Next Article in Journal
The Impact of Chinese Carbon Emissions Trading System on Efficiency of Enterprise Capital Allocation: Effect Identification and Mechanism Test
Previous Article in Journal
Assessing and Developing Circular Deep Renovation Interventions towards Decarbonisation: The Italian Pilot Case of “Corte Palazzo” in Argelato
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 14
Issue 20
10.3390/su142013152
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Does Psychological Ownership Matter? Investigating Consumer Green Brand Relationships through the Lens of Anthropomorphism

by
Gunjan Malhotra
1,*,
Vimi Jham
2,* and
Nidhi Sehgal
3
1
Operations Management, Institute of Management Technology, Ghaziabad, Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad 201001, Uttar Pradesh, India
2
Marketing, Management Educator and Researcher, Dubai 122002, United Arab Emirates
3
Curtin University Dubai School of Business, Curtin University, Dubai 345031, United Arab Emirates
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2022, 14(20), 13152; https://doi.org/10.3390/su142013152
Submission received: 29 July 2022 / Revised: 11 September 2022 / Accepted: 20 September 2022 / Published: 13 October 2022
(This article belongs to the Section Sustainable Management)
Browse Figure
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Environment sustainability is becoming an important social obligation for organizations. As consumers are becoming conscious of the environment conservation, organizations are using technology to increase efficiency while saving labor costs and providing a unique in-store experience, engaging consumers interaction with the brand. Artificial intelligence (AI), that involves machines or applications mimicking human intelligence, is transforming the manner in which the consumers interact with the brands. Applying the theory of anthropomorphism and the psychological ownership theory, this study significantly contributes to the existing literature by investigating the interplay between crucial constructs such as AI anthropomorphism, psychological ownership, and product usage barrier in the context of green brands. Data was collected through a questionnaire from Indian consumers (N = 295). Data analysis was conducted using the SPSS PROCESS macro. The study provides empirical evidence on the significant role of psychological ownership with green brand AI anthropomorphism for building consumer relationships. The findings revealed that green brand AI anthropomorphism creates product usage barriers, but along with psychological ownership, the influence on consumer relationships remains positive.

1. Introduction

Environmental sustainability is a crucial issue that has gained prominence across the globe. Acknowledged as a development goal by the United Nations [1], an emerging megatrend [2] and a strategic business objective [3]), sustainability has paved the way for green brands [4]. As consumers are more aware of environmental issues, environmental protection has become a social obligation for companies and a key profit opportunity [5]. Thus, developing green products has become crucial for promoting sustainability and business performance [6,7]. Green products are reusable, bio-degradable and eco-friendly, with a less negative impact on the environment at all stages of their life cycle [8,9]. These green products are widely acclaimed due to their immense advantages in terms of environmental and health benefits, energy conservation and resource savings [10]. As sustainability has metamorphosed into a global issue, green consumerism has become pervasive [11]. It has led to an increased focus on green products, green designs, green technology, green advertising, and greener earth as a business philosophy of companies [12]. The vast market penetration of green products in recent years has garnered the interest of the companies in building sustainable consumer-green brand relationships [13].
The rising consumer preference for green products, their readiness to switch to them, and green marketing significantly influence consumer’s purchase behavior [14,15,16]. Furthermore, brand anthropomorphic marketing is increasingly used by companies to differentiate their products from their competitors, which in turn influences consumers’ behavior and purchase intentions [17]. Anthropomorphism is the phenomenon by which human-like characteristics, properties, behaviors, and mental states are ascribed to non-human entities perceived as distinctly human by people [18]. It is explained as the degree to which a brand is observed as an actual human being [19], and hence the consumers perceive the same relationship with the brand as with other humans [20]. Anthropomorphism has become crucial for green brands as it enables companies to differentiate themselves from their competitors [21]. In addition, the fusion of technological advancements such as machine learning, artificial intelligence (AI) and robotics has made green brand AI anthropomorphism with human-like features a reality [22]. An AI system is a “machine-based” system that can make recommendations, predictions, or decisions that influence real or virtual environments for a given set of human-defined objectives [23]. The AI interfaces offer immense potential to the companies to differentiate themselves from the competitors by increasing efficiency, decreasing labor costs, providing a unique in-store experience, engaging consumers and altering the consumer interaction with the brand [24]. Though the use of AI anthropomorphism is promising, integrating it effectively into the marketing strategies of the companies and comprehending the consumers’ reaction to it demands investigation [25]. Over the years, consumer-brand relationships have gained importance; nevertheless, their foundation in the green consumerism concept has been under-developed [26]. Green consumerism has primarily been limited to developed countries. However, its trend is rising in developing countries as these countries generate waste products at a rate higher than the natural degradation process and use resources at speed surpassing their replacement rate [27]. Efforts have been made to study it in emerging economies such as India.
Being one of the world’s largest emerging economies, India has a crucial role to play in the global sustainability landscape [28]). As the country is developing rapidly, urbanization and industrial expansion are contributing to the depletion of its natural resources [29]. Therefore, environmental sustainability has emerged as a vital issue of concern in India [30]. The IQ Air Report highlights that a majority of the most polluted cities are in India [31]. The Yale Columbia Environmental Performance Index (EPI) also reveals the low ranking of India and signals the need to improve sustainability efforts [32]. In view of the same, several initiatives, schemes and programs have been launched in the country by the government and other authorities to promote sustainability and the use of green products [33]. Therefore, eco-friendly and green products have gained significance in recent years [34]. Green consumption practices are important to ensure sustainable consumption [15]. It has been found that consumers are gradually changing their consumption behavior to align with the environmental expectations [35].
Moreover, studies have adopted green practices to promote sustainability, and consumers are far more conscious of eco-friendly products [36]. However, studies in this context remain missing in emerging economies. There is a broader scope to conduct detailed research on green marketing in emerging nations such as India [37].
In green brand AI anthropomorphism, it is pertinent to investigate product usage barriers as consumers prefer to connect with products without a usage barrier that arises from technological innovations [38]. In addition, psychological ownership is acknowledged as a valuable asset that has value-enhancing consequences for consumers by satisfying their key motives [39]. It implies possessive feelings toward material or immaterial objects that exemplify feelings of ’my’, ‘mine,’ and ‘our’ [40]. The intersection of psychological ownership and AI anthropomorphism offers another crucial area of investigation to contemplate the effects on the consumer green brand relationships. This study applied the anthropomorphism and psychological ownership theory to investigate the influence of product usage barriers (PUB) and psychological ownership- (PO) on the interactions between green brand AI anthropomorphism (GBA) and consumer relationships (CR). The research questions formulated for the study are: (i) does green brand AI anthropomorphism impact consumer relationships?; (ii) how do the product usage barrier and psychological ownership influence the above relationship? The study examines the mediating role of product usage barrier and psychological ownership using anthropomorphism and psychological ownership theory. This study extends the psychological ownership theory with consumer-brand relationships in retail.
We present a significant contribution to the existing research literature. First, the study investigates anthropomorphism and consumer relationships in the context of green brands. Second, the study examines the role of two crucial constructs, i.e., psychological ownership and product usage barrier, on the green brand anthropomorphism and consumer relationships. Third, through a sequential mediation, the study establishes that despite the product usage barrier, the psychological ownership in green brand AI anthropomorphism strengthens the consumer relationships. Therefore, while the extant literature majorly emphasizes the technicality of the AI tools [41], this study provides empirical evidence to establish the crucial role of psychological ownership in reinforcing the consumer relationship with green brand AI anthropomorphism. The subsequent research paper discusses the theoretical background, the hypotheses development, research methodology, results, discussion, theoretical and managerial implications, limitations and directions for future research.

2. Theoretical Framework

2.1. Theory of Anthropomorphism

The theory of anthropomorphism shows the consumer interactions with green brands through AI, which impacts their relationship with the brands [42] The anthropomorphism theory argues that there are three key psychological triggers for anthropomorphic thinking that ascertain the prospect of perceiving human-like attributes in non-human objects. These are elicited agent knowledge, sociality and effectance [18]. The elicited agent knowledge is a cognitive factor of anthropomorphism [43]. It implies that individuals judge objects with some similarities with human beings; they activate the same mental processes when thinking about human beings and anthropomorphized objects and consequently attribute human-like qualities to such objects. Calling Amazon’s virtual assistant, Alexa, as if it is a person is an example of such a cognitive attribution [44] Effectance motivation draws from the innate need of the individuals to comprehend behavior in their environment and interact with their situations effectively. People gain control over anthropomorphized agents by attributing human traits to anthropomorphized objects. It improves their predictability and reduces uncertainty [45]. When the consumers lack certainty, for example, in the case of local green brands, they tend to apply anthropomorphism to reduce ambiguity. The anthropomorphism theory’s social motivation factor stems from individuals’ need for social interaction, contact, and attachment. To satisfy such a need, individuals tend to perceive non-human or anthropomorphized objects as their social counterpart [18] Anthropomorphism enables individuals to achieve the desire to develop social relationships [46]).

2.2. Psychological Ownership Theory

Psychological ownership refers to a “state in which individuals feel as though the target of ownership (or a piece of that target) is theirs (i.e., it is ‘MINE’)” [40] The legislation and other individuals acknowledge that psychological ownership differs from legal ownership. On the other hand, psychological ownership is a perception derived and manifested by the individual [47] Such ownership satisfies three key psychological motives, i.e., the need for efficacy and effectance, self-identity and belongingness [48]. Furthermore, the theory suggests three significant routes to ownership, i.e., how individuals come to feel ownership. These three routes are the ability to use and control the use (perceived control), comprehensive knowledge of the object (intimate knowing), devoting time, attention, energy and effort (self-investment) [48]). In the marketing landscape, it has been found that psychological ownership leads to customer engagement [49]) and empowers customers [50]. The present study is well-grounded in the psychological ownership theory as the AI anthropomorphism possesses the necessary attributes to fulfil the three basic needs, i.e., provide a sense of control to the consumers in their service experience and ability to express their self-identity. Customers can also engage with them, resulting in an intention to revisit the experience in the future or other post-adoption behaviors.

3. Hypothesis Formulation

The consumer relationship is multidimensional [51]. In the context of green brands, it has been established that a combination of functional and emotional benefits must be established [52]), and hence anthropomorphizing the brand can result in stronger consumer relationships by way of expressing feelings of love and cognitive closeness to the consumer [13]). Anthropomorphism comforts consumers by promoting companionship and enabling them to comprehend their environment. Therefore, brands viewed as humans with emotions, intentions and agency can lead to improved consumer relationships [53]. It is argued that an anthropomorphized brand is viewed as a social object with personality and humanity [54]. Hence, consumer relations follow anthropomorphism. Therefore, we hypothesize the following:
Hypothesis (H1):
Green brand AI anthropomorphism has a positive impact on consumer relationships.
A product usage barrier implies resistance to using the product that stems from innovation that disrupts the original beliefs of consumers [38]. Such a functional barrier is a driver of consumer resistance to innovations. When the innovation is linked to technology, such usage barriers become more dominant as the new technology is perceived as complex and difficult to understand or use [55]. Due to the deployment of high-end technology and human resemblance, it has been found that consumers perceive that a higher level of effort is required to use green brand AI anthropomorphism [56]. When the consumers view anthropomorphism as intelligent human-like beings with their own social beliefs [57] they assume that they need to interact with an actual human and also learn a technological device, thereby increasing the amount of effort required. The need for an increased effort acts as a barrier, thus rendering the consumers unwilling to use AI anthropomorphism [56].
Furthermore, the green brand AI anthropomorphism also challenges consumers’ perception of human distinctiveness, thereby acting as a barrier to its usage [58] Studies have well-acknowledged the mediating role of the product usage barrier in anthropomorphism [38,59]. Thus, we hypothesize:
Hypothesis (H2):
Green brand AI anthropomorphism negatively affects consumer relationship with green brand AI anthropomorphism through the mediating role of product usage barrier with AI anthropomorphism.
Psychological ownership has gained recent attention in the marketing literature [60] as it is deemed to profoundly impact several aspects of consumer relationships, such as purchase intention [61] and willingness to pay more [62]. Various research studies have discussed the mediating role of psychological ownership [63,64]). It is argued that the psychological ownership of green products generates positive attitudes towards them [65]. Through the lens of the psychological ownership theory, the control in interactions with AI anthropomorphism, obtaining knowledge, and investing self into them results in the development of higher-level relationships and psychological bonds with them, thereby positively affecting consumer relationships behaviours [66]. Therefore, we formulate the below hypothesis:
Hypothesis (H3):
Green brand AI anthropomorphism positively impacts the consumer relationship with green brand AI anthropomorphism through the mediating role of psychological ownership with AI anthropomorphism.
The extant literature has revealed that anthropomorphism increases product usage barriers as the “consumers will experience discomfort—specifically, feelings of eeriness and a threat to their human identity” [67], which in turn negatively influences consumer relationships. However, the psychological ownership with the green brand AI anthropomorphism alters this relationship. It is argued that psychological ownership positively impacts usage intention [68]. Due to this psychological ownership, consumers perceive that green brand AI anthropomorphism is well under their control and can be amended in line with their preferences irrespective of any barrier [66]. These findings are in line with the prior work by Jörling et al. [69] that profoundly demonstrates that perceived control is a crucial element in adopting and using green brand AI anthropomorphism. Therefore, the negative impact of the product usage barrier is offset by the strong role of consumers’ psychological ownership of the green brand AI anthropomorphism, thereby positively affecting consumer relationships. Hence, we hypothesize:
Hypothesis (H4):
Product usage barrier with AI anthropomorphism and psychological ownership with AI anthropomorphism serially mediate the relationship between green brand AI anthropomorphism and consumer relationship with green brand AI anthropomorphism.
Figure 1 below shows the conceptual framework of research.

