JOURNAL OF CONSUMER PSYCHOLOGY, 14(1&2), 28–40

Copyright © 2004, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Consumer Decision Making and Image Theory:

UNDERSTANDING VALUE-LADEN DECISIONS
NELSON
Understanding Value-Laden Decisions
Kim A. Nelson
Department of Marketing
The University of Arizona

Consumers are often confronted with value-laden decisions that challenge their principles and
beliefs. For example, many consumers with strong social responsibility principles consider the
effects of general corporate behavior (e.g., political views, environmental disasters) and of the
product’s manufacture, consumption, or disposal (e.g., animal testing, environmental harm) on
society’s overall well-being. Because these product dimensions do not fit easily into traditional
decision theories, a new conceptual framework that incorporates and emphasizes the con-
sumer’s enduring principles and values is explored in this study. The results indicate that image
theory (Beach & Mitchell, 1987) provides a useful structure for describing the decision process
in a value-laden decision context. This study also expands our understanding of image theory
by examining all 3 images (values, goals, and strategies) simultaneously in the same decision
context for the first time.

Managerial and academic interest in the behavior patterns of
consumers acting on social and moral concerns that affect or-
dinary consumer decisions (e.g., environmental impact, hu-
man rights violations, animal testing, and apartheid politics)
has increased. These value-laden consumer decisions typi-
cally require (a) consideration of product or corporate dimen-
sions beyond the traditional price, quality, and brand image at-
tributes and (b) the application of the consumer’s personal
value system, which raises moral and social responsibility is-
sues. At the same time, researchers are questioning the basic
assumptions of behavioral decision research and recognizing
that an alternative perspective is needed to incorporate context
construal and intraindividual differences, such as values and
principles (see Lowenstein, 2001, for a recent summary).
Etzioni (1988, p. 21) suggested that
Those who study behavior in general, economic behavior in
particular, should give up the assumption of a mono-utility
world, propelled by one over-arching motive, pleasure, and
recognize in their paradigm at least two irreducible sources
of valuation of “utility”: pleasure and morality.
Prelec (1991, p. 133), building on Etzioni’s system of socio-
economics, concluded that decision theorists need to recog-
Requests for reprints should be sent to Kim A. Nelson, Department of
Marketing, 320 McClelland Hall, The University of Arizona, Tucson,
AZ 85721-0108. E-mail: knelson@eller.arizona.edu
nize and analyze the distinction between “action governed by
cost–benefit calculation—however broadly the relevant costs
are understood—and action governed by a binding rule or
principle.” He identified three situations that were not easily
amenable to traditional decision theory, which typically im-
plies cost–benefit analysis or rational decision making. These
situations are evident in many value-laden consumer decision
contexts, such as the environmental issues used in the follow-
ing examples. First, temporal mismatch, in which the action
and benefit are usually separated by a considerable time inter-
val, is present in the purchase of biodegradable products that
eventually mean smaller, less toxic landfills in the distant fu-
ture. The consumer is forced to discount the benefit to be re-
ceived in the future under traditional decision theory, or the
moral or social utility of this behavior must be recognized.
Second, saliency mismatch, in which one alternative is vivid
and the other is difficult to imagine, can be seen when a higher
price for a green product is obvious, whereas the eventual eco-
logical benefit might be clouded by credibility issues or lack of
scientific evidence. Third, scale mismatch, in which one alter-
native has impact only if done in aggregate by others, or if re-
peated many times, is evident in the perceived benefit from re-
cycling one newspaper without establishing a long-term
individual pattern of behavior and the participation of others.
Furthermore, scholars (Irwin & Spira, 1997, p. 361) examin-
ing specific anomalies in consumer decisions and preferences
in contexts with heavy ethical or moral dimensions have rec-
ommended that “it might be prudent for researchers to turn

their attention to the way people’s ethical beliefs get incorpo-
rated into their decision making—what cognitive mechanisms
facilitate the transfer of personal morality into marketplace
behavior?”
This research proposes the use of a broader theoretical ap-
proach for understanding and explaining how a consumer’s
principles can influence these problematic value-laden con-
sumption decisions. Specifically, image theory (Beach,
1990; Beach & Mitchell, 1987, 1990) offers a new perspec-
tive for studying value-laden decisions in which the antici-
pated benefits are relatively abstract, deferred in time, and
not easily quantified. In this article, image theory is de-
scribed, and its appropriateness for consumer decisions in-
volving values and principles, such as social responsibility, is
explored. Then the results of a study examining the basic
framework of the theory in a social responsibility context are
presented. This study is the first test that simultaneously in-
corporates all three images that form the foundation of image
theory. This step is a prerequisite for future research compar-
ing image theory to other decision-making approaches. The
implications of these findings regarding value-laden con-
sumer decisions are then presented for such varied constitu-
encies as marketing strategists and decision theorists.
IMAGE THEORY
Decisions involving social responsibility issues have charac-
teristics that do not fit conveniently into traditional decision
models. Image theory was developed specifically to explain
problems ranging from extensive, complex decisions to
choosing options that require minimal processing after the
elimination of obviously inferior options (Beach, 1993). For
example, a consumer might have held a very strong convic-
tion to avoid products or companies from South Africa dur-
ing the apartheid period. Traditional approaches would sim-
ply treat country of origin as a search or choice attribute. In
contrast, image theory posits that the entire decision process
could center on this principle. Formal presentations of the
theory are contained in Beach (1990, 1993) and in Beach and
Mitchell (1987, 1990), but the following brief presentation il-
lustrates its appropriateness as the basis for socially responsi-
ble consumer choice situations. The theory is explicitly con-
nected to the social responsibility context in the conceptual
framework section.
Images are schemata, or information representations that
organize a decision maker’s values and knowledge and that
guide his or her behavior (cf. Boulding, 1956; Miller,
Galanter, & Pribram, 1960). The situation, or frame, deter-
mines which subset of the decision maker’s images will be
used in the decision. According to Beach (1990, p. 50),
“framing sets the scene for decision making by defining what
the decision is about and delineating the issues that have
bearing on it.” This framing, or assessment of the contextual
characteristics, sets the stage for applying the mechanisms
UNDERSTANDING VALUE-LADEN DECISIONS 29
used in deliberation. The context has some features that are
inherent in the situation and others that are derived from the
knowledge of the decision maker. For individuals with strong
social responsibility beliefs, a choice between an environ-
mentally friendly product and a standard product could be
framed as a moral–ethical decision. Conversely, for those in-
dividuals without strong social responsibility beliefs, the
same choice task could be framed as a typical price or quality
decision.
Situational features and individual characteristics frame
the context by eliciting an appropriate subset of the three im-
ages, or knowledge representations. First, the value image
consists of the decision maker’s principles, values, morals,
ethics, ideals, and standards of behavior. Social responsibility
is an example of a value image constituent. The value image
serves as the primary motivator of the entire process. The value
image is both prescriptive and proscriptive; it determines what
one should and should not do (Beach, 1990). Because image
theory places more importance on principles to determine sub-
sequent behavior than most decision theories, it is highly com-
patible with social responsibility issues. The second type of
image, the trajectory image, consists of the goals to be
achieved. These goals can vary from abstract to specific, but
they form a useful agenda for attaining what the decision
maker wants in the future. The third type of image, the strate-
gic image, actually consists of three related parts (plan, tactics,
forecast). The plan is a sequence of behaviors that are seen as a
unitary event. The tactics are the specific actions or behaviors
required by the plan. The forecast predicts what will happen
(future outcomes) if the plan and tactics are followed.
These three images are used in two types of decision pro-
cesses in image theory, screening and choice. A single option
or multiple options can be screened, and a decision can result
if there is only one surviving option. If there are no survivors,
the decision maker can seek more options or pursue other in-
terests. If more than one option survives the screening, then a
choice can be made from the options.
Screening can be accomplished by a single strategy called
the compatibility test (Beach, 1993; Dunegan, 1995). An alter-
native is rejected if the number of violations of the standards
exceeds a threshold. In other words, the option must fit, or be
compatible with, the decision maker’s standards that are de-
rived from the operative images. Both violations and thresh-
olds are noncompensatory; therefore, nonviolations on the
other attributes cannot mitigate the effect of violations (Beach
& Strom, 1989). Violations of the attributes or characteristics
used to screen options are weighted more heavily in the com-
patibility test (Beach, Puto, Heckler, Naylor, & Marble, 1996)
because these attributes are valued by the decision maker. Sub-
sequent research (Seidle & Traub, 1998) found the compatibil-
ity test to be more consistent in predicting rejected options
than the editing hypothesis of elimination of dominated choice
alternatives (Kahneman & Tversky, 1979).
Choice has been shown to be a considerably different pro-
cess than screening in several studies (Rediker, Mitchell,
30 NELSON
Beach, & Beard, 1993; van Zee, Paluchowski, & Beach,
1992). In fact, the information used to screen alternatives is
typically not used in the subsequent choice process among
the surviving alternatives. The profitability test involves eval-
uation of the relative merits of the options and the subsequent
choice of the best alternative. The profitability test can be ei-
ther compensatory or noncompensatory, depending on the
specific strategy used, and it is usually more complex and de-
liberative than the compatibility test used in screening
(Mitchell & Beach, 1990). The attributes used in the screen-
ing process are often irrelevant in the subsequent profitability
test because the remaining options are all acceptable (Beach
& Strom, 1989). The characteristics or attributes of the op-
tions given the most weight in the final choice are important
to the decision maker, but they are probably less important
than the attributes used in screening.
Another factor in image theory is the type of consumer de-
cision-making task, ranging from routine decision making
(e.g., choice of familiar, low-involvement products) to exten-
sive decision making (e.g., choice of unfamiliar, high-in-
volvement, high-risk products). First, adoption decisions
evaluate options or candidates to add to the goal agenda or to
act on (adopt) to satisfy principles. Single candidates require
only the compatibility test, whereas multiple candidates
could include a subsequent profitability test to choose the
best candidate. Progress decisions are the second type of de-
cision. They determine “whether a particular plan on the stra-
tegic agenda is producing satisfactory progress toward attain-
FIGURE 1 Image Theory—Social Responsibility Example.
ment of its goal” (Beach, 1990, p. 8). In other words, a com-
patibility test is run to see if a fit still exists between the value
image and the strategic image. In consumer behavior, a prog-
ress decision could be as simple as reevaluating a routine pur-
chase of a brand that has become almost automatic.
Prior research on image theory has focused primarily on
the processes associated with screening and choice in rela-
tively mundane decisions (e.g., apartment selection). This
study accepts those two stages in the decision process and ex-
pands our understanding of image theory by examining all
three images at work simultaneously in a single decision con-
text for the first time. Furthermore, a highly value-laden deci-
sion context related to social responsibility and environmen-
tal impact is created. Social responsibility, personal values,
environmental concern, perceived consumer effectiveness
(PCE), and environmental behaviors have been studied in
piecemeal fashion. Image theory is used to combine those
fragmented findings into a more parsimonious alternative
model of decision making in a value-laden context.
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK AND
HYPOTHESES
The conceptual framework for decision making in the pres-
ence of a social responsibility attribute begins with a recon-
ciliation of the context (environmental issues) with image
theory terminology. Figure 1 depicts the connections among

