and potential working self-concept, as the central characteristics and personal traits of the individual. Judge and others (1997) suggest that the core self is evaluated according to four traits: self-esteem; generalised self-efficacy e.g. the estimation of one’s capabilities to exercise control of life; neuroticism, the negative of self-esteem; and locus of control, which refers to whether individuals actually believe they have control over their lives. In consumption studies the idea of a working or activated self-concept has been linked to individuals telling others about themselves differently depending on the situation and their motives, and therefore aspects of identity such as ethnic and gender are very important (Arnould, Price and Zinkhan, 2002). For example, when someone moves to a different country and culture they may change her/his food consumption habits, not only because of lack of availability, but for fear of being seen as different. After the core self is the learned self, which can be understood in relation to sets of conscious and unconscious rules and roles. Roles are defined as a set of rules and expectations held by others which work as patterns of behaviour (DeLamater, Myers and Collet, 2014). Next is the lived self, which is formed by experiences and emotions. According to Sneed and Whitbourne (2005) past and present experiences are tied to identity through processes of assimilation and accommodation. Finally, to complete the process of identity development, and in order to express the core, learned and lived selves, Hillenbrand and Money (2015) include the perceived self in their model. This refers to how we are seen by others, and how we establish a sense of interpersonal self when interacting with other individuals. According to Neisser (1993), the interpersonal self is “the same individual considered from a different point of view” (p4) together with her/his interactions, movements and positions. This framework of identity development –together with the Four Drive Theory of human motivation- will provide the theoretical basis for this study and therefore the self-concept of individuals following sustainable lifestyles will be studied by analysing the four layers which form their identities. In particular, we are looking at both the salience of the personal and social identities of these individuals, and the congruence between their core self and the rest of the layers which form their identities. Through the use of this new model of identity development we have been able to analyse identity from a dynamic and deep point of view.

5

Motivational drives in sustainable living A motivation has been defined as an “inner drive that reflects goal-directed arousal” (Arnould, Price and Zinkhan, 2002, p259). In other words, a motivation is an internal impulse that reflects the excitement individuals experience when they desire to achieve something. Drives (internal stimulus) can be both physically experienced states e.g. pain or emotionally experienced states like the need for belonging. Traditionally, motivations are classified as either rational i.e. those based on logic and the ability to consider different options and to choose the most appropriate one or emotional, which are induced by habits and emotional feelings, by desire or ambition (Copeland, 1924). However, they can also be categorised as intrinsic or extrinsic (Wright, 2006) or they can be analysed depending on the hierarchical order of human needs (after Maslow, 1943). It is not possible to establish a static category of motives to follow a specific lifestyle, as every individual has different motivations when making decisions depending on psychological and social factors. The identities of individuals, their personal beliefs and values and the roles they take within society also influence lifestyle decisions. Furthermore, the habits individuals learn from their family and wider social groups as well as the culture, ethnic or geographical area they are a part of have an effect on the way individuals behave and consume (Baudrillard, 1988). The ‘Four Drive Theory’ of human behaviour was presented by Paul Lawrence and Nitin Nohria in 2002. This theory proposes that human motivation could be described through a set of four innate motivational drives which are the ‘drive to acquire’ (D1), the ‘drive to bond’ (D2), the ‘drive to learn’ –also called ‘drive to comprehend’- (D3) and the ‘drive to defend’ (D4). The ‘drive to acquire’ is considered the “oldest and most basic human drive” (Lawrence and Nohria, 2002, p55). It not only refers to the obtaining of tangible goods, but also intangible ones e.g. life experiences. The latter can be both negative and positive, and which provide us with a sense of ownership. This drive is also related to status. Even though individuals feel the necessity of acquiring regular goods –or Eros - such as food, clothes or entertainment, they also seek the positional attributes that can be linked to them – Thymos. For example, buyers of luxury cars – see Ferrari or Maserati- will not only be driven by the necessity of having a car, or by the quality of the vehicle, but by the reward in terms of status they receive from the transaction. However, the ‘drive to acquire’ also has negative implications such as insatiability. Whilst a feeling of happiness is experienced by human beings after acquiring something they strongly desire, that sensation does not last long and the need to acquire then “returns in full force” (Lawrence and Nohria, 2002, p65). It might also happen that this drive has both positive and negative consequences within one single situation. For example, the ambition of a business’ leader to increase the productivity of the company by expanding the capacity of the factory could lead to benefits for the company in terms of profitability, while at the same time could produce a threat of damage to the environment in the area where the plant is situated. The ‘drive to bond’ seems to be born in every individual, as every individual feels the need of being part of a particular social group and to establish relationships with members of it. It is related to the need of belonging studied by Baumeister and Leary (1995) who were trying to prove the existence of a fundamental need to belong and to bond interpersonal attachments, a desire that can be found in every individual, regardless her/his origin or culture. Moreover, there is the ‘drive to learn’ or comprehend powered by the human need to satisfy curiosity, and to know and understand what is around us. It leads individuals to be curious, to look for information and examine it and to then make observations. Furthermore, Lawrence and Nohria analyse the ‘drive to defend’ and relate that to the natural feeling of standing up for what is believed, which is dependent on the culture and ideology of the individual. This drive appears frequently in modern life, and it seems that much human activity is informed by this drive. 6