4. Research Methodology

4.1. Research Context and Data Collection

A self-administered survey-based questionnaire technique was employed, and data were collected from Indian consumers from March 2022 to May For data collection, the non-probability sampling technique was used [70]). The purpose was to understand the consumer relationship with green brand AI anthropomorphism. The study emphasized consumers’ awareness of the “digital world” and those who have shopping experiences through digital platforms [71]. Thus, the study considered young consumers born after 1981 (i.e., millennials). Based on the aim of the study, participants needed to access AI anthropomorphism through both online and physical stores. Hence, we asked a qualifying question to check this aspect of the study. The survey procedure comprised the definition of AI anthropomorphism, a video (two minutes’ duration), a questionnaire, and an instruction form. The survey was circulated through various digital platforms such as LinkedIn, Facebook, etc. In addition, participants were provided with an information sheet explaining the study’s objective, the completion time, and the reward for participating in the survey. Consent to fill out the questionnaire was obtained from the prospective candidates. After that, we shared a web link with them. A pre-test with fifteen respondents was conducted to ensure that the wording of the questionnaire was appropriate. After that, we rectified the questionnaire and distributed it through the web link among the prospective participants. Follow-up emails were sent to prompt the respondents to complete the survey questionnaire. The reminders were sent every two days until the questionnaire was returned. The reward as an entry to a sweepstake contest was given to respondents for their participation in the survey.
Moreover, the participants were assured of their responses’ privacy, anonymity, and confidentiality. A total of 334 responses were received, and we discarded 39 missing and incomplete responses. Hence, 295 duly filled questionnaires were used for the analysis. A response rate of 88.32% was achieved. Among 295 responses (Table 1), 55.93% were men, and 69.83% had a graduation degree. The monthly family income of the respondents (65.42%) was between $2000–$4000.

4.2. Measurement

Past literature was referred to for selecting the scale items for measurement. The study used four items of product usage barrier of AI anthropomorphism from Cox et al. [72]. Six items were selected from [73] to measure interactions with green brand AI anthropomorphism. The study used psychological ownership with AI anthropomorphism from [74], comprising five items. Items for consumer relationship with green brand AI anthropomorphism with second-order measurement items were adapted from [51]. There were eight dimensions of sixteen scale items: passion, self-connection, intimacy, love, nostalgia, personal commitment, partner quality, and trust. All measurement items were measured using a strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (7) seven-point Likert scale.

4.3. Common Method Bias

Common method bias (CMB) may arise as data is collected simultaneously for all the constructs [75]. We evaluated the full collinearity approach to test CMB and found that all values were within the upper limit of 3.3 [76], suggesting that CMB was not present in this study. Moreover, Harman’s single-factor test was examined; the results had a total variance of 33.21% in the sample. This further demonstrates that CMB was not a problem in this study [77].

5. Results

5.1. Assessment of Measurement Model

Amos version 24 was used to access this study’s convergent and discriminant validity. We used composite reliability (CR), Cronbach’s alpha (α), factor loadings, and average variance extracted (AVE) to examine convergent validity. Table 1 shows all scale items with factor loadings having threshold values above 0.7 [78]. All constructs have AVE values above the 0.50 threshold value (Table 2), and CR values were more than 0. Thus, convergent validity is established in the study. To establish discriminant validity, we established that the square root of AVE should be above 0. In contrast, AVE’s square root for each latent construct should be greater than its correlation with any other construct [79]. Specifically, we observed values close to the acceptable range; therefore, the Heterotrait-Monontrait Ratio of Correlations (HTMT) was examined through Amos (Table 2). The values received were less than the threshold value of 0.85, establishing discriminant validity for this study. The fit indices were calculated through Amos version 24 were Normed χ2 = 2.278; CFI = 0.918, IFI = 0.923, TLI = 0.927 and RMSEA = 0. Thus, this study satisfies convergent and discriminant validity.

5.2. Hypothesis Testing

To test the hypothesis for the study, we used the SPSS PROCESS macro [80]. We used mediation and sequential mediation techniques to assess the conceptual model. The study used a non-parametric bootstrapping regression technique using 5000 sub-samples and specified multiple iterations. In addition, we applied PROCESS macro models 4, 6, and 14 with an independent variable (GBA), two mediators (PUB and PO), and a dependent variable (CR). The mediation effect explains the strength of the conceptual model’s direct and indirect effect [81] (MacKinnon et al., 2007).

5.3. Assessment of Mediation Effect

Table 3 illustrates the mediation results (PROCESS model 4) of product usage barrier and psychological ownership and sequential mediation analysis (PROCESS Model 6). The direct relationship between green brand AI anthropomorphism and consumer relationship with green brand AI anthropomorphism is significant and positively correlated (effect = 0.626; t = 9.833; p < 0.01); thus, hypothesis H1 is supported. Further, direct relationship between GBA → CR (without PUB mediator) is positive and significant (effect = 0.315; t = 4.449; p < 0.01) and indirect effect of GBA → PUB → CR is negative and insignificant (effect = −0.321; 95% CI [−0.227, 0.475]). The direct relationship is positive and significant and the indirect relationship is negative and insignificant. Therefore, PUB does not mediate the relationship between GBA and CR. Thus, hypothesis H2 is not supported. Similarly, the direct relationship between GBA → CR (without PO mediator) is significant and positive (effect = 0.269; t = 4.339; p < 0.01) and indirect effect of GBA → PO → CR is also significant (effect = 0.377; 95% CI [0.264, 0.504]). Both direct and indirect effect is positive and statistically significant. Thus, PO partially mediates the relationship between GBA and CR; this finding supports hypothesis H3.