the three images and the corresponding descriptions related
to the social responsibility context. Figure 2 illustrates how
these key constructs are related to the three images and indi-
cates the hypothesis for each link.
Decision Frame
The decision context, or frame, is the choice between several
brands or product substitutes in which “environmental
friendliness” is one differentiating attribute. For example, the
choice could be between disposable and cotton diapers, be-
tween rechargeable and ordinary batteries, or between a nat-
ural gas and solar-powered hot water system. Even this small
subset of examples illustrates the wide variety of context is-
sues: disputes over what is more environmentally friendly;
nonavailability of recycling potential; durable versus nondu-
rable goods; wide price and quality differences. Regardless
of the complexity of the context, the frame will elicit relevant
images to guide decision making. The operative images vary
by consumer segment, and the ones discussed will be those
images that would be expected from the consumer who val-
ues social responsibility and the environment.
FIGURE 2 Structural Model Using Image Theory.
UNDERSTANDING VALUE-LADEN DECISIONS 31
Value Image
The value image typically explains why a decision is made. It
comprises strongly held, relatively general principles and
values. For example, a statement of general social responsi-
bility could be “As a member of society, I have the obligation
to maintain or improve society’s overall well being.” As the
importance of social responsibility increases, an individual is
more likely to have the ability to identify far-reaching conse-
quences of behavior, to recognize responsibilities to others in
society, and to reconcile conflicting obligations to satisfy this
moral or ethical belief.
A second part of the value image could be stated,
“Compared to other personal values, a clean environment is
relatively important to me.” The comparison is to other termi-
nal values as defined by Rokeach (1968, 1973). Although
most of the Rokeach terminal values are centered on the self
(e.g., happiness, an exciting life, a prosperous life), some val-
ues involve end states for others as well (e.g., equality, a
world at peace, family security). Because a clean environ-
ment depends on individual efforts for a common good, it
could be considered a more specific manifestation of a
strongly held social responsibility principle (the belief that
32 NELSON
one’s actions should contribute to the overall well-being of
society). As such, these two value image dimensions should
be positively correlated and contribute to the formation of the
value image as posited in the following hypothesis:
H1: Greater social responsibility principles and greater
value placed on the environment form a stronger
value image for environmental issues.
Trajectory Image
The trajectory image explains what needs to be done to sat-
isfy the value image. Goal images are typically preceded by
“I am trying to … ” when expressed verbally (e.g., “I am try-
ing to protect or improve the environment”). Because con-
cern implies a desire to see a change in a situation, environ-
mental concern would be a strong indicator of an important
dimension of this relatively abstract goal. The strength of the
trajectory image and its subsequent effect on the deci-
sion-making process is a function of the individual’s underly-
ing value image and his or her concern related to the specific
context. In other words, the formation of a specific trajectory
goal, such as environmental protection or improvement, re-
quires a strongly held value image related to the consumer’s
social responsibility principle and value placed on a clean en-
vironment. This antecedent relation between the value image
and the trajectory image is posited in Hypothesis 2.
H2: A strong value image for a given issue (e.g., the en-
vironment) produces a strong trajectory image for
accomplishing the corresponding goals.
Furthermore, the consumer’s general goals regarding the en-
vironment (i.e., environmental concern) supply more spe-
cific detail for the trajectory image. The formative relation
between environmental concern and the trajectory image is
posited in Hypothesis 3.
H3: Greater environmental concern contributes to the
formation of a stronger trajectory image for envi-
ronmental issues.
The strength of the trajectory image is also affected by the
individual’s belief that one’s efforts can make a difference in
the solution to a problem. This belief has been labeled per-
ceived consumer effectiveness (PCE). For example, Ellen,
Wiener, & Cobb-Walgren (1991) demonstrated that PCE was
useful in directly predicting certain proenvironmental behav-
iors. Berger and Corbin (1992) found that PCE moderates the
positive relation between environmental concern and per-
sonal environmental behaviors including willingness to pay
more for environmentally friendly products. An alternative
possibility is that environmental concern and PCE form a tra-
jectory (goal) image that subsequently influences behavior.
Believing that one’s actions can improve the situation could
support current levels of concern or foster increased interest
and concern. Believing that the results of socially responsible
actions will be inconsequential could discourage continued
concern to reduce frustration. Although environmental con-
cern is the primary determinant of the trajectory image, PCE
can strengthen or weaken that image as a goal to be pursued.
This is formally stated as research Hypothesis 4:
H4: Greater perceived consumer effectiveness (PCE)
contributes to the formation of a stronger trajectory
image for environmental issues.
Strategic Image
The strategic image explains how a goal can be achieved, and
it can be disaggregated into three parts. First, the plan (a se-
quence of compatible behaviors seen as a unitary event)
could be to do the things that are identified with environmen-
tally compatible consumption in the consumer’s mind. Sec-
ond, the tactics are the more specific tasks that make up the
plan (e.g., screening alternatives on environmental friendli-
ness, weighting the environmental friendliness attribute
heavily in evaluating alternatives, learning more about the
environmental impact of different product categories, and
consuming less). Third, the forecast, or expected outcome,
could be reduced harm to the planet or improvement of the
environment if the plan is carried out. The forecast is not ex-
plicitly included in this model due to the difficulty in relating
one’s proenvironmental actions to short-term results. Per-
haps its impact is registered through PCE, which includes the
future results of an individual’s actions. Therefore, the ob-
servable behaviors related to a plan and the tactics are evi-
dence of the intentions underlying the strategic image.
A considerable amount of research has linked environmental
concern, included in the trajectory image of this model, with a
wide variety of proenvironmental behaviors (Balderjahn, 1988;
Schwepker & Cornwell, 1991; Webster, 1975). Evidence for a
plan at work is a cohesive set of actions with a common theme
similar to these behaviors. Commitment to a plan can be seen in
the follow-through, that is, the frequency and variety of the re-
lated activities. For example, a consumer who recycles, con-
serves energy, avoids environmentally harmful products, and re-
cycles on a regular basis is more likely to be highly committed
to a plan for improving and protecting the environment. The
posited relation between the plan and the more holistic strategic
image is presented in Hypothesis 5:
H5: The existence and strength of the strategic image is
reflected in the level of commitment to a corre-
sponding plan of relevant behaviors (e.g.,
proenvironmental).
Tactics, the second part of the strategic image, can include
very specific activities (e.g., recycling aluminum cans or in-
sulating the hot water tank) and general procedures (e.g.,
reading labels at the grocery store to evaluate a product’s en-
vironmental friendliness or trying to determine the societal

impact of a product’s manufacture, consumption, and dis-
posal). Because specific proenvironmental behaviors are lim-
ited by opportunity or availability, the focus is placed on gen-
eral decision-making patterns as tactics in this study. These
decision-making tactics include (a) screening product alter-
natives by eliminating those that violate minimal standards
of environmental friendliness and (b) weighting environmen-
tal friendliness more heavily compared to other product at-
tributes. These behavior patterns can be expected to cross
some product classes, but differences could occur based on
information availability, opportunity to reap the benefit (e.g.,
recycle the recyclable), level of potential harm, or level of in-
volvement in the purchase. Regardless of these product class
differences, the use of screening and weighting tactics when
confronted with alternatives that have social responsibility
repercussions is a reasonable surrogate for specific
proenvironmental behaviors. The connection between these
tactics and the strategic image is posited in Hypothesis 6.
H6: The existence and strength of the strategic image is
reflected in the use of the following tactics:
(A) screening alternatives based on a product at-
tribute directly related to environmental values
(compatibility test).
(B) weighting a proenvironmental attribute with
more importance (utility) in nonscreening deci-
sions (profitability test).
The final linkage in image theory connects the trajectory im-
age to the strategic image. Thus, the existence of specific goals
leads to the formation of a plan accompanied by corresponding
behaviors directed toward goal fulfillment (Beach, 1990):
H7: A strong trajectory image for a given issue (e.g., the
environment) produces a strong strategic image to
accomplish the corresponding goals.
The following sections describe the study used to examine
each of the foregoing hypotheses and the measures developed
to identify and operationalize the respective constructs posited
in the theory. Taken as a whole, these hypotheses form the links
in a single conceptual framework for consumer decision mak-
ing in the presence of a social responsibility issue that is valued
by the consumer. The value image, trajectory image, and stra-
tegic image are related in this sequential order and provide the
basis for decision making and the resulting behaviors.
RESEARCH METHOD
Design and Procedures
A between-subject design, in which all participants com-
plete the same measures and perform two consumer prefer-
ence tasks, was used. Because demand bias can be espe-
cially troublesome when there is an ethical dimension to
the situation, careful ordering of measures and tasks was
UNDERSTANDING VALUE-LADEN DECISIONS 33
necessary. First, participants completed a set of four deci-
sion problems (one of which contained the social
responsibility measure) and a Rokeach Terminal Values In-
ventory (Rokeach, 1973) with an additional embedded en-
vironmental value item. These paper-and-pencil measures
were followed by two product choice scenarios (one for a
convenience product and one for a durable good). Finally,
the specific environmental attitudes and behaviors were
measured. The lengthy format of the first decision prob-
lems and the broad range of values in the preceding inven-
tory essentially precluded participants from connecting
these components to the emphasis on environmental issues
that surfaced after the product preference task. In essence,
the consumer preference task appeared to be unrelated to
the prior decision problems and values inventory at this
point in the study based on pretest interviews with partici-
pants.
The remaining items were measures of environmental
concern, PCE, and an environmental consumer behavior in-
ventory designed to represent the consumer’s plan. The study
required from 35 to 60 min to complete. Several scale items
are provided in Appendix A.
Participants
The sample for this study is composed of undergraduate col-
lege students in an introductory business course. The conse-
quence of the homogeneity of this sample (e.g., age, educa-
tion) could be reduced variance in some constructs and more
conservative tests of the results. Usable data were collected
from 117 participants. Generalizability and external validity
are believed to be relatively unaffected due to the nature of
the products used in the preference tasks.
Stimuli for the Preference Task
The preference task required product profiles for two prod-
ucts. Hypothetical, relatively low-involvement, noncontro-
versial products that would be sufficiently familiar to the par-
ticipant population were used to reduce demand effects.
Simple environmental issues were used to control any con-
founding effect from the need for more technical knowledge.
A convenience product (glass and window cleaner) and a du-
rable product (refrigerator) were selected after reviewing
product labels, advertisements, and interviewing a pilot sam-
ple of students. Because time constraints precluded the use of
more products, two relatively diverse products were used to
improve generalizability of the results. The product profiles
were developed from two levels of four attributes (price, per-
formance, environmental friendliness, and a typically ob-
served, but relatively unimportant, product characteristic).
An example for the convenience product (a glass and window
cleaner) is given in Appendix B.
These profiles were pretested using students from the
same population to determine if they were reasonable de-
scriptions. The environmentally friendly characteristic for
34 NELSON
the convenience product was biodegradability, and for the
durable product, the issue was the level of chlorofluoro-
carbons (CFCs) and their potential harm to the ozone layer.
The durable product’s environmental friendliness was more
explicitly stated to minimize any confounding effect from
lack of knowledge about CFCs. The price variances corre-
sponded to actual price ranges of similar products. The qual-
ity attributes were related to the primary function of the prod-
uct: ease of use for the cleaning product and storage capacity
for the refrigerator. The relatively less important attributes
were package appearance (clear or frosted bottle) for the con-
venience product and adjustable shelves in the freezer com-
partment (in addition to adjustable refrigerator shelves in all
alternatives) for the durable product.
The 16 profiles for each product category were presented
on separate pieces of paper, and participants sorted the pro-
files according to their preferences. Then they indicated the
rank preference (1 to 16) for each one.
Measures
Coefficient alpha and factor analysis results for the scales
used in this study (n = 117) are presented in Table 1. In gen-
eral, the alpha coefficients for the scales appear to be suffi-
ciently high—three at .7 or above (Nunnally, 1978) and one
above .6 (Robinson, Shaver, & Wrightsman, 1991).
To investigate the decision processes in the tactics part of
the strategic image, two measures were derived from the re-
sults of the earlier preference tasks. The screening measure
assumes that alternatives violating minimum threshold stan-
dards on the key attribute or attributes should be at the bottom
of the list of forced preferences, whereas those that pass the
screening test should be included in a smaller set that will be
at the top of the list. This measure loosely corresponds to im-
age theory’s compatibility test. The utility weight measure
assumes a compensatory process, similar to what can occur
in image theory’s profitability test in which acceptable op-
tions are evaluated using most attributes. Each measure used
in this study is capable of capturing variance resulting from
both the compatibility and profitability tests. For example,
placing the greatest weight or screening totally on the same
TABLE 1
Reliability of Scales
Scale Items α Factors
Social responsibility 3 .70
Values–Clean environment —a —a
Perceived consumer effectiveness 4 .70
Environmental concern/goals 5 .64
Environmental consumer behavior 10 .83
Note. n = 117.
aZ score for Clean Environment using 17 other items on the Rokeach
Test of Terminal Values (1968).
bSeven items related to consumption (buying/selling/using green prod-
ucts, conservation, contribution), 3 items to recycling.
attribute would result in the highest scores on both measures.
If the decision process includes both types of tests (compati-
bility followed by profitability) as image theory expects in
many cases, both measures should reflect at least part of the
underlying process. Previous image theory research noted
earlier in this article has tested the two-stage decision pro-
cess, and this refinement is not repeated here. The two de-
rived measures related to screening and evaluation should be
correlated, and they are (convenience product r = .95 and du-
rable product r = .91). The measures are described in more
detail in the following section.
Screening evidence. In this context, screening is man-
ifested as a decision process tactic in a plan to improve or pro-
tect the environment. Observation of the preference task and
verbal protocols during the pretest revealed that participants
were screening the profiles on a key attribute (i.e., either
choosing a desirable level or eliminating an unacceptable
level). Given these observations, a screening measure was de-
veloped to indirectly capture this phenomenon as follows.
The number of consecutive proenvironmental profiles oc-
curring in the first 8 rankings (top half) was used to measure
the degree of screening with the environmental attribute. In
principle, this is not very different from consecutive pur-
chases used to measure brand loyalty (Gaudagni & Little,
1983). When the environmental attribute is unimportant to
the participant, the measure would be zero or a very low
number. If the participant considers environmental friendli-
ness paramount to all other considerations, the score on this
measure would be 8. Although this measure is indirect, it is,
nonetheless, a highly conservative measure.
Attribute weighting. Conjoint analysis of each partici-
pant’s rankings of the product profiles was performed to re-
veal each participant’s individual preferences and impor-
tance weights on the environmental attribute (Green &
Srinivasan, 1990). Giving greater importance to the environ-
mental attribute represents a tactic in a plan to improve or
protect the environment. There are two levels of each attrib-
ute to facilitate comparison of attribute weights between par-
ticipants (Wittink, Krishnamurthi, & Nutter, 1982). To facili-
tate comparison of relative weights across participants, the
range on environmental friendliness as a proportion of the
summed ranges of all attributes was used to create the vari-
able (Wright & Rip, 1980). This standardized part-worth util-
1 ity of the environmental attribute was then used as the endog-
—a enous variable to test Hypothesis 6B (Hair, Anderson,
1 Tatham, & Black, 1992, pp. 407–413).
1
2b
Commitment to the plan. A 10-item, 7-point scale
(α = .83) to probe the strength of commitment to the plan
was formed by asking respondents how often they partici-
pate in a variety of proenvironmental actions (Berger &
Corbin, 1992). The breadth and frequency of the actions are

surrogate measures for commitment to a plan to improve
the environment.
Environmental concern and PCE. Environmental
concern and PCE were both posited to form the trajectory im-
age. Because Ellen et al. (1991) carefully tested the discrimi-
nation between environmental concern and PCE, which had
been vague in prior research, both scales from their study (en-
vironmental concern: four items; PCE: two items) were used
in scale construction. The final measure of environmental
concern contained a combination of three items from the El-
len et al. measure and two items from the Schwepker and
Cornwell (1991) measure. Coefficient alpha for the com-
bined scale was .64 and loaded on one factor. PCE was mea-
sured using two items from Ellen et al. plus two items tai-
lored for this study. Coefficient alpha for the PCE scale was
.70, and all items loaded on one factor.
Social responsibility. Because most “social responsi-
bility” scales have focused more on environmental attitudes
and behaviors, a measure of a more general construct of so-
cial responsibility is needed for the value image (Hypothesis
1). A scenario similar to that used in the Defining Issues Test
(Rest, 1986) was designed to contain several items that cap-
ture the social responsibility construct in a consumer shop-
ping situation involving social responsibility related to the
environment. This social responsibility scenario was embed-
ded among three scenarios taken directly from Rest’s De-
fining Issues Test for cognitive moral development. Three of
the 10 items directly addressed social responsibility (i.e.,
consequences if people ignore common problems, obliga-
tions to improve the world for future generations, and the
morality of harming a public good). A person who indicated
that the social responsibility items were important issues to
consider in making a decision on the dilemma would have a
high score for this construct. The three-item scale achieved a
coefficient alpha of .70 and loaded on a single factor. The
mean of the importance ratings was used as the measure.
Environmental value. As part of the value image that
serves as a prime motivator of subsequent behavior, “valuing
a clean environment” is similar to other terminal values iden-
tified by Rokeach (1968, 1973). For this study, one of
Rokeach’s 18 terminal values, national security, was re-
placed by a clean environment. The clean environment value
fits unobtrusively into the list of other values in the scale. The
importance of a clean environment was measured relative to
each individual’s ratings of all 18 values on the scale by using
a standardized z score.
Model Specification and Testing
The proposed decision model containing latent variables for
the three images was specified using a partial least squares
(PLS) approach to structural equation modeling (cf.,
UNDERSTANDING VALUE-LADEN DECISIONS 35
Lohmöller, 1987, 1989; Wold, 1982). PLS has less restrictive
assumptions (Barclay, Higgins, & Thompson, 1995; Falk &
Miller, 1992) and should be better suited for theory develop-
ment where complexity is high and explanation of variance
(predictive ability) is more important (Fornell & Bookstein,
1982; Joreskog & Wold, 1982).
PLS is somewhat unique in the way that measures, or
manifest variables, are related to the latent constructs. For-
mative indicators form, cause, or precede the construct—the
latent construct is a function of the indicators (Barclay et al.,
1995). On the other hand, reflective indicators are manifesta-
tions of the construct and typically follow the construct in
causal terms (see Cohen, Cohen, Teresi, Marchi, & Velez,
1990). This distinction is a theoretical issue that results in the
use of different algorithms within the program. In this study,
the social responsibility principle and the environmental
value are formative indicators for the value image that is op-
erational in the decision. They are enduring, preceding con-
cepts that are used to form the value image. Environmental
concern and PCE are also theorized to be formative indica-
tors of the trajectory image because concern and the reality of
possible accomplishments need to precede a reasonable goal
(trajectory image). The existing plan, as portrayed in
proenvironmental behaviors, and the various decision strate-
gies using the social responsibility attribute are reflective in-
dicators of the strategic image because these observable mea-
sures are results of the existing strategies. In the PLS
diagrams (Figure 2), formative indicators have unidirectional
arrows pointing to the latent construct, and reflective indica-
tors have unidirectional arrows pointing toward them from
the latent construct.
RESULTS
The structural model with latent variables equivalent to the
three primary images was analyzed to evaluate the explana-
tory power of image theory. This evaluation is typically per-
formed in two stages (Loehlin, 1987). The measurement
model articulates the relations of the latent variables (i.e., the
images) to the observed variables (i.e., the formative and re-
flective constructs) and provides evidence for testing Hy-
potheses 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6. The structural model represents the
relations among the latent variables, or images, and provides
evidence for testing Hypotheses 2 and 7.
Measurement Model Assessment
The results from the measurement model containing the three
latent and nine manifest variables are presented in Table 2. All
constructs (images) achieved internal consistency ratings
above .82, which indicates reasonable reliability (Fornell &
Larcker, 1981). Convergent validity was also evident because
the average variance extracted from the manifest variables (in-
dicators) by the constructs (images) exceeded .50.
36 NELSON

TABLE 2
Latent Variable Model of Image Theory

Structural Model Results t value

Standardized Path Coefficients

VALUE image → trajectory image .60 24.38*
TRAJECTORY image → strategic image .63 46.00*
Variance Explained (R2)
TRAJECTORY image .35
STRATEGIC image .40
RMS COV (E,U)a .069

Component Loadings, Residual Variance, and Weights for Measurement Model

Variance
LATENT VARIABLES and Manifest Variables Loadings Residuals Weights Extracted

VALUE image .69

Social responsibility .91** .72
Environment value .75** .46
TRAJECTORY image .70
Environmental goal .97** .85
PCE .67** .26
STRATEGIC image .58
Environmental behavior .74** .45
Screen tactic (Convenience) .67** .55
Weight tactic (Convenience) .67** .55
Screen tactic (Durable) .85** .28
Weight tactic (Durable) .85** .27

Correlation. of Constructsc
Number of Internal
Internal Consistencies and Correlation of Latent Variables Items Consistencyb VAL TRAJ STRAT

Value image (VAL) 2 .82 .83

Trajectory image (TRAJ) 2 .82 .63 .84
Strategic image (STRAT) 5 .87 .51 .63 .76

Note. *p < .001. **Jackknife t values for all loadings > 3.4 (p < .001).
aRoot mean square covariance between the residuals of the manifest and latent variables.
bA measure of reliability as defined by Fornell and Larcker (1981).
cDiagonal elements of the “correlation of constructs” matrix are the square roots of the average variance extracted. For adequate discriminant validity, diago-

nal elements should be greater that the corresponding off-diagonal elements.

Discriminant validity of the model’s constructs can be demon-
strated in the “Correlation of Constructs” matrix in Table 2
(Fornell & Larcker, 1981). The diagonal elements are the
square roots of the average variance extracted by a construct
from the measures, and the off-diagonal elements are the cor-
relations between the estimated constructs. Diagonal ele-
ments should be larger than the other elements if there is
discriminant validity, and that is the case in this model. In gen-
eral, the measurement model has acceptable reliability and va-
lidity, which are prerequisite to further analysis of the pairings
of the manifest variables with the latent variables.
The root mean square covariance between the residuals of
the latent and manifest variables (RMS COV [E,U]) was a
relatively small .07. This indicates adequate “fit” between
the model and the data because there is little unexplained cor-
relation between variables (Falk & Miller, 1992). In sum-
mary, the measurement model met the standards for accept-
ability using PLS analysis. This is a necessary condition for
testing the individual hypotheses for the proposed image the-
ory model.
Structural Model Assessment
The most appropriate measure of the predictive power of
the PLS structural model is the variance explained, or R2
value (Barclay, 1991). Considering the parsimony of this
model and the other factors that could affect the endoge-
nous variables, this model has performed quite well. The
results show that 35% of the variance in the trajectory im-
age and 40% of the variance in the strategic image were ex-
plained by the image theory model. Because the model pos-
its that the value image is a key determinant of the
trajectory image and that the trajectory image is a key de-
terminant of the strategic image, these R2 values indirectly
gauge the level of support for the linkages in Hypotheses 2
and 7.

The hypotheses were directly tested by determining the
statistical significance of the path coefficients (Hypotheses 2
and 7) and the loadings (Hypotheses 1, 3–5, and 6). A jack-
knife analysis was performed using supplemental software
developed by Fornell and Barclay (1983, 1993) to test the ac-
curacy of the parameters without assuming multivariate nor-
mal distribution (Barclay et al., 1995). The t values for the
path coefficients between the value and trajectory images
(24.38) and for the trajectory and strategic images (46.00)
were both highly significant (p < .001) supporting Hypothe-
ses 2 and 7. The loadings of all manifest variables on the la-
tent variables (images) were also significant at the same level
(p < .001); therefore, the remaining Hypotheses (1, 3–5, 6)
were also supported.
To summarize the results, the variance explained (R2), the
small residuals, and the statistically significant path coeffi-
cients and loadings indicate that this hypothesized image the-
ory model reasonably describes and explains the data col-
lected on socially responsible consumer choice. Therefore,
the image theory model constructed from the individual hy-
potheses is supported. Strong social responsibility principles
and strong valuation of a clean environment formed a strong
value image related to environmental issues (H1). A strong
value image led to a strong trajectory image that contains
goals related to the underlying values (H2). In this context,
greater environmental concern (H3) and PCE (H4) formed a
stronger trajectory image. The stronger trajectory image led
to a stronger strategic image containing plans and tactics to
attain the goals in the trajectory image (H7). A strong strate-
gic image related to this context was reflected in greater com-
mitment to a plan of environmental action (H5) and greater
use of environmental attributes in decision processes (H6). In
other words, consumers with strong values related to social
responsibility and the environment (value image) were more
likely to have proenvironmental goals (trajectory image) that
were expressed in consistent sets of behaviors and decision
processes (strategic image).
Summary of Results
“A theory should be as simple, elegant, consistent and gen-
eral as possible” (Lohmöller, 1989, p. 13), and latent variable
models provide a method for matching substantive theory
with empirical data by specifying a mathematical model. Im-
age theory provides the basis for creating a more parsimoni-
ous model of decision making that relies on just three theo-
retical latent constructs (i.e., the value, trajectory, and
strategic images). The relations among many of the manifest
constructs were derived from previous theory and empirical
research on the individual links between constructs; how-
ever, the image theory model explicitly incorporates values
and principles into a cohesive decision process.
This image theory model demonstrated acceptable levels
of reliability and validity for the measures of the theoretical
constructs and statistically significant relations among the
UNDERSTANDING VALUE-LADEN DECISIONS 37
constructs. Image theory is concerned with how knowledge
is represented and structured for use in decision making, and
these results support a decision-making model based on im-
age theory, which is highly appropriate when social responsi-
bility, or a similar value-laden context, is an issue. The fol-
lowing section briefly identifies the significance of these
findings for consumer researchers and decision theorists.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
This research presented and empirically tested a theoretical
framework that describes consumer decision making in a
value-laden context. Moreover, the ability of image theory to
provide a relatively parsimonious model of consumer deci-
sion making was explored and demonstrated. Image theory
represents a major departure from conventional thinking
about the decision-making process. It highlights the decision
maker’s principles that lead to adoption and implementation
of plans (with their associated tactics) to reach the goals that
satisfy those principles (Beach & Mitchell, 1987). This re-
search is the first empirical test relating all three images si-
multaneously (i.e., value, trajectory, and strategic), and it
provides an essential missing piece in the theory’s existing
literature. This integrated image structure, coupled with prior
research indicating the preeminence of screening in deci-
sions, reinforces image theory’s promise that many decisions
are made rather simply (sufficient compatibility) and that en-
during values and principles drive the decision process
(Beach & Strom, 1989; van Zee, Paluchowski, & Beach,
1992). Reliance on elaborate, very precise maximizing mod-
els that eschew moral utility to describe the general run of de-
cisions might not be representative of the actual process used
by most consumers.
Implications For Decision Theorists
Based on this study and prior image theory research, decision
theorists could benefit from explicitly incorporating the im-
pact of the decision maker’s principles with the more con-
crete dimensions of the decision context. This perspective
will improve the ability to predict the decision process used
by the decision maker, which will improve prediction of the
output. These results also demonstrate that different aspects
(“attributes” in the consumer context) of the decision frame
can assume more importance depending on the presence or
absence of relevant images. This study’s focus on the social
responsibility context has made the link between the value
image and the decision frame relatively obvious, but this
does not preclude the use of image theory in more mundane
decision situations. In fact, the theory’s usefulness lies in its
ability to deal with complex value-laden decisions as well as
relatively utilitarian decisions (e.g., a prevailing value of
“thrift” would lead to heightened price sensitivity in the deci-
sion process).
38 NELSON
Implications For Consumer Behavior
Researchers
By modeling consumer decision making in terms of evoked
images, consumer behavior researchers could develop a
more complete understanding of consumer behavior in other
potentially value-laden decision contexts. The results of this
study suggest that the three primary images are interrelated
and eventually motivate behavior; therefore, both the cre-
ation of new images and the elicitation of existing images be-
come pertinent. Creating or changing images is more prob-
lematic due to the entrenched nature of our value systems.
However, we can easily find examples of personal, educa-
tional, or commercial efforts to inculcate values, to encour-
age the setting of goals, and to suggest tactics to attain those
goals. Image theory emphasizes the importance of all three
images; therefore, getting someone to value nature, without
providing some tactics for protecting the environment, or
giving a list of recyclable items to someone who has no goals
related to environmental issues might not be effective.
Marketers are probably more interested in eliciting exist-
ing images that could lead to desired behaviors, such as pur-
chasing a particular product or performing a desired behav-
ior. Marketing communications can be aimed at any of the
three images singly or in combination because they are inter-
related. Continuing with the environmental decision frame, a
direct appeal to the consumer’s social responsibility princi-
ple could evoke the relevant value image and eventually lead
to the purchase of a “green” product. Communications that
emphasize the environmental problem could impact the tra-
jectory image by increasing concern and the importance of a
goal to improve conditions through the purchase of a green
product. This might be especially useful when concern is low
or when there is controversy about the environmental prob-
lem or the product category’s environmental impact (e.g.,
global warming or cloth vs. disposable diapers).
Moving people to act on their concern has been identified
as the major promotional task (Gill, Crosby, & Taylor, 1986;
Vining & Ebreo, 1990). When the level of concern is high, in-
creasing PCE might be a more viable objective so that the
consumer would be moved to action because the goal, or tra-
jectory image, seems attainable. For example, a scope reduc-
tion strategy, such as “think globally—act locally,” has been
advocated to increase PCE and subsequent proenvironmental
behaviors (Fine, 1990;Wiener & Doescher, 1991).
Another cause for inaction could be a strategic image
without a clear plan and viable tactics. In this case, the com-
munication could strengthen the strategic image to go with
the trajectory and value images. As with any persuasive com-
munication, research on the target audience’s existing images
related to the social responsibility issue and the effect of vari-
ous communications would be required. Image theory pro-
vides a useful framework for analyzing consumer behavior
and creating alternative marketing strategies. Marketing
communications can be used both to provide the knowledge
to create images and to formulate decision frames that will
evoke the relevant images leading to desired behaviors.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I acknowledge the major contributions of Christopher P. Puto
who directed the dissertation research that is the foundation
for this article and thank Lee R. Beach and Susan Heckler for
insightful comments on earlier versions of this article.
REFERENCES
Balderjahn, I. (1988). Personality variables and environmental attitudes as
predictors of ecologically responsible consumption patterns. Journal of
Business Research, 17, 51–56.
Barclay, D. W. (1991). Interdepartmental conflict in organizational buying:
The impact of the organizational context. Journal of Marketing Research,
28, 145–159.
Barclay, D. W., Higgins, C., & Thompson, R. (1995). The partial least
squares (PLS) approach to causal modeling: Personal computer adoption
and use as an illustration. Technology Studies, 2, 285–323.
Beach, L. R. (1990). Image theory: Decision making in personal and organi-
zational contexts. Chichester, England: Wiley.
Beach, L. R. (1993). Broadening the definition of decision making: The role
of prechoice screening of options. Psychological Science, 4, 215–220.
Beach, L. R., & Mitchell, T. R. (1987). Image theory: Principles, goals, and
plans in decision making. Acta Psychologica, 66, 201–220.
Beach, L. R., & Mitchell, T. R. (1990). Image theory: A behavioral theory of
decisions in organizations. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Re-
search in organizational behavior (Vol. 12, pp. 1–42). Greenwich, CT:
JAI.
Beach, L. R., Puto, C. P., Heckler, S. E., Naylor, G., & Marble, T. A. (1996).
Differential versus unit weighting of violations, framing and the role of
probability in image theory’s compatibility test. Organizational Behavior
and Human Decision Processes, 66, 77–82.
Beach, L. R., & Strom, E. (1989). A toadstool among the mushrooms:
Screening decisions and image theory’s compatibility test. Acta
Psychologica, 72, 1–12.
Berger, I. E., & Corbin, R. M. (1992). Perceived consumer effectiveness and
faith in others as moderators of environmentally responsible behaviors.
Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 11(2), 79–89.
Boulding, K. E. (1956). The image: Knowledge in life and society.
Binghamton, NY: Vail-Ballou.
Cohen, P., Cohen, J., Teresi, J., Marchi, M., & Velez, C. N. (1990). Problems
in the measurement of latent variables in structural equations causal mod-
els. Applied Psychological Measurement, 12, 183–196.
Dunegan, K. J. (1995). Image theory: Testing the role of image compatibility
in progress decisions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 62(1), 79–86.
Ellen, P. S., Wiener, J. L., & Cobb-Walgren, C. (1991). The role of perceived
consumer effectiveness in motivating environmentally conscious behav-
iors. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 10(2), 102–117.
Etzioni, A. (1988). The moral dimension: Toward a new economics. New
York: Free Press.
Falk, R. F., & Miller, N. B. (1992). A primer for soft modeling. Akron, OH:
University of Akron Press.
Fine, S. (1990). Social marketing. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Fornell, C., & Barclay, D. W. (1983). Jackknifing: a supplement to
Lohmöller’s LVPLS Program. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Grad-
uate School of Business Administration.

Fornell, C., & Barclay, D. W. (1993). Jackknifing in PLS. Unpublished note
accompanying jackknifing software for PLS. London, Ontario, Canada:
University of Western Ontario, Western Business School.
Fornell, C., & Bookstein, F. L. (1982). Two structural equation models:
LISREL and PLS applied to consumer exit-voice theory. Journal of Mar-
keting Research, 19, 440–452.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models
with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Mar-
keting Research, 18, 39–50.
Gaudagni, P. M., & Little, J. D. C. (1983). A logit model of brand choice cal-
ibrated on scanner data. Marketing Science, 2, 203–238.
Gill, J. D., Crosby, L. A., & Taylor, J. R. (1986). Ecological concern, atti-
tudes, and social norms in voting behavior. Public Opinion Quarterly, 50,
537–554.
Green, P. E., & Srinivasan, V. (1990). Conjoint analysis in marketing: New
developments with implications for research and practice. Journal of
Marketing, 54(4), 3–19.
Hair, J. F., Jr., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1992).
Multivariate data analysis (3rd ed.). New York: Macmillan.
Irwin, J. R., & Spira, J. S. (1997). Anomalies in the values for consumer
goods with environmental attributes. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 6,
339–363.
Joreskog, K. G., & Wold, H. (1982). Systems under indirect observation:
Causality, structure, prediction. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of deci-
sion under risk. Econometrica, 47, 263–291.
Loehlin, J. C. (1987). Latent variable models: An introduction to factor, path
and structural analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
Inc.
Lohmöller, J.-B. (1987). Latent variables path analysis with partial least
squares. Version 1.8. Berlin, Germany: Free University Berlin.
Lohmöller, J.-B. (1989). Latent variable path modeling with partial least
squares. Heidelberg, Germany: Physica-Verlag Heidelberg.
Lowenstein, G. (2001). The creative destruction of decision research. Jour-
nal of Consumer Research, 28, 400–505.
Miller, G. A., Galanter, E., & Pribram, K. H. (1960). Plans and the structure
of behavior. New York: Holt.
Mitchell, T. R., & Beach, L. R. (1990). … Do I love thee? Let me count …
Toward an understanding of intuitive and automatic decision making. Or-
ganizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 47, 1–20.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Prelec, D. (1991). Values and principles: Some limitations on traditional
economic analysis. In A. Etzioni & P. R. Lawrence (Eds.),
Socioeconomics: Toward a new synthesis (pp. 131–145). Armonk, NY:
Sharpe.
Rediker, K. J., Mitchell, T. R., Beach, L. R., & Beard, D. W. (1993). The ef-
fects of strong belief structures on information-processing evaluations
and choice. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 6, 113–132.
Rest, J. R. (1986). Moral development: Advances in research and theory.
NewYork: Praeger.
Robinson, J. P., Shaver, P. R., & Wrightsman, L. S. (1991). Criteria for scale
selection and evaluation. In J. P. Robinson, P. R. Shaver, & L. S.
Wrightsman (Eds.), Measures of personality and social psychological at-
titudes (Vol. 1, pp. 1–16). San Diego, CA: Academic.
Rokeach, M. (1968). Beliefs, attitudes and values. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. New York: Free Press.
Schwepker, C. H., Jr., & Cornwell, T. B. (1991). An examination of ecologi-
cally concerned consumers and their intention to purchase ecologically
packaged products. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 10(2), 77–101.
Seidl, C., & Traub, S. (1998). A new test of image theory. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 75, 93–116.
van Zee, E. H., Paluchowski, T. F., & Beach, L. R. (1992). The effects of
screening and task partitioning upon evaluations of decision options.
Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 5, 1–23.
UNDERSTANDING VALUE-LADEN DECISIONS 39
Vining, J., & Ebreo, A. (1990). What makes a recycler? A comparison of
recyclers and nonrecyclers. Environment and Behavior, 22, 55–73.
Webster, F. E., Jr. (1975). Determining the characteristics of the socially con-
scious consumer. Journal of Consumer Research, 2, 188–196.
Wiener, J. L., & Doescher, T. A. (1991). A framework for promoting cooper-
ation. Journal of Marketing, 55(2), 38–47.
Wittink, D. R., Krishnamurthi, L., & Nutter, J. B. (1982). Comparing de-
rived importance weights across attributes. Journal of Consumer Re-
search, 8, 471–474.
Wright, P., & Rip, P. D. (1980). Product class advertising effects on
first-time buyers’ decision strategies. Journal of Consumer Research, 7,
176–188.
Wold, H. (1982). Systems under indirect observation using PLS. In C.
Fornell (Ed.), A second generation of multivariate analysis (Vol. 1, pp.
325–347). New York: Praeger.
APPENDIX A
Environmental Scales
Environmental Concern (Trajectory Image)
From Ellen et al. (1991, p. 107):
Environmental problems are exaggerated, because in the
long run things balance out.
I have too many obligations to take an active part in an en-
vironmental organization.
I can think of many things I’d rather do than work toward
improving the environment.
From Schwepker and Cornwell (1991, p. 97):
Seeing litter in streets and parks bothers me.
When I buy products, I try to consider how my use of
them will affect the environment and other consumers.
PCE (Trajectory Image)
From Ellen et al. (1991, p. 107):
There is not much that any one individual can do about the
environment.
The conservation efforts of one person are useless as long
as other people refuse to conserve.
Added Items:
Consumer boycotts of products harmful to the environ-
ment are successful in changing the manufacturing
process and the products available.
An individual person can make a difference in the
quality of the environment by choosing products care-
fully.
Commitment to an Environmental Plan
(Strategic Image)
From Berger and Corbin (1992, p. 181; abbreviated here)
40 NELSON

Use (buy) biodegradable products.
Boycott irresponsible companies.
Read labels before buying.
Buy refillable products.
Reduce auto usage.
Contribute to green groups.
Recycle cans and bottles.
Sort trash for recyclables.
Buy products made from recycled material.
APPENDIX B
Preference Task Stimuli
Directions
In the envelope, you will find two sets of product descrip-
tions on pieces of paper. Starting with the glass and window
cleaner cards, rank the 16 alternatives on how likely you are
to buy each one if you needed this product. You can do this by
rearranging the cards into the desired order with the brand
you are most likely to buy on top. After you are satisfied with
the order, write the rank on each card (“1” for first choice, “2”
for second choice, etc.). Then do the same thing with the sec-
ond set of cards for the refrigerator.
Sample Product Profile
PRODUCT X1111—GLASS AND WINDOW CLEANER
RANK: _________
PRICE: $ 1.69 ($ 1.99)
SIZE: 22 ounces (same)
PACKAGING: Pump spray bottle, clear plastic (frosted plastic)
Directions for Use
Spray on, then wipe off with cloth. Removes fingerprints,
surface dirt, and grease easily. (Spray on, clean with cloth,
dry with another cloth. Removes fingerprints and surface dirt
easily. Grease might require another application.)
Contents
Deionized water, all natural ingredients, citrus-based
cleaning agent, biodegradable. (Deionized water, ammo-
nia-based cleaning agent, blue coloring.)
Note: Both levels for each attribute were combined to cre-
ate all 16 possible product profiles. The second level is in pa-
rentheses.