The motivations of sustainable individuals vary depending on the context. For example, Aertsens et al., (2011) suggest that the consumption of organic food is mainly motivated by the fact that it does not contain pesticides and is perceived to be better for the environment. In this instance, drawing upon drive theory, it might be argued that consumers are driven by the desire of both defending their bodies (as these products are healthier), and the planet. Other motivators are better quality and better taste whereby consumers may be driven by a desire to acquire something that is good. In most cases, what drives individuals to buy sustainable products seems to be the desire to satisfy personal needs, while the protection of the environment is of less importance. In other settings such as recycling, motives like ‘feeling that I am doing something’ appear to be very significant (De Young, 1986) and could be explained by the need to bond and feel part of a community or social group. However, generally speaking, consumers focus their interest on personal benefits when acquiring goods. Moreover, they find greater costs than benefits when thinking about a change in their behaviour and therefore their motivations to do so may be more negative than positive (Freestone and McGoldrick, 2008). These issues are crucial when studying sustainable individuals, as at first sight the main beneficiary of this kind of behaviour is either the environment or society, and so the lack of a direct or immediate benefit may impair or impede the spread of sustainable practices. The theory of the four motivational drives has to date largely been used in studies about employee motivation and organisational behaviour, such as one carried out by Nohria, Groysberg and Lee (2008) focussing on employee motivation in global businesses, and in particular the finance and IT sectors. However, it seems that this theory could also be successfully applied to studies on sustainable behaviour, and in particular, the analysis of motivations in sustainable living. An illustration of how this might work would link the ‘drive to acquire’ with not only the buying of a sustainable product or service, but also with the acquisition of status within a social group, as ‘the ecologist’, ‘the green’, or ‘the supportive’ member. Another potential relationship might be that consumers that are influenced in a greater way by the ‘drive to bond’, could be seeking to identify themselves with a specific group or community, and try to demonstrate to that group that she/he shares with them similar behaviour patterns and attitudes. When looking at typologies of green, ethical or sustainable consumers, it can be appreciated that some of them, called ‘exceptors’ by McDonald et al. (2012), spend more time searching for information about sustainability. They are suggested to be more literate, and aim to be more knowledgeable and aware of the negative and positive implications of sustainable practices. Applying the four drives theory it might be conceived that they are particularly driven by the ‘drive to learn’, and to comprehend sustainability concerns. However, other sustainable individuals might be less interested in knowledge and more attracted by the idea of fighting for what they believe, e.g. preserving nature and offering a better world for future generations. For such consumers the ‘drive to defend’ might be playing a more significant role, motivating them to defend against ‘harmful food’, or wider perceived threats to their and others quality of life. This theory of human motivation will be used as the guiding theory in this study, and will help us to understand what really motivates sustainable individuals. According to Lawrence and Nohria, the four drives are not isolated and therefore all have to be taken into account. In this study we therefore also remain cognisant of questions relating to the fulfilment of the drives? How they work depending on the intrinsic characteristics and motivations of each individual living sustainably? And whether or not the drives would precede motivations? The Four Drive Theory seems to provide a clear and meaningful explanation of how these innate motivational drives inform human behaviour. Yet the theory is not uncontested, for example McShane and Von Glinow (2010) who are also researching employee motivation and organisational behaviour suggest that the theory is incomplete, suggesting that other drives 7

should be included. This notion is also supported by Kaufman (2011) who introduces the ‘drive to feel’ as a fifth drive in the set. Although, reflecting on this work, if the drive to feel is understood as the necessity of feeling emotionally engaged with someone or something, it could be argued that this drive is actually still part of the drive to bond. Finally, and providing support for this study, it has been argued that social norms, personal values and past experiences are not sufficient to describe the characteristics of an individual, and therefore other aspects of the self-concept such as personality and social identity need to be taken into account as they may “play a significant role in translating drives into needs and needs into decisions and behavior” (McShane and Von Glinow, 2010, p142). Conceptual framework of relationships between identity, motivational drives and sustainable living The conceptual framework proposed in this study suggests that the sustainable practices of individuals following sustainable lifestyles are driven in different ways by different motivational drives, and that the way these drives work will depend on the identity of the individuals. In particular, identity is being explored based on whether sustainability is salient at their personal or social identities and on the degree of congruence between their core self and the rest of the layers of the self which form their identities. Each motivational drive will be fulfil –if doing so- in different ways and different degrees depending on how individuals express their sustainable identity and on the innate motivations which are causing their behaviour. Overall, this conceptual framework works as a dynamic process by which individuals form and develop their sustainable identities. Four different drives motivate them to follow a sustainable lifestyle, which helps them reinforce their sense of self and how they are perceived by others. These relationships are illustrated in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Conceptual framework of relationships between motivational drives, identity and sustainable living Methodology The context in which this study has taken place is the city of Reading, in the UK, and in particular participants have been recruited by contacting local charities whose vision and mission have a strong connection with sustainability and the promotion of sustainable lifestyles. 8

The first organisation chosen was Reading International Solidarity Centre (RISC), a development education centre which works with schools and community groups to raise awareness about sustainable development, human rights and social justice. Moreover, True Food Community Co-operative (TFC) was also selected for recruitment purposes, as this largescale buying group promotes ethical and environmentally friendly practices through the consumption of local, organic and eco-friendly groceries. Members of these two organisations were informed about the purposes of the study through different media channels, and those who considered themselves sustainable and were willing to participate in the research were interviewed. At the end, two thirds of the participants of the study were somehow connected to these organisations, by being volunteers, staff or trustees. The other third of participants were recruited through a snowball sampling technique, by being informed by members of these organisations about the study. These individuals were not active members of any sustainable organisation. This adds a different perspective in the study, as a new comparison between individuals based on their active and non-active involvement in sustainable groups could be established. Out of the 35 people interviewed, 17 of them were females and 18 were males. They were between 23 and 68 years old, with an average age of 41. Methods of data collection Semi-structured interviews were chosen due to the inductive nature of the study –analysis of identity and human behaviour and motivation-, as it was viewed that qualitative methods would provide a rich and deeper understanding of the lived experiences of individuals, their beliefs and values (Hennink, Hutter, and Bailey, 2011). The interview guide consisted of open ended questions about identity, motivations and behaviour in terms of sustainability, coinciding with the three main blocks of theory in the literature review and which inform the conceptual framework of this research. Projective techniques were used during the interviews based upon research by Colman (2009) which suggests that respondents unconsciously show subjective aspects of their personality in their responses. In particular, storytelling where participants were asked to explain their journey to sustainable living, and photo elicitation were used as this allowed respondents to be more spontaneous and think in different ways about feelings, meanings or thoughts (photographs have been previously used in self-concept research, see Ziller, 1990). Two questions involving pictures were asked to the interviewees. During the first question respondents were asked to explain the last decision where they had taken into account sustainability and then relate that moment with an emotion or set of emotions. In order to categorise those emotions, six pictures showing classic expressions of emotions – angry, happy, surprised, disgusted, sad and afraid (Ekman et al, 1972) - were given to the participants, who had to choose which emotion or emotions they were feeling (if any) and explain why. In the second question using photo elicitation ten pictures involving sustainable actions (related to consumption, transport and household practices) were shown to the participants, who had to choose the three which for them best represent what following a sustainable lifestyle means. The analysis of their narratives has been useful for the identification of recurring themes related to their motivations to live sustainably, as projective techniques help understand the ‘WHY’, to uncover beliefs, attitudes, feelings and motivations (Webb, 2002). A short questionnaire was given to the participants at the end of the interview, in order to know more about their sustainable behaviours, asking them questions related to purchase frequency -e.g. buy sustainable products- and sustainable actions -e.g. recycling-, and asking them to link sustainable practices with specific sets of motivations. The questionnaire also included three questions about identity, one that comprised the self-concept clarity scale developed by 9

Campbell et al (1996), which could help us understand if the participant is confident with her/himself, if their self-beliefs are consistent and stable (this scale was intended to assess whether the contents of an individual’s self-concept were clearly and confidently defined, internally consistent and temporarily stable); the second question related to moral aspects, in particular the items chosen for the question are based on the Moralization of Everyday Life Scale (MELS) developed by Lovett, Jordan & Wiltermuth (2012) who found six factors underlying everyday morality: deception, social norm violation that harm others, laziness, failure to do good, bodily violations and performing disgusting behaviours; the third question consisted of aspects related to social axioms, in particular those linked to social influence, complexity, cynicism and control. The semi-structured interviews were carried out face to face either within Reading University or at the home or place of work of the interviewees between October and December 2015. The length thereof was between 45 and 90 minutes, considering that the last 5-10 minutes were used to complete the questionnaire. All of them were audio-recorded after prior consent of the participants, in order to facilitate the subsequent transcription. Analysis of results The results of this study suggest that individuals are differently motivated to follow a sustainable lifestyle depending on whether their personal or social identities are salient, and also on the congruence between their core self and the rest of the layers which form their identities. Therefore sustainable individuals could be divided between those who are more sustainable when their personal identities in terms of sustainability are salient and those who are more sustainable when their social identities are prominent. Moreover, it seems that the motivations driving individuals to live sustainably differ from one group to another, which translates into different kinds of intentions and levels of commitment with the issue. Personal identity salient On the one hand, a first group of individuals express their sustainable self when their personal identity is salient, and therefore sustainability is present at their core self, which means individuals’ personal characteristics and traits are somehow related to the environment and sustainability. When one of this group was asked to answer to the question ‘who am I?’ twenty times he replied: “Gardener, food soldier, I'm a food soldier and sometimes cyclist.. discerning, medicine man, certain times musician.. communicator, community facilitator.. I like nature and to be free from pollution, so.. world citizen, and.. […] I like doing things, teaching and learning languages and recipes and tea, very important for me and something like.. .. you know caring for the planet and the people” (Male, 29) It seems their ‘sustainable self’ is their real self and sustainability is strongly present in the formation and development of their identities. In this case there is congruence between the core self and the rest of the layers which shape the identity of these individuals, as sustainability is helping them express their real self and express their core values through a specific lifestyle (core self). Sustainability is also allowing them to play the roles which are in accordance with their real ‘me’ (learned self), such as the role of caring (for society and the environment) or the role of setting an example for others. Furthermore, it is helping them to live out certain behaviours which are linked to their values and beliefs (lived self). Lastly, sustainability is facilitating them being seen as they really are (perceived self), truly green, sustainable individuals. Individuals of this group are then divided into two sub-groups depending on the motivations which drive them to live sustainably. 10

The ‘Defenders’ Firstly, the ‘Defenders’ might be fulfilling the four drives simultaneously, as the expression of the drives seems to be linked. They are fulfilling the drive to defend, as they are following the need of defending their values and beliefs and living in accordance to them. Through these actions they have learned more about the problem of sustainability (drive to learn), not only individually, but by joining sustainable organisations (drive to bond). All together has given them their desired status of ‘sustainable individual’, whereby they have fulfilled the drive to acquire. The drives to defend and bond though may be dominant in this group, as individuals in this group do not only care about themselves and defending their values and beliefs, but their community, the environment and future generations. This is the case of one of the respondents who relates living sustainably with caring for the planet and those who live on it, while at the same time connect with others by sharing knowledge. “I think I would just define sustainable living as having a very light global footprint I think, trying to live in a way that has a lower impact on the heart resources as much as possible […] yes, to live in a way that has the least amount of violence on natural resources and.. and human resources, like so include that in the human resources […] sustainable living is me passing on that information to the younger generations” (Male, 46) When talking about sustainability, their motivations and influences, individuals of this group talk about the collective, the consequences unsustainable practices are having on the environment, their local community and society in general. When asked one of the participants about her motivation to live sustainably she explained how important the protection of the environment is for her and how much she cares about those living on it: “In general the intention to preserve the world, trying to not lose what we have, the little we have, the natural resources […] the nature, the natural things.. what is also what we depend on […] I want to give back. Also it is the respect for people […] There are a lot of things, but they are interconnected. There is also the respect for.. at the end this also influences what happens in other parts of the world, so it is like a global respect!” (Female, 28) The ‘Environmentalists’ Secondly, the ‘Environmentalists’ do not seem to fulfil the four drives, as the drive to bond is not highly expressed in this group –they do not aspire to be seen as sustainable or identify themselves with a sustainable group. The drives to defend and learn (and teach) are more salient in this case, as individuals are really concerned about defending the environment –they care about energy use and waste- and learn as well as teach others about the issue –in most of the cases their career paths are linked to sustainable development (working in universities or the public sector): “I see sustainability more in terms of the environment, which is directly connected with energy” (Male, 33) “I am an environmental fundamentalist basically, it's just sort of the environment comes first, without protecting the environment we won't be able to have social justice, we won't be able to have some form of economy” (Male, 46)

11

For the ‘Defenders’ and the ‘Environmentalists’ sustainability is part of their selves and their motivations are collectivistic oriented, as their main reason to live sustainably is somehow related to the protection of the environment, the defence of human rights and the support to their community -they might try to left behind personal interests when pursuing the interests of the group (Triandis, 1985, 1988). Hence, it seems the drives to defend and learn are more salient when individuals are driven to live sustainably by collective motives. Furthermore, the behaviour of these two groups seems to have a long-term character, and these individuals might become even more sustainable with the passing of time, as they are really committed and believe in a better, more sustainable society. Social identity salient On the other hand, those individuals who are considered sustainable when their social identities are salient do not seem to have sustainability expressed at the core self –they do not talk about sustainability issues when describing who or how they are-, but at the perceived self. This means their real self is not necessarily sustainable, but they ought or want to be sustainable individuals (ideal self) or at least being perceived that way. When asked a participant of this group about people seeing him as sustainable he replied: “Well the fact that we got.. I mean we've got a car, but we brought a Prius rather than a you know.. a gasser [laughs], so yes I guess so, yes” (Male, 68) In this case, he talks about being sustainable in the public sphere –people can see the type of car he owns, and also consider him sustainable because of being a member of a sustainable organisation-, but he does not necessarily follow a sustainable lifestyle in a private way. For this type of individuals there is incongruence between the layers which form their identities, as they may be seen as sustainable, live a sustainable life and play the role of ‘sustainable’ somehow, but sustainability is not at their core self and therefore real self. Depending on the motivations which drive this group to follow a sustainable lifestyle, individuals can be categorised as ‘Socially Sustainable’ and ‘Accidentally Sustainable’. The ‘Socially Sustainable’ Individuals considered ‘Socially Sustainable’ are expressing the drives to acquire and bond in a greater way, as they get involved into sustainable practices with the aim of identifying themselves with a specific social group –and being accepted by it- and acquire the status of ‘sustainable’ or ‘green’ within their community. When asked about motives for living sustainably one of the interviewees replied: “Does make me feel good […] I have quite a guilty conscious so.. for me when I.. when you learn, when you're conscious of what's right and what's wrong..” (Female, 23) In this case, she is looking for social acceptance and feeling better with herself –individual benefits. Although members of this group are not expressing their concern for sustainability at the core self, they are fighting to achieve that state, and transform their ideal self into their real self. Some of them have made big changes in their lives like changing career path –from big corporations to work in charities or develop their sustainable businesses. The ‘Accidentally Sustainable’ The ‘Accidentally Sustainable’, however, live sustainably either because it is ‘a trend’ or because they do not have the necessary resources to live in a different way. The former would swap to a different lifestyle if it called more their attention and the latter would live in a more unsustainable way if they have more money. Hence, the drives to acquire (either a status as the 12

‘alternative’ or ‘sustainable’, or a financial stability) and bond are affecting them in a greater way; while at the same time it seems they are not fulfilling the four motivational drives –the fulfilment of one drive does not lead to the fulfilment of the others (Lawrence and Nohria, 2002). “It has happened more by accident (living sustainably) than desire. If I had a good job with a good salary.. I suspect things would be a bit different, I'm afraid to say. I suspect probably would have a car […] I mean I'm very sorry, it is mainly because for long time I had no money and no work.. on the other hand it has to be said if I get a reasonable amount of money I'd probably spend it on things like education or maybe doing my house up. That's not carbon neutral” (Male, 56) It seems sustainability is not part of their real identity, but something ‘they do’ temporarily, and therefore the main difference with the other three groups is that they live sustainably because of reasons not linked with the issue of sustainability. Hence, both of these groups –‘Socially Sustainable’ and ‘Accidentally Sustainable’- are living this way due to individual reasons, as the consequences of their behaviour are benefiting them at an individual more than collective level. The drives to acquire and bond are dominant in these two cases, and therefore it could be said that these drives are linked to individual motives when talking about sustainable living. Lastly, the lack of commitment with the cause of sustainability might lead to short-term behaviour, as individuals belonging to this group would behave in a different way if it was more convenient or attractive to them, as their behaviour is not completely aligned with the expression of their identities –sustainability is expressed at the perceived but not core self. Discussion It seems that in the case of the ‘Defenders’ and the ‘Environmentalist’ the sustainable self is expressed when their personal identities are salient. Sustainability is present at the core self of individuals and there is congruence between the layers of their selves. They are who they really are, they play the roles that are their real roles, they live as is really them, and they seem to be seen as they really are. This congruence expresses the authenticity of this kind of people, who really care about the environment and society, who take into account sustainability in every aspect of their lives and who are able to make great sacrifices in order to fight for what they believe. However, it still might be that there is a misalignment between their real and their ideal self, as even though they seem to be more sustainable than the other two groups and therefore they live more sustainably, they think they are not doing enough and they would like to do more. Sustainability is clearly part of their selves but for them is not enough and they would like to do more –like building an eco-house (female, 59). Moreover, it could be argued that the ‘Socially Sustainable’ and the ‘Accidentally Sustainable’ are perceived to be more sustainable when their social identities are prominent. For these individuals, there is not a congruence between the layers of the self, as sustainability is expressed at the perceived but not at the core self. This lack of congruence may lead to dysfunctional patterns of behaviour –e.g. play a sustainable role (such as the ‘green’) while sustainability is not expressed at the core self of the individual-, which may have negative consequences such as short-term engagement or low levels of commitment. It could be said that the two first groups -who are more authentic in terms of sustainability, who have their identity in congruence and therefore follow functional patterns of behaviourwill be always driven my motivations that benefit the collective (defend the environment, society, local community). They are more willing to live a sustainable life because this kind of lifestyle is in accordance with their inner personalities and the way they behave –and the way 13

they are seen by others. They are driven by collectivistic motives, thinking about themselves as part of a group, a community they have to care about and fight for. That is the reason they started their sustainable journey, because they were driven by the need of defending their beliefs and those they thought were helpless, e.g. the environment. However, those who are sustainable when their social identity is salient live sustainably pursuing a personal benefit, either identify themselves with their ideal social group –‘Socially Sustainable’- or acquiring a status or financial stability –‘Accidentally Sustainable’. These individuals started living sustainably because of individualistic purposes, which may be the reason they are not willing to sacrifice as much for sustainability and they are not doing as much as they could. Therefore, it could be concluded that individuals are driven by different motivations to live sustainably depending on whether their personal or social identity is salient, and depending on the congruence between the layers of their selves. Those who are more sustainable when their personal identity is salient –and therefore there is congruence in the expression of their identities- are driven to live sustainably by collectivistic reasons –drives to defend and learn-, which involve higher levels of commitment. Individuals whose sustainable self is expressed when their social identities are salient (and there is no congruence between the layers of their selves), however, are motivated to follow a sustainable lifestyle because of individualistic reasons –drives to acquire and bond-, which leads to low levels of awareness and commitment. Contributions and Directions for Future Research There are three main contributions of this study. It has first introduced a conceptual framework for understanding the motivations of individuals following sustainable lifestyles drawing upon the Four Drives Theory of human behaviour. To date there has been no work applying the Four Drives Theory in the context of sustainable living, this study is therefore both original and provides insights for future research in this area. Secondly, informed by extant work on identity formation it has shown how identity is an important moderator in this process, as the results of the study show how the way the identity of those living sustainably dynamically develops directly influences the causes which lead them to follow a sustainable lifestyle. These two first contributions allow us to answer research questions 1 and 2. Finally it has introduced a new typology of sustainable individuals, identifying two main groups but also recognising the potential for this to be extended to four subgroups, which answers our third research question. The context of the research was very broad, as people who self-identified themselves as ‘individuals following sustainable lifestyles’ were interviewed. Therefore, the quality of the results could be affected as the conceptualisation of ‘sustainable living’ could be understood very differently by the participants. As a result of this study some findings from previous studies have been corroborated, whilst others have been challenged, by linking the expression of different sustainable identities to specific motivational drives. Future research could focus on how the different motivational drives affect the layers of the self, which could help us to understand not only what motivates people to live sustainably but also how different motivations affect the way they are and the roles they play.

14

References Aertsens, J., Mondelaers, K., Verbeke, W., Buysse, J., and Van Huylenbroeck, G. (2011). The influence of subjective and objective knowledge on attitude, motivations and consumption of organic food. British Food Journal, 113(11), 1353-1378. Anderton, K., & Jack, K. (2011). Green behaviour change: A case study of Eco Concierge. Going green: The psychology of sustainability in the workplace, 76. Arnould, E., Price, L., and Zinkhan, G. M. (2002). Consumers. New York: McGraw-Hill. Ashforth, B. E., and Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of management review, 14(1), 20-39. Backhaus, J., Breukers, S., Paukovic, M., Mourik, R., & Mont, O. (2011). Sustainable Lifestyles. Today's Facts and Tomorrow's Trends. D1. 1 Sustainable lifestyles baseline report. Baumeister, R. F., and Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological bulletin, 117(3), 497. Bedford, T., Jones, P., & Walker, H. (2004). Every little bit helps: Overcoming the challenges to researching, promoting and implementing sustainable lifestyles. Centre of Sustainable Development, University of Westminster, London. Black, I. R., & Cherrier, H. (2010). Anti-consumption as part of living a sustainable lifestyle: daily practices, contextual motivations and subjective values. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 9(6), 437-453. Breukers, S., Mont, O., Backhaus, J., & Paukovic, M. (2011). SPREAD Sustainable Lifestyles 2050. Wuppertal, ECN, Lund University and CSCP, 160. Campbell, J. D., Trapnell, P. D., Heine, S. J., Katz, I. M., Lavallee, L. F., and Lehman, D. R. (1996). Self-concept clarity: Measurement, personality correlates, and cultural boundaries. Journal of personality and social psychology, 70(1), 141. Colman, A. M. (2009). A dictionary of psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Copeland, M. (1924). Principles of Merchandising. In Kuman, A. and Sharma, R. (1998). Marketing Management. New Delhi: Atlantic Publishers and Distributors. Corner, A., & Randall, A. (2011). Selling climate change? The limitations of social marketing as a strategy for climate change public engagement. Global Environmental Change, 21(3), 1005-1014. Costa Pinto, D., Nique, W. M., Herter, M. M., & Borges, A. (2016). Green Consumers and their Identities: How Identities Change the Motivation for Green Consumption. International Journal of Consumer Studies (Accepted for publication). Costa Pinto, D., Herter, M. M., Rossi, P., and Borges, A. (2014). Going green for self or for others? Gender and identity salience effects on sustainable consumption. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 38(5), 540-549. De Young, R. (1986). Some psychological aspects of recycling: The structure of conservation satisfactions. Environment and Behavior 18:435–449. DeLamater, J. D., Myers, D. J. and Collett, J. L. (2014). Social Psychology. 8th edition. Westview Press. Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). (2008). Framework for environmental behaviours. London: DEFRA. Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). (2011a). Framework for sustainable lifestyles. London: DEFRA. Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). (2011b). Attitudes and behaviours around sustainable food consumption. London: DEFRA. Eckhardt, G. M., Belk, R. and Devinney, T. (2010) Why don’t consumers consume ethically? Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 9: 426-436. 15

Ekman, P., Friesen, W. V., and Ellsworth, P. (1972). Emotion in the human face: Guidelines for research and an integration of findings. Pergamon. European Commission (2008) European Commission, Directorate General Environment/24. Eurobarometer 295, Attitudes of European Citizens towards the Environment, March 2008. Freestone, O. M., and McGoldrick, P. J. (2008). Motivations of the ethical consumer. Journal of Business Ethics, 79(4), 445-467. Gilg, A., Barr, S., & Ford, N. (2005). Green consumption or sustainable lifestyles? Identifying the sustainable consumer. Futures, 37(6), 481-504. Harrison, R., Newholm, T., and Shaw, D. (Eds.). (2005). The Ethical Consumer. London: Sage. Hennink, M., Hutter, I., and Bailey, A. (2011). Qualitative research methods. London: Sage. Hillenbrand, C., & Money, K. G. (2015). Unpacking the Mechanism by Which Psychological Ownership Manifests at the Level of the Individual: A Dynamic Model of Identity and Self. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 23(2), 148-165. Hobson, K. (2002). Competing discourses of sustainable consumption: Does the 'rationalisation of lifestyles' make sense? Environmental politics, 11(2), 95-120. Hogg, M. A., and Abrams, D. (1988). Social Identifications: A Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations and Group Processes. London: Routledge. Judge TA, Locke EA, Durham CC. (1997). The dispositional causes of job satisfaction: A core evaluations approach. Research in Organizational Behavior 19, 151-188. Kaufman, J. (2011). Summary/review of Driven, by Lawrence and Nohria. Retrieved on January 16, 2015 from https://joshkaufman.net/driven/. Lawrence, P. R., and Nohria, N. (2002). Driven: how human nature shapes our choices. San Francisco, Calif.: Jossey-Bass. Leary, M. R., and Tangney, J. P. (Eds.). (2003). Handbook of self and identity. New York: Guilford Press. Lovett, B. J., Jordan, A. H., & Wiltermuth, S. S. (2012). Individual differences in the moralization of everyday life. Ethics & Behavior, 22(4), 248-257. Markus, H., and Wurf, E. (1987). The dynamic self-concept: A social psychological perspective. Annual review of psychology, 38(1), 299-337. McDonald, S., Oates, C. J., Alevizou, P. J., Young, C. W. and Hwang, K. (2012). Individual strategies for sustainable consumption. Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 28, Nos. 3–4, March 2012, 445–468. McShane, S. L., and Von Glinow, M. A. (2010). Organizational Behavior: Emerging Knowledge and Practice for the Real World. 5th Edition. New York: McGrawHill/Irwin. Munro, D. A., and Holdgate, M. W. (1991). Caring for the Earth: A strategy for sustainable living. London, UK: International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources. Neisser, U. (1993). The self perceived. In U. Neisser (Ed.), The perceived self: Ecological and interpersonal sources of self-knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Nohria, N., Groysberg, B., and Lee, L.-E. (2008). Employee Motivation. Harvard Business Review, 86(7/8), 78-84. Oyserman, D. (2001). Self-concept and identity. In A. Tesser & N. Schwarz, The Blackwell Handbook of Social Psychology (pp. 499-517). Malden, MA: Blackwell. Oyserman, D. (2009a). Identity-based motivation: Implications for action-readiness, procedural-readiness, and consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 19(3), 250-260. Oyserman, D. (2009b). Identity-based motivation and consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 19(3), 276-279. 16

Oyserman, D., & Destin, M. (2010). Identity-based motivation: Implications for intervention. The Counseling Psychologist, 38(7), 1001-1043. Poster, M. (ed) (1988). Jean Baudrillard, Selected Writings. Stanford University Press. Prothero, A., Dobscha, S., Freund, J., Kilbourne, Luchs, M.G., Ozanne, L. and Thøgersen, J. (2011). Sustainable consumption: opportunities for consumer research and public policy. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 30(1): 31-38. Sneed, J. R., and Whitbourne, S. K. (2005). Models of the aging self. Journal of Social Issues, 61(2), 375-388. Tapia-Fonllem, C., Corral-Verdugo, V., Fraijo-Sing, B., & Durón-Ramos, M. F. (2013). Assessing sustainable behavior and its correlates: A measure of pro-ecological, frugal, altruistic and equitable actions. Sustainability, 5(2), 711-723. Thornton, A. (2009). Public attitudes and behaviours towards the environment - tracker survey: A report to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. TNS. DEFRA, London. Triandis, H. C., Leung, K., Villareal, M., & Clack, E L. (1985). Allocentric vs idiocentric tendencies: Convergent and discriminant validation. Journal of Research in Personality, 19, 395-415. Triandis, H. C., Bontempo, R., Villareal, M. J., Asai, M., & Lucca, N. (1988). Individualism and collectivism: Cross-cultural perspectives on self-ingroup relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 323-338. Webb, J. R. (2002). Understanding and designing market research. Cengage Learning EMEA. Webster Jr, F. E. (1975). Determining the characteristics of the socially conscious consumer. Journal of consumer research, 188-196. Welch, D. (2014) Seminar: Ethical Consumption and Sustainable Consumption. Available at http://ww2.anglia.ac.uk/ruskin/en/home/microsites/global_sustainability_institute/sem inars_events/past_events_and_resources0/gsi_lunchtime_seminars3.Maincontent.001 5.file.tmp/Ethical%20Consumption%20vs.%20Sustainable%20Consumption.pdf. (Accessed 04.02.2015). Winter, M. (2007). Sustainable Living: For Home, Neighborhood and Community. Westsong Pub. Worcester, R. M. (2000). Ethical Consumerism Research. The Co-operative Bank, London. Available at https://www.ipsos-mori.com/Assets/Docs/Archive/Polls/coop-csr.pdf. (Accessed 20.04.2014). Wright, R. (2006). Consumer Behaviour. London: Thomson Learning. Ziller, R. C. (1990). Photographing the self: Methods for observing personal orientations. London: Sage.

17