5.4. Sequential Mediation

We used PROCESS macro model 6 to assess the sequential mediation of PUB and PO between GBA and CR. To examine this, both the direct and indirect effects were calculated (Table 4). The mediation analysis results provided two significant indirect effects and one insignificant indirect effect. The first (GBA → PUB → CR) was 0.178, which is insignificant, the second (GBA → PO → CR) was 0.150, and the third (GBA → PUB → PS → CR) was 0. Adding these two significant indirect effects accounted for the total indirect effect of 0.344; 95% CI [0.336, 0.616]. On the other hand, the direct effect of GBA → CR (without PUB and PO as sequential mediators) was positive and significant (effect = 0.267; t = 4.395; p < 0.01). Notably, as both indirect and direct effects were significant, it does establish partial mediation of sequential mediators PUB and PO between GBA and CR. Thus, hypothesis H4 regarding sequential mediation of PUB and PO is also supported.

6. Discussion

Previous research asserts that retailing is experiencing change in technology with technology, yet, the literature has limited information on the impact of this change [59]. In order to stay competitive, many retailers have started embracing various digital technologies to engage with their customers [82]. They use AI applications to establish this connection [83]. The study aims to understand the role of green brand AI anthropomorphism in consumer relationships and strongly supports green AI brand anthropomorphism [84].
The application of AI anthropomorphism in green retail was reviewed to bridge this gap. It was conceptualized that AI can best be employed in retail by enhancing customer engagement. Green retailers are using AI anthropomorphism to provide a positive in-store shopping environment despite barriers to using technology faced by consumers. By leveraging psychological ownership mechanisms and encouraging consumers to engage with robots actively. We propose the path of psychological ownership in technology for building consumer relationships by explaining the desirable behavior [24].
India was chosen for this study as green practices have witnessed exponential growth. Study outcomes reinforce the role of psychological ownership in building consumer relationships [66] despite product usage barriers [56] using green brand AI anthropomorphism [17]. The study further demonstrates the psychological ownership theory (Pierce et al., 2001), which supports the building of consumer relationships with green brand AI anthropomorphism. The study’s findings are consistent with the existing literature on building consumer relationships with green brand AI anthropomorphism unaffected by any physical or functional barrier [38,66,69]; Psychological ownership is a statistically significant predictor of consumer relationships while interacting with green brand AI anthropomorphism. Our study concludes with a novel finding suggesting how consumers use and embrace this new technology and reinforce that psychological ownership of AI anthropomorphism strengthens consumer relationships despite product usage barriers. In the current study, the product usage barrier is insignificant, and psychological ownership is a statistically significant mediator of the green brand AI anthropomorphism and consumer relationship.

6.1. Theoretical Implications

The findings of the study contribute to the literature on psychological ownership of green brand AI anthropomorphism [17] which is based on the theory of brand anthropomorphism [85]. This psychological ownership helps build consumer relationships. [86,87,88]; which support the application of anthropomorphic effects.
We offer empirical evidence on psychological ownership with green brand AI anthropomorphism [89] building consumer relationships [90], thus fulfilling a gap in the literature. The study also corroborates that despite the product usage barrier [38], the psychological ownership in green brand AI anthropomorphism strengthens the consumer relationship. Most of the previous research studies have focused on the technicality of AI tools [41] However, through this study, we have enhanced existing understanding by offering empirical support that consumer relationships get stronger with green brand AI anthropomorphism with psychological ownership despite product usage barriers [91]. According to the authors’ best knowledge, these findings have been claimed in the previous literature but have not been empirically validated. This study, applying psychological ownership theory to green brand AI anthropomorphism, justifies the role of ownership in technology for building consumer relationships.
The findings suggest that psychological ownership develops with green AI anthropomorphism despite the product usage barrier [59]. While the green brand literature has documented favorable consumer intentions to buy products [92], there has been no active investigation on how consumers having product usage barriers with green brand AI anthropomorphism affects consumer relationships [20]. This study suggests that consumers build relationships based on green AI anthropomorphic effects due to psychological ownership despite usage barriers. Furthermore, consumers favorably evaluate green brand AI anthropomorphism with psychological ownership of AI anthropomorphism. These findings provide empirical evidence of green brand AI anthropomorphism in enhancing the anthropomorphic effects of green brands.
The research also contributes to the literature on how anthropomorphism affects socially responsible behaviors resulting in building relationship with the brand. We complement the existing studies by showing green brand anthropomorphism resulting in sustainable behaviors. The results show an overall positive relationship and influence among green brand anthropomorphism and consumer relationship. Organizations should adopt green brand strategies to make the consumer aware of benefits of greed brand to environment and society. This will result in prompting green buying behavior and green satisfaction along with ownership. Green brand anthropomorphism will encourage a sense of compassion, kindness and nurturing resulting in psychological ownership of these brands.

6.2. Managerial Implications

Our research findings have implications for brand managers as this research suggests the importance of AI anthropomorphism for green brands to build consumer relationships. As prior research noted, the main reason anthropomorphism is used is to build relationships [93], and the findings of this research may be explained in this context. Additionally, this research suggests anthropomorphized brand strategies for promotion marketers who should develop communication and social skills of green AI anthropomorphized brands. Furthermore, practitioners should develop policies, procedures, and systems to enhance psychological ownership in the green brand AI anthropomorphism. Marketers should promote the merits of AI anthropomorphism such as reliability and dependability in offline and online marketing channels. These findings will reinforce consumers’ beliefs in green brand AI anthropomorphism and strengthen consumer relationships.
This study suggests that interactions with green brand AI anthropomorphism develop the consumers’ psychological ownership. This psychological ownership is possible when AI anthropomorphism is trained in quality communications. Communicating the benefits of a green brand will facilitate the development of psychological ownership with green brand AI anthropomorphism [40]. When consumers exercise control over an object after investing in knowing the object and finally knowing, it facilitates the development of psychological ownership. Thus, we confirm with empirical evidence for the work done by [94] on technology-related psychological ownership. Furthermore, green brand AI anthropomorphism should also be able to interact, convey the benefits of using green brands and resolve problems to instill ownership of the consumer with AI anthropomorphism.
Marketers should develop guidelines about interactions with green brand AI anthropomorphism. And offer accessible guidance on using new technology is key to improving consumer relationships. Consumers should be trained on correct operating procedures, such as where to stand and talk, the clarity of communication required, the type of questions to be asked, to obtain a response for a question the possibility of initiating a conversation with a stranger. At a deeper level, consumers need to know more about the unfamiliar technology when it is in its infancy. This finding will foster consumer learning and reduce product usage barriers with AI anthropomorphism. Promoting electronic word of mouth and sharing the experience of users who have interacted with AI anthropomorphism will help advertise the ability of technology to match unique consumer needs. The study adds to the research findings about the mediating role of the usage barrier [59] for AI anthropomorphism and how it may negatively affect consumer relationships.
In this research, consumers who develop psychological ownership with AI anthropomorphism are strongly connected to the brand and less likely to react to product usage negatively. Such responses of consumers with a strong consumer relationship can be a valuable resource in promoting green brand AI anthropomorphism [17].

6.3. Limitations and Future Research

The study has few limitations that future researchers can address. The study is built on the contention that consumers perceive green brand AI anthropomorphism as humanized, thus developing a relationship with the green brand. However, this study does not consider the emotional attachments with brand AI anthropomorphism. Future researchers can thus examine whether the proposed conceptual model relationship exists with consumers who do not perceive green brand AI anthropomorphism as human-like. The study did not consider the impact of features such as the effect of voice, response time, and type of interactions on consumer relationship with green brand AI anthropomorphism. Future researchers may examine the impact of these attributes on green brand AI anthropomorphism by using a longitudinal methodology to examine the changes in this relationship over time. Future researchers could examine if the consumer’s ethical approach has a confounding effect on this relationship, which the present study did not examine. The study presents product usage barriers and psychological ownership’s impact on consumer relationship with green brand AI anthropomorphism. Future researchers can expand the findings in different contexts, such as organic foods, etc. and examine if the type of shopping affects the green brand AI anthropomorphism. We collected data from Indian consumers using non-probability sampling techniques. Future researchers may consider using cross-sectional or longitudinal sampling for data collection to verify the results. We did not examine the effect of educational background, gender, race, ethnicity, or language spoken at home. Future researchers may consider these factors to test the proposed relationship with green brand AI anthropomorphism. In addition to these limitations, future researchers could examine if consumer culture or countries have any confounding effect on their relations with green brand AI anthropomorphism. AI has gained substantial importance, and the samples are collected from India with varied consumer languages or cultures that may have a role to play in this relationship.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, V.J.; Investigation, N.S.; Methodology, G.M., V.J. and N.S. have contributed equally. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study did not require any ethical approval.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

Data is contained within the article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. United Nations. The Sustainable Development Goals Report. Available online: https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/report/2020/The-Sustainable-Development-Goals-Report-2020.pdf (accessed on 16 April 2022).
  2. Lubin, D.A.; Esty, D.C. The sustainability imperative. Harv. Bus. Rev. 2010, 88, 42–50. [Google Scholar]
  3. Prastian, G.A.; Setiawan, A.; Bachtiar, N.K. SMEs’ Sustainability: Between Business Resilience and Business Growth, Which One is More Significant in The Time of Crisis? J. Manag. Bus. 2022, 9, 94–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Lukin, E.; Krajnović, A.; Bosna, J. Sustainability Strategies and Achieving SDGs: A Comparative Analysis of Leading Companies in the Automotive Industry. Sustainability 2022, 14, 4000. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Coşkun, A.; Vocino, A.; Polonsky, M. Mediating Effect of Environmental Orientation on Pro-Environmental Purchase Intentions in a Low-Involvement Product Situation. Australas. Mark. J. 2017, 25, 115–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Bravo, A.; Vieira, D.; Rebello, T.A. The Origins, Evolution, Current State, and Future of Green Products and Con-sumer Research: A Bibliometric Analysis. Sustainability 2022, 14, 11022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Kumar, P.; Polonsky, M.J. An Analysis of the Green Consumer Domain within Sustainability Research: 1975 to 2014. Australas Mark. J. 2017, 25, 85–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Biswas, A.; Roy, M. A study of consumers’ willingness to pay for green products. J. Adv. Manag. Sci. 2016, 4, 211–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. OECD. Sustainable Manufacturing and Eco-Innovation: Towards a Green Economy; Policy Brief OECD Observer: Paris, France, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  10. Singh, G.; Pandey, N. The Determinants of Green Packaging that Influence Buyers’ Willingness to Pay a Price Premium. Australas. Mark. J. 2018, 26, 221–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Sachdeva, S.; Jordan, J.; Mazar, N. Green consumerism: Moral motivations to a sustainable future. Curr. Opin. Psychol. 2015, 6, 60–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Trivedi, D. Glimpses of Green Consumerism and Steps Towards Sustainability. J. Manag. 2019, 6, 35–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Papista, E.; Dimitriadis, S. Consumer–green brand relationships: Revisiting benefits, relationship quality and outcomes. J. Prod. Brand Manag. 2019, 28, 166–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Purcărea, T.; Ioan-Franc, V.; Ionescu, Ș.-A.; Purcărea, I.M.; Purcărea, V.L.; Purcărea, I.; Mateescu-Soare, M.C.; Platon, O.-E.; Orzan, A.-O. Major Shifts in Sustainable Consumer Behavior in Romania and Retailers’ Priorities in Agilely Adapting to It. Sustainability 2022, 14, 1627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Zeynalova, Z.; Namazova, N. Revealing Consumer Behavior toward Green Consumption. Sustainability 2022, 14, 5806. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Tan, Z.; Sadiq, B.; Bashir, T.; Mahmood, H.; Rasool, Y. Investigating the Impact of Green Marketing Components on Purchase Intention: The Mediating Role of Brand Image and Brand Trust. Sustainability 2022, 14, 5939. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Acharya, A.; Gupta, M. An Application of Brand Personality to Green Consumers: A Thematic Analysis. Qual. Rep. 2016, 21, 1531–1545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Epley, N.; Waytz, A.; Cacioppo, J.T. On seeing human: A three-factor theory of anthropomorphism. Psychol. Rev. 2007, 114, 864–886. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Ali, F.; Dogan, S.; Amin, M.; Hussain, K.; Ryu, K. Brand anthropomorphism, love and defence: Does attitude towards social distancing matter? Serv. Ind. J. 2021, 41, 58–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Han, N.R.; Baek, T.H.; Yoon, S.; Kim, Y. Is that coffee mug smiling at me? How anthropomorphism impacts the effectiveness of desirability vs. feasibility appeals in sustainability advertising. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2019, 51, 352–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Huang, C.; Guo, R. The effect of a green brand story on perceived brand authenticity and brand trust: The role of narrative rhetoric. J. Brand Manag. 2021, 28, 60–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Oosthuizen, K.; Botha, E.; Robertson, J.; Montecchi, M. Artificial intelligence in retail: The AI-enabled value chain. Australas. Mark. J. 2021, 29, 264–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. OECD. Artificial Intelligence on Society; OECD Publishing: Paris, France. Available online: https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/.ors (accessed on 19 April 2022).
  24. Larson, R.B. Supermarket self-checkout usage in the United States. Serv. Mark. Q. 2019, 40, 141–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Inman, J.J.; Nikolova, H. Shopper-Facing Retail Technology: A Retailer Adoption Decision Framework Incorporating Shopper Attitudes and Privacy Concerns. J. Retail. 2017, 93, 7–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Mao, Y.; Lai, Y.; Luo, Y.; Liu, S.; Du, Y.; Zhou, J.; Ma, J.; Bonaiuto, F.; Bonaiuto, M. Apple or Huawei: Understanding Flow, Brand Image, Brand Identity, Brand Personality and Purchase Intention of Smartphone. Sustainability 2020, 12, 3391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Nandy, B.; Sharma, G.; Garg, S.; Kumari, S.; George, T.; Sunanda, Y.; Sinha, B. Recovery of consumer waste in India—A mass flow analysis for paper, plastic and glass and the contribution of households and the informal sector. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2015, 101, 167–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Nepal, R.; Paija, N.; Tyagi, B.; Harvie, C. Energy security, economic growth and environmental sustainability in India: Does FDI and trade openness play a role? J. Environ. Manag. 2021, 281, 111886. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Nittala, R. Green Consumer Behavior of the Educated Segment in India. J. Int. Consum. Mark. 2014, 26, 138–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. UNICEF. Climate Change and Environmental Sustainability. Available online: https://www.unicef.org/india/what-we-do/climate-change (accessed on 23 June 2022).
  31. IQAir. World Air Quality Report. Available online: https://www.iqair.com/world-most-polluted-cities/world-air-quality-report-2020-en.pdf (accessed on 20 June 2022).
  32. Environmental Performance Index. 2022 EPI Results. Available online: https://epi.yale.edu/epi-results/2022/component/epi (accessed on 21 May 2022).
  33. Varghese, S. Performance of Green Brands during Post Covid Era. IIBM’S. J. Manag. Res. 2022, 6, 52–59. [Google Scholar]
  34. Chib, R.; Khandelwal, U. Barriers to Adopt Green Brands in India: Consumer’s Perspective. J. Posit. Sch. Psychol. 2022, 6, 9051–9058. [Google Scholar]
  35. Kazmi, S.H.A.; Shahbaz, M.S.; Mubarik, M.S.; Ahmed, J. Switching behaviors toward green brands: Evidence from emerging economy. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2021, 23, 11357–11381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Kumar, A.; Prakash, G.; Kumar, G. Does environmentally responsible purchase intention matter for consumers? A predictiv sustainable model developed through an empirical study. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2021, 58, 102270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Joseph, R.; Korlekar. Green Marketing Practices–An Indian Perspective. Expr. Unity CSR Found. Mag. 2012, 2, 12–15. [Google Scholar]
  38. Zainol, S.S.; Hussin, S.M.; Othman, M.S.; Zahari, N.H.M. Challenges of online learning faced by the B40 income parents in Malaysia. Int. J. Educ. Pedagog. 2021, 3, 45–52. [Google Scholar]
  39. Morewedge, C.K.; Monga, A.; Palmatier, R.W.; Shu, S.B.; Small, D.A. Evolution of Consumption: A Psychological Ownership Framework. J. Mark. 2021, 85, 196–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Pierce, J.L.; Kostova, T.; Dirks, K.T. The state of psychological ownership: Integrating and extending a century of research. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 2003, 7, 84–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Chiu, C.L.; Ho, H.-C.; Yu, T.; Liu, Y.; Mo, Y. Exploring information technology success of Augmented Reality Retail Applications in retail food chain. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2021, 61, 102561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Chylinski, M.; Heller, J.; Hilken, T.; Keeling, D.I.; Mahr, D.; de Ruyter, K. Augmented reality marketing: A technol-ogy-enabled approach to situated customer experience. Australas. Mark. J. 2020, 28, 374–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Wang, W. Smartphones as Social Actors? Social dispositional factors in assessing anthropomorphism. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2017, 68, 334–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Lee, S.A.; Oh, H. Anthropomorphism and its implications for advertising hotel brands. J. Bus. Res. 2021, 129, 455–464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Waytz, A.; Cacioppo, J.; Epley, N. Who sees human? The stability and importance of individual differences in an-thropomorphism. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 2010, 5, 219–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Shin, H.I.; Kim, J. My computer is more thoughtful than you: Loneliness, anthropomorphism and dehumanization. Curr. Psychol. 2020, 39, 445–453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Dawkins, S.; Tian, A.W.; Newman, A.; Martin, A. Psychological ownership: A review and research agenda. J. Organ. Behav. 2017, 38, 163–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Pierce, J.L.; Kostova, T.; Dirks, K.T. Toward a theory of psychological ownership in organisations. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2001, 26, 298–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Harmeling, C.M.; Moffett, J.W.; Arnold, M.J.; Carlson, B.D. Toward a theory of customer engagement marketing. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2017, 45, 312–335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Fuchs, C.; Prandelli, E.; Schreier, M. The Psychological Effects of Empowerment Strategies on Consumers’ Product Demand. J. Mark. 2010, 74, 65–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Fournier, S. Consumers and Their Brands: Developing Relationship Theory in Consumer Research. J. Consum. Res. 1998, 24, 343–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Hartmann, P.; Ibañez, V.A.; Sainz, F.J.F. Green branding effects on attitude: Functional versus emotional positioning strategies. Mark. Intell. Plan. 2005, 23, 9–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Wan, J.; Aggarwal, P. Befriending Mr. Clean: The role of anthropomorphism in consumer-brand relationships. In Strong Brands, Strong Relationships; Routledge: London, UK, 2015; pp. 119–134. [Google Scholar]
  54. Kervyn, N.; Fiske, S.T.; Malone, C. Social perception of brands: Warmth and competence define images of both brands and social groups. Consum. Psychol. Rev. 2022, 5, 51–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Mani, Z.; Chouk, I. Consumer Resistance to Innovation in Services: Challenges and Barriers in the Internet of Things Era. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 2018, 35, 780–807. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Gursoy, D.; Chi, O.H.; Lu, L.; Nunkoo, R. Consumers acceptance of artificially intelligent (AI) device use in service delivery. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2019, 49, 157–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Kim, H.Y.; McGill, A.L. Minions for the rich? Financial status changes how consumers see products with anthropomorphic features. J. Consum. Res. 2018, 45, 429–450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Fernández-Llamas, C.; Conde, M.A.; Rodríguez-Lera, F.J.; Rodríguez-Sedano, F.J.; García, F. May I teach you? Students’ behavior when lectured by robotic vs. human teachers. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2018, 80, 460–469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. van Esch, P.; Arli, D.; Gheshlaghi, M.H.; Andonopoulos, V.; von der Heidt, T.; Northey, G. Anthropomorphism and aug ented reality in the retail environment. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2019, 49, 35–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Kirk, C.P.; Sarstedt, M. Psychological Ownership: A Concept of Value to the Marketing Field. In Let’s Get Engaged! Crossing the Threshold of Marketing’s Engagement Era; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2016; pp. 219–224. [Google Scholar]
  61. Spears, N.; Yazdanparast, A. Revealing obstacles to the consumer imagination. J. Consum. Psychol. 2014, 24, 363–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Shu, S.B.; Peck, J. Psychological ownership and affective reaction: Emotional attachment process variables and the endowment effect. J. Consum. Psychol. 2011, 21, 439–452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Mishra, S.; Malhotra, G.; Chatterjee, R.; Abdul, W.K. Ecological consciousness and sustainable purchase behavior: The mediating role of psychological ownership. Asia Pac. J. Mark. Logist. 2022; ahead of print. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Deng, W.; Lu, C.; Lin, Y.; Chen, W. A study on the effect of tourists value co-creation on the perceived value of souvenirs: Mediating role of psychological ownership and authenticity. Asia Pac. J. Tour. Res. 2021, 26, 200–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Chang, T.W.; Wang, K.H.; Lin, Y.H. Corporate sustainability: It’s mine! effect of green product psychological ownership on the environmental behavior and performance of employees. Sustainability 2020, 12, 10514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Delgosha, M.S.; Hajiheydari, N. How human users engage with consumer robots? A dual model of psychological ownership and trust to explain post-adoption behaviours. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2021, 117, 106660. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Mende, M.; Scott, M.L.; Van Doorn, J.; Grewal, D.; Shanks, I. Service Robots Rising: How Humanoid Robots Influence Service Experiences and Elicit Compensatory Consumer Responses. J. Mark. Res. 2019, 56, 535–556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Fritze, M.P.; Marchand, A.; Eisingerich, A.B.; Benkenstein, M. Access-based services as substitutes for material possessions: The role of psychological ownership. J. Serv. Res. 2020, 23, 368–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Jörling, M.; Böhm, R.; Paluch, S. Service Robots: Drivers of Perceived Responsibility for Service Outcomes. J. Serv. Res. 2019, 22, 404–420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Aziz, S.; Husin, M.; Hussin, N.; Afaq, Z. Factors that influence individuals’ intentions to purchase family takaful mediating role of perceived trust. Asia Pac. J. Mark. Logist. 2019, 31, 81–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Ting, D.S.W.; Pasquale, L.R.; Peng, L.; Campbell, J.P.; Lee, A.Y.; Raman, R.; Wong, T.Y. Artificial intelligence and deep learning in ophthalmology. Br. J. Ophthalmol. 2019, 103, 167–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  72. Cox, A.D.; Cox, D.; Mantel, S.P. Consumer response to drug risk information: The role of positive affect. J. Mark. 2010, 74, 31–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  73. Noor, N.; Hill, S.R.; Troshani, I. Developing a service quality scale for artificial intelligence service agents. Eur. J. Mark. 2022, 56, 1301–1336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Kirk, C.P.; Peck, J.; Swain, S.D. Property Lines in the Mind: Consumers’ Psychological Ownership and Their Territorial Responses. J. Consum. Res. 2018, 45, 148–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Podsakoff, P.M.; MacKenzie, S.B.; Lee, J.-Y.; Podsakoff, N.P. Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J. Appl. Psychol. 2003, 88, 879–903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Kock, N.; Lynn, G. Lateral collinearity and misleading results in variance-based SEM: An illustration and recommendations. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 2012, 13, 546–580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  77. Fuller, C.; Simmering, M.J.; Atinc, G.; Atinc, Y.; Babin, B.J. Common methods variance detection in business research. J. Bus. Res. 2016, 69, 3192–3198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Hair, J.F., Jr.; Sarstedt, M.; Ringle, C.M.; Gudergan, S.P. Advanced Issues in Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modelling; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  79. Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Mark. Res. 1981, 18, 39–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Hayes, A.F. Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: Regression Based Approach; Guilford Publications: New York, NY, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  81. MacKinnon, D.P.; Cheong, J.; Pirlott, A.G. Statistical Mediation Analysis; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Grewal, D.; Roggeveen, A.L.; Nordfält, J. The Future of Retailing. J. Retail. 2017, 93, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Morgan, B. The 20 Best Examples of Using Artificial Intelligence For Retail Experiences. Available online: https://www.forbes.com/sites/blakemorgan/2019/03/04/the-20-best-examples-of-using-artificial-intelligence-for-retail-experiences/#44d8add44664 (accessed on 21 May 2022).
  84. Ketron, S.; Naletelich, K. Victim or beggar? Anthropomorphic messengers and the savior effect in consumer sustainability behavior. J. Bus. Res. 2019, 96, 73–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Chen, K.J.; Lin, J.S.; Jung, H.C.; Jung, M.H. Would you be my friend? An examination of global marketers’ brand personification strategies in social media. J. Interact. Advert. 2015, 15, 97–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Hollebeek, L.D.; K. Macky. Digital content marketing’s role in fostering consumer engagement, trust, and value: Framework, fundamental propositions, and implications. J. Interact. Mark. 2015, 45, 27–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Overgoor, G.; Chica, M.; Rand, W.; Weishampel, A. Letting the Computers Take Over: Using AI to Solve Marketing Problems. Calif. Manag. Rev. 2019, 61, 156–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Libai, B.; Bart, Y.; Gensler, S.; Hofacker, C.F.; Kaplan, A.; Kötterheinrich, K.; Kroll, E.B. Brave New World? On AI and the Management of Customer Relationships. J. Interact. Mark. 2020, 51, 44–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Yuan, C.; Wang, S.; Yu, X.; Kim, K.H.; Moon, H. The influence of flow experience in the augmented reality context on psychological ownership. Int. J. Advert. 2021, 40, 922–944. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Prentice, C.; Nguyen, M. Engaging and retaining consumers with AI and employee service. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2020, 56, 102186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Li, X.; Sung, Y. Anthropomorphism brings us closer: The mediating role of psychological distance in User–AI assistant interactions. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2021, 118, 106680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Papista, E.; Chrysochou, P.; Krystallis, A.; Dimitriadis, S. Types of value and cost in consumer–green brands relationship and loyalty behaviour. J. Consum. Behav. 2018, 17, e101–e113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Kim, T.; Sung, Y.; Moon, J.H. Effects of brand anthropomorphism on consumer-brand relationships on social net-working site fan pages: The mediating role of social presence. Telemat. Inform. 2020, 51, 101406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Barki, H.; Pare, G.; Sicotte, C. Linking IT Implementation and Acceptance via the Construct of Psychological Ownership of Information Technology. J. Inf. Technol. 2008, 23, 269–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 14 13152 g001 550
Figure 1. Conceptual framework.
Figure 1. Conceptual framework.
Sustainability 14 13152 g001
Table
Table 1. Demographic profile of respondents.
Table 1. Demographic profile of respondents.
Demographic CharacteristicsItemsSample Size (%)
Age20–30 years173 (58.64%)
31–40 years83 (28.14%)
41 and above39 (13.22%)
Marital statusMarried201 (68.14%)
Unmarried94 (31.86%)
GenderMale165 (55.93%)
Female130 (44.07%)
Educational QualificationBelow graduation19 (6.44%)
Graduation206 (69.83%)
Post-graduation and higher70 (23.73%)
Monthly incomeUS$1000 and below16 (5.42%)
US$1000–US$200067 (22.71%)
US$2000–US$4000193 (65.42%)
More than US$400019 (6.45%)
Table
Table 2. Description of Constructs & items of the study and measurement assessment.
Table 2. Description of Constructs & items of the study and measurement assessment.
Construct & ItemsEstimateCRCronbach’s Alpha (α)
Consumer relationship with green brand AI Anthropomorphism (CRGB) 0.9010.906
Passion:
CRGB 1: It is a feeling of loss when I have not used AI Anthropomorphism for a while.0.724
CRGB 2: Something would definitely be missing in my life should AI Anthropomorphism not exist.0.712
Intimacy:
CRGB 3: I have the feeling that I really understand AI Anthropomorphism.0.751
CRGB 4: It feels like I have known AI Anthropomorphism for a long time.0.716
Self-Connection:
CRGB 5: AI Anthropomorphism and I have lots in common.0.701
CRGB 6: AI Anthropomorphism remind me of whom I am.0.705
Nostalgic connection:
CRGB 7: AI Anthropomorphism reminds me of things that I have done or places I have been.0.766
CRGB 8: AI Anthropomorphism will always remind me of a certain period in my life.0.765
Love:
CRGB 9: I have feelings for AI Anthropomorphism that I do not have for a lot of other brands.0.729
CRGB 10: If it is about retail, AI Anthropomorphism is my favorite brand.0.738
Partner Quality:
CRGB 11: AI Anthropomorphism have always been good to me.0.721
CRGB 12: AI Anthropomorphism treat me as an important and valuable customer.0.750
Personal Commitment:
CRGB 13: AI Anthropomorphism can always count on me.0.705
CRGB 14: I will continue using AI Anthropomorphism in the near future.0.703
Trust:
CRGB 15: I trust AI Anthropomorphism.0.708
CRGB 16: AI Anthropomorphism is an honest brand.0.701
Psychological ownership (PO) with AI anthropomorphism 0.9020.911
PO1: Although I do not legally own AI Anthropomorphism, I feel like this is “my” anthropomorphism.0.738
PO 2: I feel a very high degree of personal ownership of AI anthropomorphism.0.719
PO 3: I feel like this AI anthropomorphism belongs to me.0.728
PO 4: I feel a strong sense of closeness with AI anthropomorphism.0.712
PO 5: AI anthropomorphism incorporates a part of myself.0.738
Green brand AI anthropomorphism (GBA) 0.9320.923
GBA 1: The green AI Anthropomorphism have humanlike features.0.976
GBA 2: The green AI Anthropomorphism has a personality.0.892
GBA 3: The green AI Anthropomorphism gradually get to know me.0.835
GBA 4: The green AI Anthropomorphism is able to behave like a human.0.870
GBA 5: The green AI Anthropomorphism respond in ways that are personalized.0.813
GBA 6: The green AI Anthropomorphism is able to communicate like a human.0.742
Product usage barrier (PUB) with AI anthropomorphism 0.8380.901
PUB1: To what degree do you think that there are reasons to prevent you from using AI Anthropomorphism green products?0.842
PUB2: Using this AI Anthropomorphism would be inconvenient0.830
PUB3: Using this AI Anthropomorphism would be embarrassing0.844
PUB4: Using this AI Anthropomorphism would take too much effort.0.756
Table
Table 3. Descriptive statistics and discriminant validity.
Table 3. Descriptive statistics and discriminant validity.
Mean (SD)AVECRGBGBAPUBPO
Consumer relationship with green brand AI anthropomorphism (CRGB)5.234 (1.071)0.7610.8720.177 *0.675 *0.163 *
Green brand AI anthropomorphism (GBA)5.352 (0.857)0.5110.1220.7140.708 *0.606 *
Product usage barrier (PUB) with AI anthropomorphism5.561 (0.922)0.6290.1350.6660.7930.803 *
Psychological Ownership (PO) with AI anthropomorphism5.541 (0.873)0.625−0.0510.6010.7730.790
Note: Values in diagonal and underline represent the square root of AVE (Fornell-Larcker criterion). * Values in italics represent Heterotrait—Monotrait Ratio (HTMT, Henseler et al. criterion).
Table
Table 4. Direct and mediation path analysis.
Table 4. Direct and mediation path analysis.
Hypothesized PathDirect Effectt ValueIndirect EffectBootSE95% Percentile CIDecision
H1: GBA → CRGB0.6269.833 [0.509, 0.723]supported
H2: GBA → PUB → CRGB0.3154.449−0.321−0.055[−0.227, 0.475]Not supported
H3: GBA→ PO → CRGB0.2694.3390.3770.053[0.264, 0.504]supported
H4: GBA → PUB → PO → CRGB0.2774.2850.0660.023[0.028, 0.121]supported
(Note: CRGB—Consumer relationship with green brand AI anthropomorphism; GBA—Green brand AI anthropomorphism; PUB—Product usage barrier with AI anthropomorphism; PO—Psychological Ownership with AI anthropomorphism).
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Malhotra, G.; Jham, V.; Sehgal, N. Does Psychological Ownership Matter? Investigating Consumer Green Brand Relationships through the Lens of Anthropomorphism. Sustainability 2022, 14, 13152. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142013152

AMA Style

Malhotra G, Jham V, Sehgal N. Does Psychological Ownership Matter? Investigating Consumer Green Brand Relationships through the Lens of Anthropomorphism. Sustainability. 2022; 14(20):13152. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142013152

Chicago/Turabian Style

Malhotra, Gunjan, Vimi Jham, and Nidhi Sehgal. 2022. "Does Psychological Ownership Matter? Investigating Consumer Green Brand Relationships through the Lens of Anthropomorphism" Sustainability 14, no. 20: 13152. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142013152

APA Style

Malhotra, G., Jham, V., & Sehgal, N. (2022). Does Psychological Ownership Matter? Investigating Consumer Green Brand Relationships through the Lens of Anthropomorphism. Sustainability, 14(20), 13152. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142013152

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop