Experiments reveal how awe of nature influences purchase intentions for low-carbon products based on consumer values.
Addressing the persistent challenge of sluggish consumer demand for low‐carbon products has long been a central concern for both businesses and scholars. In recent years, leveraging consumers' sense of awe has emerged as a promising marketing strategy to promote sustainable consumption. While prior studies have investigated the direct effects of awe emotions with different valences on green or low‐carbon consumption preferences, little attention has been paid to whether these effects differ across consumer groups with distinct value orientations. To address this research gap, this study explores the interaction between consumers' environmental values and their sense of awe toward nature. Specifically, it examines how consumers with different value types (self‐oriented vs. prosocial) differ in their purchase intentions for low‐carbon products when exposed to different awe‐evoking natural stimuli (threatening nature vs. grand and beautiful nature vs. control group) and further investigates the underlying psychological mechanisms that drive these effects. This study employed a combination of longitudinal and cross‐sectional designs across three experiments. The findings revealed that for self‐oriented consumers, awe of threatening nature triggered a heightened sense of self‐diminishment and enhanced their perception of the product's environmental value, thereby increasing their intention to purchase low‐carbon products. In contrast, for prosocial consumers, awe of grand and beautiful nature enhanced their perception of both the vastness of nature and the product's environmental value, which in turn boosted their purchase intention. These insights not only offer a novel theoretical framework for understanding the interaction between emotions and values in sustainable consumption but also provide practical implications for developing value‐tailored marketing strategies and brand positioning for low‐carbon products.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kong et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: