# A Study on the Motivational Dynamics of Luxury and Green Purchasing Behavior

Vedant Bhrambhatt, Akshat Nishad

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

## To cite this version:

Vedant Bhrambhatt, Akshat Nishad. A Study on the Motivational Dynamics of Luxury and Green Purchasing Behavior. Asian Journal of Economics, Business and Accounting, 2025, 25 (3), pp.168-183. 10.9734/ajeba/2025/v25i31702. hal-04974369

HAL Id: hal-04974369

https://hal.science/hal-04974369v1

Submitted on 3 Mar 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access archive for the deposit and dissemination of scientific research documents, whether they are published or not. The documents may come from teaching and research institutions in France or abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

# A Study on the Motivational Dynamics of Luxury and Green Purchasing Behavior

Vedant Bhrambhatt a,b* and Akshat Nishad b,c

## Authors' contributions

This work was carried out in collaboration between both authors. Both authors read and approved the final manuscript.

## Article Information

DOI: https://doi.org/10.9734/ajeba/2025/v25i31702

**Open Peer Review History:**

This journal follows the Advanced Open Peer Review policy. Identity of the Reviewers, Editor(s) and additional Reviewers, peer review comments, different versions of the manuscript, comments of the editors, etc are available here: https://pr.sdiarticle5.com/review-history/131657

Received: 23/12/2024

Accepted: 25/02/2025

Published: 03/03/2025

## Original Research Article

## ABSTRACT

**Background:** Green products frequently include a green premium, making them inaccessible to consumers of all income levels. This frequently leads to these green items being seen as expensive and/or luxurious; however, other variables besides price are crucial. It is critical to understand the purpose of purchasing these products in order to alter the marketing plan for maximum production. This study extended Dahm's (2018) model, which focused on luxury buying incentives as both intrinsic and extrinsic, by incorporating green purchasing and luxury purchase intention.

**Materials and Methods:** The design is based on correlational research. This study collects data using snowball and convenience sampling, as well as online questionnaires and assesses the variables using pre-published scales with a credible Cronbach's alpha value. For the scope of this study, responses were collected from 317 subjects based in Gujarat, India.

<footnote>a Gisma University of Applied Sciences, Potsdam, Germany.</footnote>

<footnote>b The Green Research Project, Esteem Publication, Ahmedabad, India.</footnote>

<footnote>c The Maharaja Sayajirao University, Baroda, India.</footnote>

<footnote>*Corresponding author: E-mail: vedantbarot44@gmail.com, vedant.bhrambhatt@gisma-student.com;</footnote>
**Results:** Our findings indicate intrinsic motivation significantly influences extrinsic motivation. However, neither intrinsic nor extrinsic motivations were found to significantly impact Green Purchase Intention (GPI) or Luxury Purchase Intention (LPI). Significant correlations were observed between GPI and various constructs for Intrinsic & extrinsic motivation, which suggests a complex interplay between personality traits and purchase intentions.

**Keywords:** Luxury Purchase; green products; intrinsic motivation; extrinsic motivation; consumer science; sustainability.

# 1. INTRODUCTION

Consumerism, characterized by overindulgence in consumer goods without consideration for environmental impacts, has been extensively debated over recent decades (Nandi, 2016; Lister, 2016). Green consumerism and green behavior (GB) have emerged as responses to environmental concerns, encompassing practices like recycling, organic food consumption, and energy conservation (Ogiemwonyi & Jan, 2023; Ogiemwonyi, 2021), with green marketing strategies encouraging sustainable consumer behavior (Kumar & Polonsky, 2017).

## 1.1 Consumerism

Consumerism, a socioeconomic doctrine emphasizing the importance of purchasing and consuming goods and services, has evolved significantly since its origins in pre-industrial societies (Ratnesh et al., 2023). Contemporary consumerism is driven by a complex interplay of biological, socio-psychological, and structural factors. Biological influences include hormonal effects, such as testosterone's role in increasing preference for premium brands and luxury goods (Dubois et al., 2021). Socio-psychological factors encompass political ideology, social status, and network influences (Shah & Asghar, 2023), while structural elements involve income inequality and economic growth (Dubois et al., 2021). Economic factors, categorized as macroeconomic, microeconomic, and demographic, play a crucial role in shaping consumer behavior, with income being the most significant determinant of demand and spending patterns (Deselnicu et al., 2022). Social factors, including family dynamics, social networks, and cultural norms, exerts considerable influence on consumption patterns, particularly in collectivist societies (Clark et al., 2019). Psychological factors such as motivation, perception, and attitudes further shape consumer behavior, especially in online environments where website aesthetics and user experience are paramount (Rautrao, 2018). Additionally, emotional states like fear and anxiety during

crises can lead to irrational consumer behaviors such as panic buying (Di Crosta et al., 2021). The digital age has introduced new dimensions to consumerism, raising privacy concerns and altering the dynamics of consumer-producer relationships (Zuboff, 2019). In addition, consumerism can also be divided into two types, luxury consumerism and green consumerism.

## 1.2 Luxury Consumerism

Luxury consumption, driven by psychological, cultural, and social factors, focuses on exclusivity, status, and emotional satisfaction (Kuo & Nagasawa, 2020). It varies across cultures, with Eastern consumers emphasizing social status and Western consumers prioritizing individuality (Naumova et al., 2019). The mainland market is anticipated to remain stable in 2025, with a challenging first half followed by an improvement in the second half, supported by the positive effects of economic stimulus measures in China (Lannes et al., 2025). Escapism and conformity, driven by social comparison and self-determination theories, positively impact attitudes toward luxury brands. Additionally, individual cultural values, such as self-enhancement and self-transcendence, moderate the relationship between these motivations and consumer attitudes. (Petrescu et al., 2024). Luxury consumption types include traditional 'loud' and 'quiet' luxury, as well as non-traditional forms emphasizing uniqueness and sustainability (Dubois et al., 2021). The costs of luxury consumerism extend to psychological, economic, and social domains. Psychologically, it can lead to feelings of inauthenticity and guilt. Economically, undeserved luxury consumption can dilute brand value. Socially, luxury consumers may be perceived as less warm and sociable, potentially harming relationships (Dubois et al., 2021). Understanding these dynamics is crucial for marketers tailoring strategies to diverse global consumer preferences and for addressing the broader societal and environmental impacts of luxury consumption.
## 1.3 Green Consumerism

Green consumerism, characterized by consumers prioritizing environmentally friendly and sustainable products, has gained momentum due to increased environmental awareness (Mbokane & Modley, 2024). Demographic factors such as age and political ideology influence green consumer behavior, with younger and left-leaning individuals generally showing stronger environmental concern (Tyson, 2021). Consumers' pro-environmental concerns have a significant impact on their green purchasing behavior. Factors such as environmental awareness, health considerations, economic interests, energy-saving efforts, and recycling concerns positively influence their green buying decisions. (Abeywardana & Perera, 2023) Green consumers exhibit heightened market awareness, emotional connection to nature, and willingness to pay premium prices for eco-friendly products (Lin & Lin, 2015; Amberg & Fogarassy, 2019). They are often driven by health concerns, social norms, and perceived consumer effectiveness (Nguyen et al., 2023; Barclay & Barker, 2020; Ricci et al., 2018). Improved carbon footprint data can better guide mitigation efforts. (OECD, 2025) The impact of green consumerism extends to environmental conservation, sustainable development, and business practices. It encourages companies to adopt sustainable practices and invest in eco-friendly initiatives (Dangelico & Vocalelli, 2017). Social media plays a crucial role in promoting green consumerism, particularly among millennials, by raising awareness and influencing purchasing decisions (Jain et al., 2020; Xie & Madni, 2020). Among the over 17,000 households surveyed across nine countries in the OECD Environmental Policies and Individual Behaviour Change (EPIC) Survey, 65% expressed a willingness to adjust their lifestyles to support environmental sustainability. (OECD, 2025) Companies are adopting transparent communication channels and implementing environmentally sustainable practices to meet evolving consumer demands and maintain competitive advantage (Deshmukh & Tare, 2023).

## 1.4 Purchase Behaviour

The study of how consumers pick, acquire, utilize, and discard products, experiences, ideas, and services to suit their requirements, as well as the ramifications these activities have on the consumer and society, is known as consumer behaviour. The way that customers behave when making purchases is a result of their choices,

goals, and opinions combined with their reactions to products in the marketplace (Roy, 2022). It can also be divided into two types: green and luxury purchase behaviour.

Luxury consumption involves acquiring high-end goods and services that symbolize wealth and status while enhancing personal self-concept (Kerviler & Rodriguez, 2019; Sumbly & Siraj, 2019). Consumer choices are influenced by brand prominence, aesthetics, and hedonic value. Additional factors shaping luxury purchase behavior include social status, brand image, psychological satisfaction, sensory appeal, and socio-cultural narratives.

Green purchase behaviour has gained significant attention as consumers become increasingly environmentally conscious (Sharma et al., 2022). This shift in consumer behavior has prompted researchers to develop and apply various theoretical frameworks to understand and predict green consumerism.

The Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) is a prominent model used to explain green purchase intentions and behaviors, using attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioural control and how they influence individuals' intentions and subsequent behaviours. The relationship between marketing efforts and actual buying behavior is mediated by these TPB components, according to research, even while green marketing has a considerable impact on consumer attitudes and subjective standards (Hidayat & Sananta, 2024).

Behavioral Reasoning Theory or BRT makes a distinction between the "reasons for" and "reasons against" a particular action. Studies have shown that "reasons for" green consumption are strongly connected to attitudes towards green products and green purchase behavior. Conversely, "reasons against" can hinder green purchase intentions but may not significantly affect attitudes towards green products (Sreen et al., 2022). Le-Anh et al. (2023) found that financial and environmental benefits were primary reasons for green consumption, while perceived costs were reasons against it, though with less significant impact.

Consumption Value Theory. The Theory of Consumption Values (TCV) offers another perspective on green consumer behavior by identifying five types of values that influence purchase decisions: functional, social, emotional, conditional, and epistemic. Functional value,
which relates to the perceived utility of a product's physical and utilitarian properties, has been found to impact the purchase of green products. Social value, derived from a product's association with certain social groups, has been shown to influence green purchase behavior in emerging economies (Ali et al., 2019). Emotional value, the utility perceived when a product evokes certain feelings or emotions, plays a role in green consumption. Rahnama (2017) explains that green consumption often emerges from feelings of comfort that lead consumers to choose green products over standard ones. Conditional value, which depends on the circumstances or situations in which a product is used, has been found to have a primary effect on consumers' behavior towards green products. Lastly, epistemic value, related to a product's ability to satisfy curiosity or provide novelty, has been shown to significantly affect consumer behavior towards green products.

## 1.5 Motivation

Human behavior is driven by motivation in a variety of scenarios, and it has a big impact on performance in both organizational and educational settings. It can be mainly divided into two types: Internal and External. Internal Motivation: The research on consumer behavior emphasizes how crucial internal motivation is in influencing customer loyalty and decision. Maslow's hierarchy of requirements suggests that as lower-level wants are met, consumers become more driven by higher-order demands like self-actualization and esteem. Furthermore, consumer perceptions and future purchase behavior are greatly influenced by prior consumption experiences (Khandelwal et al., 2016). External Motivation: When psychological requirements are not satisfied, extrinsic motivation—such as rewards and punishments—is more likely to occur (Chen, Elliot, & Sheldon, 2019). Extrinsic motivation can be classified as external (Osei-Frimpong, 2019), identified, introjected, or integrated (Cook & Artino, 2016). Extrinsic factors like incentives, expectancy-value (Abrate et al., 2021), peer pressure (Chang & Nguyen, 2018), and advertising (Zhang, 2023) have significant impacts on consumer behavior and decision-making.

## 1.6 Theoretical Framework

Our framework was mainly derived from the work of Dahm (2018), who mainly elaborated on luxury purchase motivations as both intrinsic and

extrinsic, which included variables such as hedonism, perfectionism, veblenism, snobbism and bandwagonism. This framework was adapted to include green purchase intention as well as sociodemographic variables for our study.

# 2. MATERIALS AND METHODS

## 2.1 Research Design

For this investigation, a correlational research design was employed. Correlation research aims to establish the relationship between two or more variables. Correlation studies seek to establish a statistically significant association or connection among the variables under investigation. The factors in question are the subjects of collecting information under this study design. The nature and magnitude of the relationship between the variables are then determined by statistical analysis. The research design for this paper made use of online questionnaires, convenience, and snowball sampling. Contextually modified scales for the study's variables that had been previously designed, validated, and checked for reliability made up the questionnaire.

## 2.2 Hypothesis

1. There will be no significant correlation between "Purchase Intention for Green Products" and "Purchase Intention for Luxury Products".

2. There will be no significant correlation between "Hedonism" and "Purchase Intention for Green Products".

3. There will be no significant correlation between "Perfectionism" and "Purchase Intention for Green Products".

4. There will be no significant correlation between "Snobbism" and "Purchase Intention for Green Products".

5. There will be no significant correlation between "Bandwagonism" and "Purchase Intention for Green Products".

6. There will be no significant correlation between "Veblenism" and "Purchase Intention for Green Products".

7. There will be no significant correlation between "Hedonism" and "Purchase Intention for Luxury Products".

8. There will be no significant correlation between "Perfectionism" and "Purchase Intention for Luxury Products".

9. There will be no significant correlation between "Snobbism" and "Purchase Intention for Luxury Products".

10. There will be no significant correlation between "Bandwagonism" and "Purchase Intention for Luxury Products".
11. There will be no significant correlation between “Veblenism” and “Purchase Intention for Luxury Products”.

12. There will be no significant correlation between “Hedonism” and “Perfectionism”.

13. There will be no significant correlation between “Hedonism” and “Snobbism”.

14. There will be no significant correlation between “Hedonism” and “Bandwagonism”.

15. There will be no significant correlation between “Hedonism” and “Veblenism”.

16. There will be no significant correlation between “Perfectionism” and “Snobbism”.

17. There will be no significant correlation between “Perfectionism” and “Bandwagonism”.

18. There will be no significant correlation between “Perfectionism” and “Veblenism”.

19. There will be no significant correlation between “Snobbism” and “Bandwagonism”.

20. There will be no significant correlation between “Snobbism” and “Veblenism”.

21. There will be no significant correlation between “Bandwagonism” and “Veblenism”.

22. Hypothesis related to Demographics (GPI)

22.1. There will be no significant difference in “Purchase Intention for Green Products” between “Genders”

22.2. There will be no significant difference in “Purchase Intention for Green Products” between “Age groups”

22.3. There will be no significant difference in “Purchase Intention for Green Products” between “Occupation”

22.4. There will be no significant difference in “Purchase Intention for Green Products” between “Family Income Groups”

22.5. There will be no significant difference in “Purchase Intention for Green Products” between “Rural and Urban Residences”

22.6. There will be no significant difference in “Purchase Intention for Green Products” between “Marital Status”

23. Hypothesis related to Demographics (LPI)

23.1. There will be no significant difference in “Purchase Intention for Luxury Products” between “Genders”

23.2. There will be no significant difference in “Purchase Intention for Luxury Products” between “Occupation”

23.3. There will be no significant difference in “Purchase Intention for Luxury Products” between “Family Income Groups”

23.4. There will be no significant difference in “Purchase Intention for Luxury Products” between “Rural and Urban Residences”

23.5. There will be no significant difference in “Purchase Intention for Luxury Products” between “Marital Status”

24. Intrinsic Motivation does not act as a predictor that significantly impacts **Extrinsic Motivation**.

25. Intrinsic Motivation does not act as a predictor that significantly impacts **GPI**.

26. Intrinsic Motivation does not act as a predictor that significantly impacts **LPI**.

27. **Extrinsic** Motivation does not act as a predictor that significantly impacts **GPI**.

28. **Extrinsic** Motivation does not act as a predictor that significantly impacts **LPI**.

29. LPI does not act as a predictor that significantly impacts **GPI**.

## 2.3 Measuring Scales

The scales and measures used for the constructs were adapted from:

Maichum et al. (2017), consisting of 3 items for Green Purchase Intention.

Canguende-Valentim and Vale (2022), consisting of 4 items for LPI.

Wang et al. (2021) consisting of 4 items for Hedonism.

Gorshynov (2020), consisting of 4 items for Snobbism.

Areiza-Padilla and Puertas (2021) consisting of 5 items for Veblenism.

Park and Gretzel (2010) consist of 3 items for Perfectionism.

Das et al. (2021) consist of 3 items for Bandwagonism.

All the adapted scales used a five-point Likert scale. The Likert scale ranges from 1 to 5, where 1 represents strongly disagree and 5 represents strongly agree. A pilot study involving 33 participants was carried out to evaluate the internal consistency of the scales. A metric called Cronbach's alpha was employed to evaluate internal consistency. The analysis's findings are presented below in Table 1.
<table><caption>Table 1. Scales, Variable, and their Cronbach's Alpha value</caption><thead><tr><td>Sr. No.</td><td>Variable</td><td>Cronbach's Alpha value</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>A.</td><td><strong>Green Purchase Intention</strong><br>I choose to purchase products that are environmentally-friendly.<br>I buy green products even if they are more expensive than normal products.<br>I intend to purchase green products next time because of its positive environmental contribution.</td><td>0.759</td></tr><tr><td>B.</td><td><strong>Luxury Purchase Intention</strong><br>The probability that I would buy luxury goods within the next 12 months is high.<br>I will try to buy luxury goods in future.<br>I will recommend that my friends and relatives purchase luxury products.<br>I would think about a luxury goods as a choice when buying something.</td><td>0.787</td></tr><tr><td>C.</td><td><strong>Hedonism</strong><br>Luxury products should make me happy.<br>Luxury consumption should bring me self-satisfaction.<br>Luxury consumption can be a way to reduce stress.<br>Luxury products should make me feel better about myself.</td><td>0.911</td></tr><tr><td>D.</td><td><strong>Perfectionism</strong><br>Getting very good quality products is important to me.<br>In general, I try to buy the best overall quality products.<br>I make a special effort to choose the very best quality products.</td><td>0.876</td></tr><tr><td>E.</td><td><strong>Snobbism</strong><br>I think that luxury goods help to create a personal image that cannot be duplicated.<br>I would prefer to own luxury products before others do.<br>When a luxury product or brand becomes popular among others, it loses its appeal for me.<br>I often look for one-of-a-kind products so that I create a style that is all my own.</td><td>0.795</td></tr><tr><td>F.</td><td><strong>Bandwagonism</strong><br>I intend to buy a very popular and currently very fashionable luxury product that everyone would approve.<br>I intend to buy luxury products used by many celebrities, recognized by many as a symbol of success.<br>I intend to buy luxury products that is chosen and worn by many people as a symbol of achievement.</td><td>0.95</td></tr><tr><td>G.</td><td><strong>Veblenism</strong><br>People buy luxury products to enhance their image.<br>People buy luxury products for uniqueness, to have services others do not own.<br>People buy luxury products to be fashionable.<br>By using luxury products, people intend to please others.<br>People using luxury products feel more important.</td><td>0.9</td></tr></tbody></table>
## 2.4 Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria

The inclusion and exclusion criteria given for this study were set as:

<table><caption>Table 2. Inclusion & Exclusion Criteria</caption><thead><tr><td>Inclusion Criteria</td><td>Exclusion Criteria</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Participants above the age of 18</td><td>Participants under the age of 18</td></tr><tr><td>Male and Female</td><td>LGBTQ+ Gender</td></tr><tr><td>Gender</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

## 2.5 Demographic Details of the Participants

The study comprised a total sample size of 317 participants, with a gender distribution of 144 males (45.43%) and 173 females (54.57%). Regarding age, the majority of respondents (248 participants, 78.23%) were between 18-24 years old, followed by 33 participants (10.41%) aged 45 and above, 27 participants (8.52%) in the 25-35 age range, and 9 participants (2.84%) aged 35-44. In terms of occupation, 233 respondents (73.50%) were students, 70 (22.08%) were employed, and 14 (4.42%) were unemployed. When categorized by income, 79 participants (24.92%) reported earning below 3 lakh annually, 108 (34.07%) had an income between 3-8 lakh, 49 (15.46%) reported earning 8-12 lakh, and 81 (25.55%) had an income above 12 lakh. In terms of residence, the majority of the sample, 278 participants (87.70%), lived in urban areas, while 39 participants (12.30%) resided in rural areas. Finally, with respect to marital status, 268 participants (84.54%) were unmarried, while 49 participants (15.46%) were married.

## 2.6 Procedure

The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between the following variables: 1. Green Purchase Intention; 2. Luxury Purchase Intention; 3. Hedonism; 4. Perfectionism; 5. Snobbism; 6. Bandwagonism; and 7. Veblenism; as well as the differences in these variables across different sociodemographic groups.

To expand the reach, data was gathered via an online Google form. It contained a consent form that ensured the confidentiality of participants' personal information and inquired about their desire to participate in the research. Amongst the socioeconomic data collected were gender, age groups, employment status, income groups, marital status, and area of residence.

Participants are asked to score every situation on a variety of scales based on how significant and

related it is to them. In scales and measurements, a five-point Likert scale was used. On the Likert scale, 1 represents extreme disagreement and 5 represents strong agreement. The questionnaire had thirty-three items in all, seven of which were pertaining to social demographics.

## 3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

In a sample of 317 people, descriptive statistics were performed for the scores of "Green Purchase Intention," "Luxury Purchase Intention," "Hedonism," "Perfectionism," "Snobbism," "Bandwagonism," and "Veblenism." The mean and standard deviation for the previously indicated variables are displayed in Table 3. They are as follows: "Green Purchase Intention" (M = 11.142, SD = 2.033), "Luxury Purchase Intention" (M = 12.694, SD = 3.291), "Hedonism" (M = 12.073, SD = 4.043), "Perfectionism" (M = 11.994, SD = 2.356), "Snobbism" (M = 12.003, SD = 3.184), "Bandwagonism" (M = 7.893, SD = 2.822), "Veblenism" (M = 18.218, SD = 3.476). To understand the factors being studied, consult the hypothesis statements.

### 3.1 Correlation

Table 4 displays Spearman's Rho, a measure of the correlation between the variables "Hedonism," "Perfectionism," "Veblenism," "Green Purchase Intention," "Luxury Purchase Intention," "Snobbism," and "Bandwagonism." Results related to our hypothesis under examination, which we are considering at three levels of significance from .05, .01, and .001, showed that:

* GPI (Green Purchase Intention) and LPI (Luxury Purchase Intention) have a significant correlation with, p = 0.003 and rho = 0.165. (H1) We reject the null hypothesis H1.

* GPI (Green Purchase Intention) and H (Hedonism) do not have a significant correlation with, p = 0.319 and rho = 0.056. (H2) We fail to reject the null hypothesis H2.

* GPI (Green Purchase Intention) and P (Perfectionism) have a significant correlation with, p < 0.001 and rho = 0.255. (H3) We reject the null hypothesis H3.

* GPI (Green Purchase Intention) and S (Snobbism) have a significant correlation with, p < 0.001 and rho = 0.185. (H4) We reject the null hypothesis H4.

* GPI (Green Purchase Intention) and B (Bandwagonism) have a significant correlation with, p = 0.01 and rho = 0.144. (H5) We reject the null hypothesis H5.
GPI (Green Purchase Intention) and V (Veblenism) have a significant correlation with, p = 0.022 and rho = 0.129. (H6) We reject the null hypothesis H6.

LPI (Luxury Purchase Intention) and H (Hedonism) have a significant correlation with, p < 0.001 and rho = 0.599. (H7) We reject the null hypothesis H7.

LPI (Luxury Purchase Intention) and P (Perfectionism) have a significant correlation with, p < 0.001 and rho = 0.269. (H8) We reject the null hypothesis H8.

LPI (Luxury Purchase Intention) and S (Snobbism) have a significant correlation with, p < 0.001 and rho = 0.503. (H9) We reject the null hypothesis H9.

LPI (Luxury Purchase Intention) and B (Bandwagonism) have a significant correlation with, p < 0.001 and rho = 0.546. (H10) We reject the null hypothesis H10.

LPI (Luxury Purchase Intention) and V (Veblenism) have a significant correlation with, p < 0.001 and rho = 0.219. (H11) We reject the null hypothesis H11.

H (Hedonism) and P (Perfectionism) have a significant correlation with, p < 0.001 and rho = 0.257. (H12) We reject the null hypothesis H12.

H (Hedonism) and S (Snobbism) have a significant correlation with, p < 0.001 and rho = 0.575. (H13) We reject the null hypothesis H13.

H (Hedonism) and B (Bandwagonism) have a significant correlation with, p < 0.001 and rho = 0.603. (H14) We reject the null hypothesis H14.

H (Hedonism) and V (Veblenism) have a significant correlation with, p < 0.001 and rho = 0.197. (H15) We reject the null hypothesis H15.

P (Perfectionism) and S (Snobbism) have a significant correlation with, p < 0.001 and rho = 0.263. (H16) We reject the null hypothesis H16.

P (Perfectionism) and B (Bandwagonism) have a significant correlation with, p = 0.003 and rho = 0.169. (H17) We reject the null hypothesis H17.

P (Perfectionism) and V (Veblenism) have a significant correlation with, p < 0.001 and rho = 0.334. (H18) We reject the null hypothesis H18.

S (Snobbism) and B (Bandwagonism) have a significant correlation with, p < 0.001 and rho = 0.556. (H19) We reject the null hypothesis H19.

S (Snobbism) and V (Veblenism) have a significant correlation with, p < 0.001 and rho = 0.269. (H20) We reject the null hypothesis H20.

B (Bandwagonism) and V (Veblenism) have a significant correlation with, p < 0.001 and rho = 0.234. (H21) We reject the null hypothesis H21.

<table><caption>Table 3. Descriptive Statistics for Variables (N=317)</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>GPI</th><th>LPI</th><th>H</th><th>P</th><th>S</th><th>B</th><th>V</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Valid</td><td>317</td><td>317</td><td>317</td><td>317</td><td>317</td><td>317</td><td>317</td></tr><tr><td>Missing</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Mean</td><td>11.142</td><td>12.694</td><td>12.073</td><td>11.994</td><td>12.003</td><td>7.893</td><td>18.218</td></tr><tr><td>Std. Deviation</td><td>2.033</td><td>3.291</td><td>4.043</td><td>2.356</td><td>3.184</td><td>2.822</td><td>3.476</td></tr><tr><td>Minimum</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>4</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>3</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>Maximum</td><td>15</td><td>20</td><td>20</td><td>15</td><td>20</td><td>15</td><td>25</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><caption>Table 4. Spearman's Correlation between the variables</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th></th><th></th><th>Spearman's rho</th><th>p</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>GPI</td><td>-</td><td>LPI</td><td>0.165</td><td>0.003</td></tr><tr><td>GPI</td><td>-</td><td>H</td><td>0.056</td><td>0.319</td></tr><tr><td>GPI</td><td>-</td><td>P</td><td>0.255</td><td>&lt;.001</td></tr><tr><td>GPI</td><td>-</td><td>S</td><td>0.185</td><td>&lt;.001</td></tr><tr><td>GPI</td><td>-</td><td>B</td><td>0.144</td><td>0.01</td></tr><tr><td>GPI</td><td>-</td><td>V</td><td>0.129</td><td>0.022</td></tr><tr><td>LPI</td><td>-</td><td>H</td><td>0.599</td><td>&lt;.001</td></tr><tr><td>LPI</td><td>-</td><td>P</td><td>0.269</td><td>&lt;.001</td></tr><tr><td>LPI</td><td>-</td><td>S</td><td>0.503</td><td>&lt;.001</td></tr><tr><td>LPI</td><td>-</td><td>B</td><td>0.546</td><td>&lt;.001</td></tr><tr><td>LPI</td><td>-</td><td>V</td><td>0.219</td><td>&lt;.001</td></tr><tr><td>H</td><td>-</td><td>P</td><td>0.257</td><td>&lt;.001</td></tr><tr><td>H</td><td>-</td><td>S</td><td>0.575</td><td>&lt;.001</td></tr><tr><td>H</td><td>-</td><td>B</td><td>0.603</td><td>&lt;.001</td></tr><tr><td>H</td><td>-</td><td>V</td><td>0.197</td><td>&lt;.001</td></tr><tr><td>P</td><td>-</td><td>S</td><td>0.263</td><td>&lt;.001</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><thead><tr><th></th><th></th><th></th><th>Spearman's rho</th><th>p</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>P</td><td>-</td><td>B</td><td>0.169</td><td>0.003</td></tr><tr><td>P</td><td>-</td><td>V</td><td>0.334</td><td>&lt;.001</td></tr><tr><td>S</td><td>-</td><td>B</td><td>0.556</td><td>&lt;.001</td></tr><tr><td>S</td><td>-</td><td>V</td><td>0.269</td><td>&lt;.001</td></tr><tr><td>B</td><td>-</td><td>V</td><td>0.234</td><td>&lt;.001</td></tr></tbody></table>

T-Test

To determine whether there is a gender difference in "Green Purchase Intention," a Mann-Whitney Score was used. Table 5 indicates that there is no discernible difference between Male and Female scores for "Green Purchase Intention" (M = 11.301, SD = 1.908) and (M = 10.951, SD = 2.166). (H22.1) We fail to reject null hypothesis H 22.1.

<table><caption>Table 5. T-test between Gender for GPI</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Group</th><th>N</th><th>Mean</th><th>SD</th><th>SE</th><th>Coefficient of variation</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="2">GPI</td><td>Female</td><td>173</td><td>11.301</td><td>1.908</td><td>0.145</td><td>0.169</td></tr><tr><td>Male</td><td>144</td><td>10.951</td><td>2.166</td><td>0.18</td><td>0.198</td></tr></tbody></table>

Mann-Whitney Score = 13594.000, p = 0.156

To determine whether there is a difference in the area of residence in "Green Purchase Intention," a Mann-Whitney Score was used. Table 6 indicates that there is no discernible difference between Rural and Urban scores for "Green Purchase Intention" as the p-value is 0.595 (M = 11.154, SD = 2.122) and (M = 11.14, SD = 2.025). (H22.5) We fail to reject null hypothesis H 22.5.

<table><caption>Table 6. T-test between Area of Residence for GPI</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Group</th><th>N</th><th>Mean</th><th>SD</th><th>SE</th><th>Coefficient of variation</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="2">GPI</td><td>Rural</td><td>39</td><td>11.154</td><td>2.122</td><td>0.34</td><td>0.19</td></tr><tr><td>Urban</td><td>278</td><td>11.14</td><td>2.025</td><td>0.121</td><td>0.182</td></tr></tbody></table>

p = 0.595

To determine whether there is a difference in marital status in "Green Purchase Intention," a Mann-Whitney Score was used. Table 7 indicates that there is a significant difference between Single and Married scores for "Green Purchase Intention" as the p-value is <0.001 (M = 11.898, SD = 1.992) and (M = 11.004, SD = 2.014). (H22.6) We reject null hypothesis H 22.6.

<table><caption>Table 7. T-test between Marital Status for GPI</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Group</th><th>N</th><th>Mean</th><th>SD</th><th>SE</th><th>Coefficient of variation</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="2">GPI</td><td>Married</td><td>49</td><td>11.898</td><td>1.992</td><td>0.285</td><td>0.167</td></tr><tr><td>Single</td><td>268</td><td>11.004</td><td>2.014</td><td>0.123</td><td>0.183</td></tr></tbody></table>

p < 0.001

To determine whether there is a gender difference in "Luxury Purchase Intention," a Mann-Whitney Score was used. Table 8 indicates that there is no significant difference between Male and Female scores for "Luxury Purchase Intention" as the p-value is 0.064 (M = 13.042, SD = 3.6) and (M = 12.405, SD = 2.99). (H23.1) We fail to reject null hypothesis H 23.1.

<table><caption>Table 8. T-test between Gender for LPI</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Group</th><th>N</th><th>Mean</th><th>SD</th><th>SE</th><th>Coefficient of variation</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="2">LPI</td><td>Female</td><td>173</td><td>12.405</td><td>2.99</td><td>0.227</td><td>0.241</td></tr><tr><td>Male</td><td>144</td><td>13.042</td><td>3.6</td><td>0.3</td><td>0.276</td></tr></tbody></table>

p = 0.064

<footnote>*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001</footnote>
To determine whether there is a difference in an area of residence in "Luxury Purchase Intention," a Mann-Whitney Score was used. Table 9 indicates that there is no significant difference between Rural and Urban scores for "Luxury Purchase Intention" as the p value is 0.938 (M = 12.718, SD = 3.67) and (M = 12.691, SD = 3.242). **(H23.4) We fail to reject null hypothesis H 23.4.**

<table><caption>Table 9. T-test between Area of Residence for LPI</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Group</th><th>N</th><th>Mean</th><th>SD</th><th>SE</th><th>Coefficient of variation</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="2">LPI</td><td>Rural</td><td>39</td><td>12.718</td><td>3.67</td><td>0.588</td><td>0.289</td></tr><tr><td>Urban</td><td>278</td><td>12.691</td><td>3.242</td><td>0.194</td><td>0.255</td></tr></tbody></table>

$p = 0.938$

To determine whether there is a difference in marital status in "Luxury Purchase Intention," a Mann-Whitney Score was used. Table 10 indicates that there is no significant difference between Single and Married scores for "Luxury Purchase Intention" as the p-value is 0.680 (M = 12.672, SD = 3.319) and (M = 12.816, SD = 3.167). **(H23.5) We fail to reject null hypothesis H 23.5.**

<table><caption>Table 10. T-test between Marital Status for LPI</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Group</th><th>N</th><th>Mean</th><th>SD</th><th>SE</th><th>Coefficient of variation</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="2">LPI</td><td>Married</td><td>49</td><td>12.816</td><td>3.167</td><td>0.452</td><td>0.247</td></tr><tr><td>Single</td><td>268</td><td>12.672</td><td>3.319</td><td>0.203</td><td>0.262</td></tr></tbody></table>

$p = 0.680$

ANOVA

One-way ANOVA was conducted to examine if there exists a difference in "Green Purchase Intention" between different Age groups. As shown in Table 11, the p-value for the conducted One Way ANOVA is 0.003. Therefore there is a significant difference in Green Purchase Intention score between Age groups. **(H22.2) We reject null hypothesis H 22.2.**

<table><caption>Table 11. ANOVA; GPI between age groups</caption><thead><tr><th>Age</th><th>N</th><th>Mean</th><th>SD</th><th>SE</th><th>Coefficient of variation</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>18 - 24</td><td>248</td><td>10.98</td><td>1.976</td><td>0.126</td><td>0.18</td></tr><tr><td>25 - 34</td><td>27</td><td>11</td><td>2.689</td><td>0.518</td><td>0.244</td></tr><tr><td>35 - 44</td><td>9</td><td>11.556</td><td>2.455</td><td>0.818</td><td>0.212</td></tr><tr><td>45 and above</td><td>33</td><td>12.364</td><td>1.22</td><td>0.212</td><td>0.099</td></tr></tbody></table>

$p = 0.003$

One-way ANOVA was conducted to examine if there exists a difference in "Green Purchase Intention" between different Occupation type groups. As shown in Table 12, the p-value for the conducted One-Way ANOVA is 0.136. Therefore there is no significant difference in the Green Purchase Intention score between Occupation groups. **(H22.3) We fail to reject null hypothesis H 22.3.**

<table><caption>Table 12. ANOVA; GPI between occupation/status</caption><thead><tr><th>Occupation</th><th>N</th><th>Mean</th><th>SD</th><th>SE</th><th>Coefficient of variation</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Employed (Salaried, Self-employed and/or others)</td><td>70</td><td>11.557</td><td>1.878</td><td>0.224</td><td>0.162</td></tr><tr><td>Student</td><td>233</td><td>11.009</td><td>1.991</td><td>0.13</td><td>0.181</td></tr><tr><td>Unemployed</td><td>14</td><td>11.286</td><td>3.124</td><td>0.835</td><td>0.277</td></tr></tbody></table>

$p = 0.136$

One-way ANOVA was conducted to examine if there exists a difference in "Green Purchase Intention" between Family Income groups. As shown in Table 13, the p-value for the conducted One-way ANOVA is 0.793. Therefore there is no significant difference in the Green Purchase Intention score between Family Income groups. **(H 22.4) We fail to reject null hypothesis H 22.4.**
<table><caption>Table 13. ANOVA; GPI between income groups</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>N</th><th>Mean</th><th>SD</th><th>SE</th><th>Coefficient of variation</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>3 - 8 Lakhs</td><td>108</td><td>11.074</td><td>1.645</td><td>0.158</td><td>0.149</td></tr><tr><td>8 - 12 Lakhs</td><td>49</td><td>11.041</td><td>2.336</td><td>0.334</td><td>0.212</td></tr><tr><td>Below 3 Lakhs</td><td>81</td><td>11.099</td><td>2.458</td><td>0.273</td><td>0.221</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>79</td><td>11.342</td><td>1.853</td><td>0.208</td><td>0.163</td></tr></tbody></table>

$P = 0.793$

One-way ANOVA was conducted to examine if there exists a difference in “Luxury Purchase Intention” between different Occupation type groups. As shown in Table 14, the p-value for the conducted One-way ANOVA is 0.239. Therefore there is no significant difference in Luxury Purchase Intention score between Occupation groups. (H 23.2) We fail to reject null hypothesis H 23.2.

<table><caption>Table 14. ANOVA; LPI between Occupation</caption><thead><tr><th>Occupation</th><th>N</th><th>Mean</th><th>SD</th><th>SE</th><th>Coefficient of variation</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Employed (Salaried, Self-employed and/or others)</td><td>70</td><td>13.171</td><td>3.501</td><td>0.419</td><td>0.266</td></tr><tr><td>Student</td><td>233</td><td>12.609</td><td>3.219</td><td>0.211</td><td>0.255</td></tr><tr><td>Unemployed</td><td>14</td><td>11.714</td><td>3.315</td><td>0.886</td><td>0.283</td></tr></tbody></table>

$p = 0.239$

One-way ANOVA was conducted to examine if there exists a difference in “Luxury Purchase Intention” between Family Income groups. As shown in Table 15, the p-value for the conducted One-way ANOVA is 0.800. Therefore there is no significant difference in Luxury Purchase Intention score between Family Income groups. (H 23.3) We fail to reject null hypothesis H 23.3.

<table><caption>Table 15. Results of One-way ANOVA</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>N</th><th>Mean</th><th>SD</th><th>SE</th><th>Coefficient of variation</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>3 - 8 Lakhs</td><td>108</td><td>12.833</td><td>2.726</td><td>0.262</td><td>0.212</td></tr><tr><td>8 - 12 Lakhs</td><td>49</td><td>12.469</td><td>3.202</td><td>0.457</td><td>0.257</td></tr><tr><td>Below 3 Lakhs</td><td>81</td><td>12.864</td><td>3.594</td><td>0.399</td><td>0.279</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>79</td><td>12.468</td><td>3.741</td><td>0.421</td><td>0.3</td></tr></tbody></table>

$p = 0.800$

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>Fig .1. Structural Equation Modeling</figcaption></figure>
## Parameter estimates

<table><caption>Table 16. Factor Loadings</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Latent</th><th rowspan="2">Indicator</th><th rowspan="2">Estimate</th><th rowspan="2">Std. Error</th><th rowspan="2">z-value</th><th rowspan="2">p</th><th colspan="2">95% Confidence Interval</th></tr><tr><th>Lower</th><th>Upper</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="3">Extrinsic Motivation</td><td>Veblenism</td><td>1.000</td><td>0.000</td><td></td><td></td><td>1.000</td><td>1.000</td></tr><tr><td>Snobbism</td><td>1.852</td><td>0.280</td><td>6.612</td><td>&lt;.001</td><td>1.303</td><td>2.400</td></tr><tr><td>Bandwagonism</td><td>1.593</td><td>0.243</td><td>6.566</td><td>&lt;.001</td><td>1.117</td><td>2.068</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Intrinsic Motivation</td><td>Hedonism</td><td>1.000</td><td>0.000</td><td></td><td></td><td>1.000</td><td>1.000</td></tr><tr><td>Perfectionism</td><td>0.301</td><td>0.044</td><td>6.908</td><td>&lt;.001</td><td>0.216</td><td>0.386</td></tr></tbody></table>

* As seen in Table 16, Extrinsic Motivation:

- Veblenism (fixed at 1.000 as a reference).

- Snobbism: Estimate = 1.852, z-value = 6.612, p < .001.

- Bandwagonism: Estimate = 1.593, z-value = 6.566, p < .001.

* As seen in Table 16, Intrinsic Motivation:

- Hedonism (fixed at 1.000 as a reference).

- Perfectionism: Estimate = 0.301, z-value = 6.908, p < .001.

- All loadings are significant (p < .001), indicating good measurement of latent constructs.

<table><caption>Table 17. Regression coefficients</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Predictor</th><th rowspan="2">Outcome</th><th rowspan="2">Estimate</th><th rowspan="2">Std. Error</th><th rowspan="2">z-value</th><th rowspan="2">p</th><th colspan="2">95% Confidence Interval</th></tr><tr><th>Lower</th><th>Upper</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Intrinsic Motivation</td><td>Extrinsic Motivation</td><td>0.449</td><td>0.085</td><td>5.296</td><td>&lt;.001</td><td>0.283</td><td>0.616</td></tr><tr><td>Extrinsic Motivation</td><td>GPI</td><td>-1.390</td><td>3.358</td><td>-0.414</td><td>0.679</td><td>-7.971</td><td>5.191</td></tr><tr><td>Intrinsic Motivation</td><td>GPI</td><td>0.823</td><td>1.549</td><td>0.531</td><td>0.595</td><td>-2.213</td><td>3.858</td></tr><tr><td>LPI</td><td>GPI</td><td>-0.034</td><td>0.189</td><td>-0.180</td><td>0.857</td><td>-0.403</td><td>0.336</td></tr><tr><td>Extrinsic Motivation</td><td>LPI</td><td>3.630</td><td>4.632</td><td>0.784</td><td>0.433</td><td>-5.449</td><td>12.709</td></tr><tr><td>Intrinsic Motivation</td><td>LPI</td><td>-0.792</td><td>1.974</td><td>-0.401</td><td>0.688</td><td>-4.662</td><td>3.078</td></tr></tbody></table>

As seen in Table 17, Relationships between variables:

-Intrinsic Motivation → Extrinsic Motivation: Positive and significant (Estimate = 0.449, p < .001). (H24) We reject null hypothesis H 24.)

Extrinsic Motivation → GPI: Non-significant (Estimate = -1.390, p = 0.679). (H 27) We fail to reject null hypothesis H 27.

Intrinsic Motivation → GPI: Non-significant (Estimate = 0.823, p = 0.595). (H 25) We fail to reject null hypothesis H 25.

LPI → GPI: Non-significant (Estimate = -0.034, p = 0.857). (H 29) We fail to reject null hypothesis H 29.

Extrinsic Motivation → LPI: Non-significant (Estimate = 3.630, p = 0.433). (H 28) We fail to reject null hypothesis H 28.

Intrinsic Motivation → LPI: Non-significant (Estimate = -0.792, p = 0.688). (H 26) We fail to reject null hypothesis H 26.

None of the predictors significantly impact GPI or LPI in this model., suggesting the relationships are weak or mediated by other factors not included.

## 4. CONCLUSION

The study's Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) reveals significant relationships between intrinsic and extrinsic motivations. Intrinsic motivation significantly influences extrinsic motivation (p <
.001), with high factor loadings for constructs such as hedonism and perfectionism. Similarly, extrinsic motivation shows strong associations with veblenism, snobbism, and bandwagonism. However, neither intrinsic nor extrinsic motivations were found to significantly impact Green Purchase Intention (GPI) or Luxury Purchase Intention (LPI), indicating that other factors may mediate these relationships.

Significant correlations were observed between GPI and constructs such as perfectionism, snobbism, and bandwagonism, as well as between LPI and hedonism, snobbism, and bandwagonism. This suggests a complex interplay between personality traits and purchase intentions. Demographic analyses indicate differences in GPI based on marital status and age but not for variables like income or occupation.

The study recommends exploring mediating variables to enhance the predictive power of intrinsic and extrinsic motivations on purchase intentions. Marketing strategies should emphasize traits like perfectionism for green products and hedonism for luxury products. Further research with more diverse and inclusive samples is suggested to generalize findings. These insights provide actionable directions for targeting consumer behaviours in sustainable and luxury markets.

## CONSENT

As per international standards or university standards, respondents' written consent has been collected and preserved by the author(s).

## DISCLAIMER (ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE)

Author(s) hereby declare that generative AI technologies such as Large Language Models, etc have been used during writing or editing of this manuscript. This explanation will include the name, version, model, and source of the generative AI technology and as well as all input prompts provided to the generative AI technology.

## DECLARATION OF GENERATIVE AI AND AI-ASSISTED TECHNOLOGIES IN THE WRITING PROCESS

During the preparation of this work, the author(s) used ChatGPT/OpenAI to re-structure the draft in

order to improve its readability. After using this tool/service, the author(s) reviewed and edited the content as needed and take(s) full responsibility for the content of the publication.

## COMPETING INTERESTS

Authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

## REFERENCES

Abeywardana, W. A. D. D. N. B., & Perera, H. P. N. (2023). Influence of environmental concern on green purchasing behavior among undergraduate students in Sri Lanka. *Asian Journal of Education and Social Studies, 49*(2), 142-150.
https://doi.org/10.9734/ajess/2023/v49i211
27

Abrate, G., Quinton, S., & Pera, R. (2021). The relationship between price paid and hotel review ratings: Expectancy-disconfirmation or placebo effect? *Tourism Management, 85*, 104314.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2021.104314

Ali, S., Danish, M., Khuwaja, F. M., Sajjad, M. S., & Zahid, H. (2019). The intention to adopt green IT products in Pakistan: Driven by the modified theory of consumption values. *Environments, 6*(5), 53.
https://doi.org/10.3390/environments6050053

Amberg, N., & Fogarassy, C. (2019). Green consumer behavior in the cosmetics market. *Resources, 8*(3), 137.
https://doi.org/10.3390/resources8030137

Areiza-Padilla, J. A., & Puertas, M. A. M. (2021). Conspicuous consumption in emerging markets: The case of Starbucks in Colombia as a global and sustainable brand. *Frontiers in Psychology, 12*.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.662950

Barclay, P., & Barker, J. L. (2020). Greener than thou: People who protect the environment are more cooperative, compete to be environmental, and benefit from reputation. *Journal of Environmental Psychology, 72*, 101441.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2020.101441

Canguende-Valentim, C. F., & Vale, V. T. (2022). Examining the intention to purchase luxury goods based on the planned behaviour theory. *Open Journal of Business and Management, 10*(1), 192-210.
https://doi.org/10.4236/ojbm.2022.101012
Chang, S. C., & Nguyen, T. A. (2018). Peer pressure and its influence on consumers in Taiwan. *African Journal of Business Management, **12**(8), 221-230.
https://doi.org/10.5897/AJBM2018.8513

Chen, C., Elliot, A. J., & Sheldon, K. M. (2019). Psychological need support as a predictor of intrinsic and external motivation: The mediational role of achievement goals. *Educational Psychology*. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2019.1618442

Clark, R. A., Haytko, D. L., Hermans, C. M., & Simmers, C. S. (2019). Social influence on green consumerism: Country and gender comparisons between China and the United States. *Journal of International Consumer Marketing, **31*(3), 177-190.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08961530.2018.1527740

Cook, D. A., & Artino, A. R. Jr. (2016). Motivation to learn: An overview of contemporary theories. *Medical Education*. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.13074

Dahm, J. (2018). *The Veblen effect revisited: Literature and empirical analyses*. WHU – Otto Beisheim School of Management. https://opus4.kobv.de/opus4-whu/files/817/Dahm_Jil-Marie_Diss.pdf

Dangelico, R. M., & Vocalelli, D. (2017). "Green marketing": An analysis of definitions, strategy steps, and tools through a systematic review of the literature. *Journal of Cleaner Production, **165*, 1263-1279.

Das, M., Habib, M., Saha, V., & Jebarajakirthy, C. (2021). Bandwagon vs snob luxuries: Targeting consumers based on uniqueness dominance. *Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, **61***, 102582.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2021.102582

De Kerviler, G., & Rodriguez, C. M. (2019). Luxury brand experiences and relationship quality for Millennials: The role of self-expansion. *Journal of Business Research, **102***, 250-262.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.01.046

Deshmukh, P., & Tare, H. (2018). Green marketing and corporate social responsibility: A review of business practices. *International Journal of Research in Management & Business Studies, **5**(4), 1-7.

Di Crosta, A., Ceccato, I., Marchetti, D., La Malva, P., Maiella, R., Cannito, L., Cipi, M.,

Mammarella, N., Palumbo, R., Verrocchio, M. C., & Di Domenico, A. (2021). Psychological factors and consumer behavior during the COVID-19 pandemic. *PLOS ONE*, **16**(8), e0256095.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256095

Dubois, D., Jung, S., & Ordabayeva, N. (2021). The psychology of luxury consumption. *Current Opinion in Psychology*, *39*, 82-87.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2020.07.011

Gorshynov, S. (2020). *Investigating factors influencing dream of luxury among millennials* (Master's thesis). St. Petersburg University Graduate School of Management.
https://dspace.spbu.ru/bitstream/11701/27370/1/MT_Simon_Gorshynov.pdf

Hidayat, T., & Sananta, D. P. (2024). Theory of planned behavior on green marketing influence to green purchase decision. *Journal of Digital Marketing and Halal Industry, **6**(1), 1-16.
https://doi.org/10.21580/jdmhi.2024.6.1.20694

Jain, M. K., Khizer, M., & Rajan, R. (2023). A study on consumption of luxury brand market in India. *Rabindra Bharati University Journal of Economics*. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/378813810_A_STUDY_ON_CONSUMPTION_OF_LUXURY BRAND MARKET IN INDIA_Rabindra Bharati University Journal of Economics_Vol_XVII-No10_2023

Jain, V. K., Gupta, A., Tyagi, V., & Verma, H. (2020). Social media and green consumption behavior of millennials. *Journal of Content, Community & Communication, **11***.

Khandelwal, U., Bajpai, N., & Bajpai, S. (2016). Consumer decision making styles and post purchase behavior: Exploratory study in India. *Global Business Review*.

Kumar, P., & Polonsky, M. J. (2017). An analysis of the green consumer domain within sustainability research: 1975 to 2014. *Australasian Marketing Journal (AMJ)*, 25(2), 85-96.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ausmj.2017.04.009

Kuo, C.-H., & Nagasawa, S. (2020). Deciphering luxury consumption behavior from knowledge perspectives. *Journal of Business and Management*, **26**(1), 1-21.
https://doi.org/10.6347/JBM.202003_26(1).0001
Lannes, B., Xing, W., & Gu, E. (2025, January). 2024 China luxury goods market: Navigating turbulent waters [Review of 2024 China luxury goods market: Navigating turbulent waters]. Bain & Company.
https://www.bain.com/insights/2024-china-luxury-goods-market/

Le-Anh, T., Nguyen, M. D., Nguyen, T. T., & Duong, K. T. (2023). Energy saving intention and behavior under behavioral reasoning perspectives. *Energy Efficiency, 16*(2). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12053-023-10092-x

Lin, Y.-L., & Lin, H.-W. (2015). The benefits and values of green lifestyle consumers. *International Journal of Marketing Studies, 7*(1). https://doi.org/10.5539/ijms.v7n1p24

Lister, J. (2016). Consumerism. *Encyclopedia of Global Environmental Politics and Governance, 9-16*.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/296698247_Consumerism

Maichum, K., Parichatnon, S., & Peng, K. (2017). Factors affecting on purchase intention towards green products: A case study of young consumers in Thailand.
https://wwwsemanticscholar.org/paper/Fa-ctors-Affecting-on-Purchase-Intention-towards-A-Maichum-Parichatnon/7bb8ed29a05a1e2bb05a2c7f3844278ec80a4bb3

Mbokane, L., & Modley, L. (2024). Green consumerism in young adults: Attitudes and awareness in university students in Johannesburg, South Africa. *Sustainability, 16*(5), 1898.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su16051898

Nandi, V. T. (2016). Consumerism-review of literature. *International Journal of Exclusive Management Research*.

Naumova, O., Bilan, S., & Naumova, M. (2019). Luxury consumers' behavior: A cross-cultural aspect. *Innovative Marketing, 15*(4), 1-13.
https://doi.org/10.21511/im.15(4).2019.01

Nguyen, P., Nguyen, D. N., & Nguyen, L. A. T. (2023). Quantitative insights into green purchase intentions: The interplay of health consciousness, altruism, and sustainability. *Cogent Business & Management, 10*(3).
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2253616

OECD. (2025). Sustainable consumption. OECD.
https://www.oecd.org/en/topics/sub-issues/sustainable-consumption.html

OECD. (2025). The carbon footprint of everything. OECD Net Zero+ Policy Papers, 6.
https://doi.org/10.1787/ae22f8e8-en

Ogiemwonyi, O. (2021). Factors influencing generation Y green behaviour on green products in Nigeria: An application of theory of planned behaviour. *Environmental and Sustainability Indicators, 13*, 100164.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indic.2021.100164

Ogiemwonyi, O., Alam, M. N., Alshareef, R., Alsolamy, M., Azizan, N. A., & Mat, N. (2023). Environmental factors affecting green purchase behaviors of the consumers: Mediating role of environmental attitude. *Cleaner Environmental Systems, 10*, 100130.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cesys.2023.100130

Osei-Frimpong, K. (2019). Understanding consumer motivations in online social brand engagement participation: Implications for retailers. *International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 47*(6), 751-766.
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJRDM-08-2018-0151

Park, Y. A., & Gretzel, U. (2010). Influence of consumers' online decision-making style on comparison shopping proneness and perceived. *ResearchGate*
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265117947_Influence_of_consumers'_online_making_style_on Comparison_shoppingproneness_and_perceived_usefulness_ofComparison_shopping_tools

Petrescu, M., Siqueira, J. R., Dobre, C., Ben Mrad, S., Ciuta, A.-M., & Kara, A. (2024). Social comparison and self-determination in luxury consumption motivations. *Psychology and Marketing*
https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.22126

Rahnama, H. (2017). Effect of consumption values on women's choice behavior toward organic foods: The case of organic yogurt in Iran. *Journal of Food Products Marketing, 23*(2), 144-166.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10454446.2017.1244790

Ratnesh, K., Thapliyal, B., Gupta, K., & Vikas, V. (2023). Consumerism: A cultural phenomenon. *International Journal of Research Publication and Reviews, 4*(4), 2446-2449.
https://doi.org/10.55248/gengpi.4.423.3625
6

Rautrao, R. R. (2018). Psychological factors influencing consumer behaviour: A conceptual framework. *Zenodo* (CERN *European Organization for Nuclear Research*).
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7213258

Ricci, E. C., Banterle, A., & Stranieri, S. (2018). *Trust to go green: An exploration of consumer intentions for eco-friendly convenience food*. *Ecological Economics*, *148*, 54-65.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.02.010

Roy, P., & Datta, D. D. (2022, June 15). *Determinants of consumer buying behaviour towards online and offline shopping*. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4196613

Shah, S. S., & Asghar, Z. (2023). Dynamics of social influence on consumption choices: A social network representation. *Heliyon*, *9*(6), e17146.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e17146

Sharma, K., Aswal, C., & Paul, J. (2022). Factors affecting green purchase behavior: A systematic literature review. *Business Strategy and the Environment*, *32*(4), 2078-2092.
https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.3237

Sreen, N., Chatterjee, S., Bhardwaj, S., & Chitnis, A. (2022). Reasons and intuitions: Extending behavioral reasoning theory to determine green purchase behavior. *International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing*, *20*(2), 447-475.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s12208-022-00346-2

Sumbly, Y., & Siraj, S. (2019). A conceptual framework of brand experience for luxury brands. *Journal of Management Research and Analysis*, *6*(1), 60-64.
https://doi.org/10.18231/j.jmra.2019.011

Tyson, A., & Pew Research Center. (2021, July 23). On climate change, Republicans are open to some policy approaches, even as they assign the issue low priority. *Pew Research Center*. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2021/07/23/on-climate-change-republicans-are-open-to-some-policy-approaches-even-as-they-assign-the-issue-low-priority/

Wang, P., Kuah, A. T. H., Lu, Q., Wong, C., Thirumaran, K., Adegbite, E., & Kendall, W. (2021). The impact of value perceptions on purchase intention of sustainable luxury brands in China and the UK. *Journal of Brand Management*, *28*(3), 325-346.
https://doi.org/10.1057/s41262-020-00228-0

Xie, S., & Madni, G. R. (2020). Impact of social media on young generation's green consumption behavior through subjective norms and perceived green value. *Sustainability*, *12*(14), 5569.

Zhang, G. (2023). The influence of social media marketing on consumers' behavior. *Advances in Economics Management and Political Sciences*, *20*(1), 119-124.
https://doi.org/10.54254/2754-1169/20/20230181

Zuboff, S. (2019). *The age of surveillance capitalism: The fight for a human future at the new frontier of power*. PublicAffairs.

**Disclaimer/Publisher's Note:** The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of the publisher and/or the editor(s). This publisher and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

© Copyright (2025); Author(s). The licensee is the journal publisher. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Peer-review history:
The peer review history for this paper can be accessed here:
https://pr.sdiarticle5.com/review-history/131657