shapping behavior

Personality, Personal Values,and Consumer Participationin Self-Production: The Caseof Home Meal PreparationMai Thi Xuan HuynhNha Trang University

Svein Ottar OlsenUiT The Arctic University of Norway

ABSTRACT

This study investigates the simultaneous influence of personality and personal values on attitudetoward self-production, and how self-production attitude influences use of time and depth ofself-production behavior in home meal preparation. The results show that self-control andagreeableness personality traits positively influence attitude toward self-production, while theresultant self-enhancement value dimension has a negative effect. Moreover, self-control negativelymoderates the influence of resultant self-enhancement on self-production attitude. Attitude towardself-production has positive influences on both dimensions of self-production behavior, with astronger effect on the depth dimension than on the time use dimension. The results support theproposed hierarchical model that personality and personal values relate to more specificself-production attitude and behavior in a food preparation context. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

The prevailing view in consumer research conceivesconsumers as not just passive recipients, but activeparticipants in the value creation process (Lusch &Vargo, 2006; Vargo & Lusch, 2004). Different termsor facets have been used to examine phenomena ofconsumer participation in value creation, such as self-service (Curran, Meuter, & Surprenant, 2003; Dab-holkar & Bagozzi, 2002), do-it-yourself (Williams, 2008;Wolf & McQuitty, 2011), prosumption (Witell, Kris-tensson, Gustafsson, & Lofgren, 2011; Xie, Bagozzi,& Troye, 2008), coproduction (Etgar, 2008; Lusch &Vargo, 2006), and value cocreation (Healy & McDon-agh, 2013; Yi & Gong, 2013). This study investigates“self-production” as a specific type of consumer partic-ipation used by Troye and Supphellen (2012), whichrefers to the consumer’s involvement in the productionof goods or services in collaboration with commercialproviders indirectly via their input products (e.g., homemaintenance, home meal preparation, or cloth making).It is important to understand why and how consumersparticipate in producing products or services in orderto involve them properly in the production process asa way to gain competitive advantage (Lusch, Vargo, &O’Brien, 2007).

Personality and personal values are two importantdomains of individual difference that play significantroles in explaining and understanding consumerattitude and behavior (e.g., Mulyanegara & Tsarenko,2009; Xie, Bagozzi, & Troye, 2008). Studies suggestthat as personality and personal values representdistinct yet complementary variables, combining themin one model may increase their predictive accuracyand reveal their relative contribution in explainingother variables (Parks & Guay, 2009; Volk, Thoni, &Ruigrok, 2011). Thus, there have been a few recentempirical attempts to investigate the combined in-fluence of personality traits and values in predictingdifferent outcomes, such as political choice (Caprara,Schwartz, Capanna, Vecchione, & Barbarelli, 2006),fashion brand preferences (Mulyanegara & Tsarenko,2009), medical specialty choice (Taber, Hartung, &Borges, 2011), and academic performance (Parks &Guay, 2012). In the area of consumer participationresearch, some studies have confirmed the role of eitherpersonality (Dabholkar & Bagozzi, 2002; Fuller, Mat-zler, & Hoppe, 2008) or personal values (Xie, Bagozzi,& Troye, 2008) in predicting consumer participationphenomena. However, there is no evidence of any study

Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 32(7): 709–724 (July 2015)View this article online at wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/mar© 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. DOI: 10.1002/mar.20812

709

that has investigated the combined role of personalityand personal values in explaining consumer partici-pation. Thus, the first contribution of this paper is toinvestigate how personality and personal values simul-taneously explain the self-production process, includingself-production attitude and behavioral outcomes.

As consumer participation behavior is still a fuzzyconstruct, a few recent attempts have been made to ex-plore its conceptual richness by using multidimensionalapproaches (Gustafsson, Kristensson, & Witell, 2012;Hunt, Geiger-Oneto, & Varca, 2012; Yi & Gong, 2013).As time is a major resource that the consumer usesin production (Etgar, 2008; Hoyer, Chandy, Dorotic,Krafft, & Singh, 2010) and is a key issue in con-sumers’ decision making and behavior (Kaufman, Lane,& Lindquist, 1991; Strober & Weinberg, 1980), thepresent study defines one dimension of self-productionbehavior as the amount of time the consumer usesin their self-production activities. In addition to thetemporal dimension, this study considers how deeplyconsumers participate in production activities (Fang,Palmatier, & Evans, 2008) as another dimension ofself-production. Therefore, this study contributes tothe recent multidimensional view of consumer partic-ipation behavior (Gustafsson, Kristensson, & Witell,2012; Hunt, Geiger-Oneto, & Varca, 2012; Yi & Gong,2013) by suggesting two additional dimensions of con-sumer participation and examining if and how theirantecedent (i.e., attitude) differently influences them.

In the present study, the context is home meal prepa-ration, as used in previous empirical studies aboutconsumer participation (Troye & Supphellen, 2012;Xie, Bagozzi, & Troye, 2008) and recently definedas self-production (Troye & Supphellen, 2012). Self-control (Tangney, Baumeister, & Boone, 2004), agree-ableness (McCrae & John, 1992), and resultant self-enhancement (Feather, 1995; Schwartz, 1992) are usedas individual personality and personal values to explainattitude toward self-production, which in turn influ-ences different self-production behavioral dimensions(time use and depth). This framework draws on the hi-erarchical models used to explain the role of personality(Conner & Abraham, 2001; Mowen, 2000) and personalvalues (Homer & Kahle, 1988; Vaske & Donnelly, 1999)in predicting more specific attitudinal/evaluative, cog-nitive and emotional/affective tendencies and behavior(e.g., Collins, Steg, & Koning, 2007; Gountas & Goun-tas, 2007; Mowen, Park, & Zablah, 2007). This studyaims to provide useful guidance for marketing man-agers who wish to build the relationship between indi-vidual difference characteristics and more specific self-production attitude and behavior.

In the rest of the paper, Section Theoretical Founda-tion discusses the concept of self-production and thendevelops the conceptual framework and hypotheses.Sections Method and Results present the methodologyand results, respectively. Section Discussion highlightsthe theoretical and empirical implications of the find-ings. The final section indicates some limitations andsuggestions for future research.

THEORETICAL FOUNDATION

The Concept of Consumer Participationin Self-Production

The consumer always plays some role in the value cre-ation process (Lusch & Vargo, 2006). First, the con-sumer participates in the creation of value in use bythe very act of consuming the goods or services, de-fined as cocreation of value. Second, the consumer of-ten participates in the creation of the core offering (i.e.,goods or services), defined as coproduction. Both formsof consumer participation convey the consumer’s col-laborative role in value creation (Lusch & Vargo, 2006).The collaboration between the consumers and the valuecreation partners (e.g., business, family, peers, friends,organizations) may occur directly or indirectly via in-termediate products (Lusch & Vargo, 2006; Vargo &Lusch, 2004).

The present study focuses on consumer participa-tion in coproduction in cases in which the consumercollaborates indirectly with the commercial providersvia intermediate products (Lusch & Vargo, 2006). Thisstudy uses the term “self-production” for this consumerparticipation phenomenon following Troye and Sup-phellen (2012) who use this term in a similar con-text (meal preparation). The consumer participates inself-production to produce goods and services by us-ing intermediate input products and devices (Troye &Supphellen, 2012). This study therefore defines self-production as the extent to which the consumer par-ticipates in the production of the product or service inindirect collaboration with commercial partners via in-termediate products. In the context of home meal prepa-ration, consumers participate in production activities,such as gathering ingredients, peeling, washing, dic-ing, and cooking the food, and preparing the table, re-sulting in the creation of the meal (i.e., core offering)they eventually consume. The consumer performs thesevalue creation activities in indirect collaboration withcommercial providers via intermediate products, suchas food products and kitchen tools.

In order to capture the conceptual richness ofconsumer participation, a few recent studies haveexamined this construct from a multidimensional per-spective. For example, Randall, Gravier, and Prybutok(2011) suggest that connection, trust, and commit-ment comprise dimensions of consumer participation.Gustafsson, Kristensson, and Witell (2012) examineconsumer participation as four dimensions of com-munication, including frequency, direction, modality,and content. Hunt, Geiger-Oneto, and Varca (2012)frame their study around two behavioral constructsthat account for two forms of consumer participation—commitment and behavioral involvement. Yi and Gong(2013) develop and validate a scale of consumer partic-ipation behavior comprising two dimensions: customerparticipation behavior and customer citizenship be-havior. Bagozzi and Dholakia (2002, 2006) investigate

710 HUYNH AND OLSENPsychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar

three forms of consumer participation, including desire,intention, and frequency. This study continues in thevein of multidimensional views of consumer participa-tion behavior by suggesting self-production behavioras consisting of two dimensions, time use (Etgar, 2008)and depth (Fang, Palmatier, & Evans, 2008), andmaking a conceptual and empirical distinction betweenthese behavioral dimensions of self-production.

Research suggests time as one major resource thatthe consumer spends on production activities (Etgar,2008; Hoyer et al., 2010). Some previous studies havemeasured consumer participation behavior as theirperceived extent of time invested in production activi-ties (Cermak, File, & Prince, 1994; Chan, Yim, & Lam,2010; Kellogg, Youngdahl, & Bowen, 1997). Consumers’use of time (Kaufman, Lane, & Lindquist, 1991; Strober& Weinberg, 1980) or spending time versus spendingmoney (Okada & Hoch, 2004) is an important issue inconsumers’ decision making and behavior. It should bepossible to see a difference in the extent of participationin self-production activities (i.e., self-production behav-ior) between a consumer who spends only one hour perweek, for example, on preparing dinner compared to aconsumer who spends five hours per week on the sameactivity. The time-use dimension of self-productionmay be closely related to the time consumptionaspects of consumer participation behavior, such asbreadth, which represents the scope or the range ofproduction activities (Carbonell, Rodriguez-Escudero,& Pujari, 2012; Fang, Palmatier, & Evans, 2008), orthe frequency of performing the production activities(Gustafsson, Kristensson, & Witell, 2012; Nambisan &Baron, 2009). It is possible that an individual has tospend a considerable amount of time on performing awide range of production activities with high frequencyfor a variety of reasons, for example: lack of theappliances needed to speed up the self-productionprocess, such as a lawn mower for gardening or afood processor for cooking (i.e., external factors); lackof the knowledge or skills necessary to perform theproduction tasks efficiently (i.e., internal factors); lackof anyone to help in the self-production task (i.e., exter-nal factors). However, time use may not only relate tobreadth (Fang, Palmatier, & Evans, 2008) or frequencyof participation (Gustafsson, Kristensson, & Witell,2012) because it also includes the duration of the pro-duction task. Thus, the present study defines the firstdimension of self-production behavior as the amountof time that the consumer spends on self-productionactivities.

Several studies have conceptualized and measuredconsumer participation behavior in terms of depth (Car-bonell, Rodriguez-Escudero, & Pujari, 2012; Fang, Pal-matier, & Evans, 2008); these studies define depth asthe consumer’s level of involvement in the product de-velopment process—as the context of the research—assessed as how superficially versus deeply the con-sumer is involved in product/service development ac-tivities. Based on this approach, the present study pro-poses depth as the second dimension of self-production

behavior. This study submits depth as an integratedconstruct that reflects how deep (Carbonell, Rodriguez-Escudero, & Pujari, 2012; Fang, Palmatier, & Evans,2008), how active (Auh, Bell, McLeod, & Shih, 2007;Bettencourt, 1997), and how involved (Chan, Yim, &Lam, 2010) the consumer participation in the self-production is. One might expect a consumer’s partic-ipation to be deeper, more active and more involvedin, for example, making dinner as being motivated byproviding a tasty and healthy meal for the family, orsimply as a result of a love for or enjoyment of theactivity. Thus, the depth dimension of self-productioncould be closely related to the commitment dimension ofconsumer participation (Hunt, Geiger-Oneto, & Varca,2012; Randall, Gravier, & Prybutok, 2011), and themotivational facet of a broader behavioral construct,such as intention to behave (Fishbein & Ajzen, 2010).For the purpose of this study, investigating depth andtime use should be sufficient to cover a broader anddeeper understanding of consumer participation behav-ior. Next, the present study develops the conceptualmodel used to explain these two behavioral dimensionsof self-production.

Conceptual Framework

Personality and personal values are individual differ-ence variables that are stable and cross-situational(Roccas, Sagiv, Schwartz, & Knafo, 2002). Personalitytraits are dimensions of individual differences intendencies to show consistent patterns of thoughts,feelings, and actions (McCrae & John, 1992). Personalvalues are “concepts or beliefs about desirable endstates or behaviors that transcend specific situations,guide selection or evaluation of behavior and events,and are ordered by relative importance” (Schwartz& Bilsky, 1987, p. 551). Personality and personalvalues are correlated but distinct constructs (Parks &Guay, 2009; Roccas et al., 2002). Personality describeswhat people are like while values refer to what peopleconsider important. Personality traits are relativelyinnate dispositions, while values are learned, sociallyendorsed beliefs. However, research suggests that itis possible to reformulate personality as a system ofvalues by concentrating on the motivational aspect ofboth concepts (Bilsky & Schwartz, 1994).

Personality and personal values have successfullypredicted numerous attitudes and behaviors in variouscontexts (Roccas et al., 2002), and personality hasserved as a moderator between attitudinal, cognitive,affective, and behavioral constructs (e.g., Homburg& Giering, 2001; Yap & Lee, 2013). In the area ofconsumer participation, Dabholkar and Bagozzi (2002)find that personality traits (i.e., inherent noveltyseeking, self-efficacy with respect to technology, self-consciousness, and the need for interaction) moderatethe relationship between consumer participationperceptions and attitude, and between consumerparticipation attitude and intention in the context of

PERSONALITY, PERSONAL VALUES, AND CONSUMER PARTICIPATION 711Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar

self-service technology. In the same context, Lee, Cho,Xu, and Fairhurst (2010) confirm the direct effect ofpersonality traits (i.e., technology anxiety, need for in-teraction, and technology innovativeness) on consumerparticipation intention. In a new product developmentcontext, Fuller, Matzler, and Hoppe (2008) confirm theindirect influence of the Big Five personality traits(extraversion and openness) on consumer willingnessto coproduce through consumers’ skills. Xie, Bagozzi,and Troye (2008) find that global values (i.e., interper-sonal dimension) indirectly influence attitude (throughdomain-specific values) and that attitude in turndirectly influences consumer participation intentionin the context of home meal preparation. The presentstudy proposes self-control (Tangney, Baumeister, &Boone, 2004) and agreeableness (McCrae & John, 1992)as personality traits, and resultant self-enhancement(Feather, 1995; Schwartz, 1992) as the proper valuedimension to explain consumer participation inself-production.

The value-attitude-behavior (VAB) model (Homer &Kahle, 1988; Vaske & Donnelly, 1999) suggests thatpersonal values are the most abstract construct of thesocial cognitions that influence specific behaviors indi-rectly via less abstract mediating factors (i.e., attitudes,domain-specific values, intention). Attitudes, conceptu-alized as psychological tendencies expressed by evalu-ating a particular object with some degree of favor ordisfavor (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993), relate more to spe-cific situations, objects, or behaviors, compared withvalues. Thus, midrange attitudes should theoreticallymediate the impact of values on behaviors (Homer &Kahle, 1988; Vaske & Donnelly, 1999).

In the same way as for personal values, hierarchicalframeworks assist in studying the relationship betweengeneral personality traits and specific behavior. The3M model of motivation and personality (Mowen, 2000)suggests that more abstract, cross-situational traits in-fluence narrower situation-specific behavioral tenden-cies that in turn influence behavior. Several studies(Conner & Abraham, 2001; Rhodes, Courneya, & Jones,2004) integrate personality traits within the frame-work of the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1991),in which the impact flows from abstract traits to morespecific behavioral tendencies (attitudes, intentions) tospecific behavior. Thus, based on the VAB model andstudies integrating personality in the theory of plannedbehavior, the present study integrates both personal-ity and personal values in a hierarchical model andsuggests that these individual difference variables in-fluence attitude toward self-production and attitude inturn influences the depth and time use dimensions ofself-production behavior (see Figure 1).

The model in the present study uses attitudeas a single mediator between general personalvalue/personality and behavior. Previous studies in thearea of psychology suggest that attitude is the mostimportant predictor of people’s intentions, desire, andbehavior (Bagozzi & Dholakia, 2006; Eagly & Chaiken,1993; Fishbein & Ajzen, 2010), and also the most

Resultantself-enhancement

Attitude

Self-control

Agreeableness

Depth

Direct effect Moderating effect

H2H6

H4

H5

H3 H1Time use

Figure 1. Conceptual framework.

important mediator when personality traits (Conner& Abraham, 2001; Rhodes, Courneya, & Jones, 2004)or values (Homer & Kahle, 1988; Vaske & Donnelly,1999) are included as predictors within the theoreticalframework. Within the consumer participation litera-ture, Dabholkar and Bagozzi (2002) only investigatedthe role of personality traits as moderators between at-titude and behavioral intention toward consumer par-ticipation in technology-based self-service. The directimpact of personality traits on intention toward self-service checkout has been confirmed in the study byLee et al. (2010), but not on consumer participation atti-tude. The study by Xie, Bagozzi, and Troye (2008) whichused the VAB approach to study consumer participa-tion in the meal preparation context did not investi-gate the direct impact of personal value on attitude anddid not include behavior in the model. Additionally, re-searchers applying attitude theory to explain consumerparticipation (e.g., Bobbitt & Dabholkar, 2001; Xie,Bagozzi, & Troye, 2008) have not confirmed the directimpact of attitude on behavior. Finally, although theinclusion of intention (and desire) could better explainhow attitudes influence behaviors (Bagozzi & Dholakia,2006; Fishbein & Ajzen, 2010), the testing of a parsi-monious model of general personality/value, consumerattitude, and participation in self-production could nev-ertheless contribute to extant knowledge.

Hypotheses

Attitude toward Self-Production. This study con-ceptualizes attitude toward self-production as “the con-sumer’s favorable or unfavorable evaluation of his/herparticipation in a self-production activity.” A great bodyof research in psychology (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993) hasinvestigated how attitude influences behavior both di-rectly and indirectly toward mediators, such as de-sire (Bagozzi & Warshaw, 1990) or different formats ofintention (Sheeran, 2002). Some studies demonstratethat attitude must be transformed into intentions toinfluence behavior; others show that attitude can influ-ence behavior directly (Fishbein & Ajzen, 2010). In the


area of consumer psychology, intention to behave is fre-quently used as synonymous with repeated behavior orloyalty (e.g., Czellar, 2003; Kumar, Pozza, & Ganesh,2013) and direct relationships between evaluative con-structs (e.g., attitude, satisfaction, or perceived qual-ity) and behavioral constructs (intention, choice, or fre-quency/repeated behavior) are more common (Oliver,2010).

Although there is emphasis on intentions as the im-mediate antecedent of behavior, this does not implythat people form a conscious intention prior to each andevery behavior (Ajzen, 2002; Fishbein & Ajzen, 2010).In habitual contexts, the behavior has become so rou-tine that the behavior is activated without conscious ef-fort or cognitive intervention (Ouellette & Wood, 1998;Wood & Neal, 2009). Given that home meal prepara-tion is likely an everyday routine activity, and there areproblems with self-generated validity with intentionalconstructs (Chandon, Morwitz, & Reinartz, 2005), thisstudy investigates the direct influences of attitude onboth dimensions of self-production behavior: time useand depth. Depth includes motivational facets of be-havior in the same way as intention is included inconsumer behavior (Czellar, 2003; Oliver, 2010). Timeuse is assessed as frequent behavior within a behav-ioral score approach (Calder & Malthouse, 2003) as theself-reported behavioral frequency of action (Fishbein& Ajzen, 2010).

Research suggests that attitude has a positive directeffect on consumer intention to participate in produc-tion activities in the context of self-service technolo-gies (Curran, Meuter, & Surprenant, 2003; Dabholkar& Bagozzi, 2002; Lanseng & Andreassen, 2007) andfood preparation (Xie, Bagozzi, & Troye, 2008). Bob-bitt and Dabholkar (2001) find that intention medi-ates the positive effect of attitude on consumer par-ticipation behavior in the context of self-service tech-nology. In this study, with two behavioral dimensionsinvestigated, the strength or the relative importanceof the predictive value of attitude for behavior mayvary between the different behavioral dimensions ofself-production. Attitude often has a stronger relationwith the motivational construct, such as behavioralintention or desire than the actual behavior (Ajzen,1991; Bagozzi & Warshaw, 1990). This is becauseseveral external and situational factors may moder-ate the strength of the attitude–behavior relationshipcompared to the attitude–intention/desire relationship(Fishbein & Ajzen, 2010; Sheeran, 2002). A consumermight be motivated to self-produce but unable to trans-late this motivation into action due to lack of knowledge(e.g., not knowing how to take care of a garden), lack ofresources (e.g., not having enough time, money, or thenecessary tools for gardening), lack of cooperation fromothers (e.g., the partner does not like gardening). Onecould therefore expect attitude toward self-productionto have a stronger effect on the depth dimension (amotivational construct) than on the time use dimen-sion (frequency/actual behavioral construct). Thus, thisstudy proposes the following hypotheses:

H1: Attitude toward self-production positively in-fluences time use in self-production.

H2: Attitude toward self-production positively in-fluences self-production depth.

H2b: The influence of attitude on self-productiondepth is stronger than the influence of attitudeon time use in self-production.

Self-Control and Positive Attitude toward Self-Production. Consumer participation may be a meansto enable consumers’ direct control over the productionprocess and outcome (Etgar, 2008; Wolf & McQuitty,2011). Behavioral specific self-control constructs, suchas locus of control (Buttgen, Schumann, & Ates, 2012),self-efficacy (Xie, Bagozzi, & Troye, 2008), and per-ceived control (Collier & Sherrell, 2010) play an impor-tant role in explaining consumer participation. Thus, itcould be relevant to investigate the role of more generalself-control personality traits in explaining consumerparticipation in self-production. Self-control, as a gen-eral personality trait, refers to the ability to overrideor change one’s inner responses, as well as to interruptundesired behavioral tendencies and refrain from act-ing on them (Tangney, Baumeister, & Boone, 2004) andthus to bring individuals’ behaviors in line with stan-dards and to support the pursuit of long-term benefits(Baumeister, 2002). Resisting temptation, maintaininggood self-discipline, and breaking habits are dimen-sions reflecting the ability of individuals scoring high onself-control (Tangney, Baumeister, & Boone, 2004). In-herent individual differences in self-control represent astable characteristic of one’s personality, an importanttrait capable of explaining a variety of individual dif-ferences in behavior (Vohs, Baumeister, & Tice, 2008).

High self-control has been found positively to predicta wide range of desirable or positive behaviors or out-comes, such as better academic performance (Tangney,Baumeister, & Boone, 2004), better monetary man-agement by saving more and spending less (Romal &Kaplan, 1995), and consumption of virtue products(Ein-Gar, Goldenberg, & Sagiv, 2012). Low self-controlis an important cause of undesirable or negative be-haviors such as impulsive buying (Vohs, 2006; Vohs& Faber, 2007), overeating (Vohs, 2006), consumeroverindebtedness (Gathergood, 2012), credit card mis-use (Pirog & Roberts, 2007), and heavy alcohol use(Quinn & Fromme, 2010).

One could view consumer participation in self-production as a desirable or positive behavior afford-ing the consumer various benefits or values. In par-ticular, consumer participation in producing productsor services could be a means for consumers to savemoney (Etgar, 2008; Lusch, Brown, & Brunswick, 1992;Williams, 2008; Wolf & McQuitty, 2011), reduce therisk of receiving inappropriate products or services (Et-gar, 2008; Lusch, Brown, & Brunswick, 1992, 2007),achieve customization and differentiation (Etgar, 2008;


Firat, Dholakia, & Venkatesh, 1995; Wolf & McQuitty,2011), gain knowledge and skills (Hoyer et al., 2010;Nambisan & Baron, 2009), enjoy the experience of per-formance (Etgar, 2008; Lusch, Brown, & Brunswick,1992), and strengthen ties with relevant others (Hoyeret al., 2010; Nambisan & Baron, 2009). Research find-ings demonstrate the benefits or positive nature of con-sumer participation value in terms of its positive ef-fects on the consumer’s evaluation of production quality(Troye & Supphellen, 2012), satisfaction (Chan, Yim, &Lam, 2010; Dabholkar & Sheng, 2011; Dong, Evans, &Zou, 2008), and loyalty (Auh et al., 2007; Healy & Mc-Donagh, 2013). Consumer participation in home mealpreparation, the specific context of the present study, isalso a positive behavior since this activity is a means ofthe producers expressing love and care for the family,maintaining and reinforcing the family relationships(Moisio, Arnould, & Price, 2004), and thus can givethe consumers high moral and emotional values (Costa,Schoolmeester, Dekker, & Jongen, 2002). In addition,homemade meals can give the consumers a health-ier diet than food prepared away from home (Costa,Schoolmeester, Dekker, & Jongen, 2007; Gofton, 1995).

Based on the above discussion, this study expectsthat consumers who score high in self-control are morelikely to have a positive attitude toward self-productionas a positive value related behavior and thus:

H3: Self-control positively influences consumer atti-tude toward self-production.

Agreeableness and Positive Attitude towardSelf-Production. Besides self-control, social factors,such as social contact values, status seeking, and socialesteem (Etgar, 2008), constructing self-identity, beingpart of a social group (Wolf & McQuitty, 2011), andsocial norms (Xie, Bagozzi, & Troye, 2008), are likelyto be important drivers of consumer participation.Thus, there are reasons to believe that agreeableness,an important personality trait used to cover socialissues (Carver & Connor-Smith, 2010), is relatedto self-production. Individuals who score high onagreeableness are altruistic, modest, sympathetic,helpful, straightforward, and cooperative; those whoscore low tend to be hostile, indifferent, self-centered,spiteful, and jealous of others (McCrae & John,1992).

Studies have consistently found agreeableness torelate positively to the self-control personality trait(e.g., Jensen-Campbell, Knack, Waldrip, & Campbell,2007; Tangney, Baumeister, & Boone, 2004). Agree-ableness, like self-control, seems to be associated withdifferent positive and negative behaviors in life activ-ities. Higher agreeableness is linked to positive be-haviors, such as healthy eating and better exercisehabits (Booth-Kewley & Vickers, 1994), better em-ployee service performance (Hurley, 1998), more help-ing behaviors (King, George, & Hebl, 2005), positiveword of mouth (Ferguson, Paulin, & Bergeron, 2010),

and ecological consumption behavior (Fraj & Martinez,2006). Lower agreeableness is related to negative be-haviors, such as compulsive buying (Donnelly, Iyer,& Howell, 2012; George, 2002), alcohol use disorders(Raynor & Levine, 2009), traffic risk-taking (Booth-Kewley & Vickers, 1994), and smoking (Hampson,Goldberg, Vogt, & Dubanoski, 2007). Given that con-sumer participation is a positive behavior (e.g., Et-gar, 2008; Hoyer et al., 2010), this study proposes thatagreeable consumers will have a positive attitude to-ward self-production.

H4: Agreeableness positively influences consumerattitude toward self-production.

Resultant Self-Enhancement and NegativeAttitude toward Self-Production. The interper-sonal global value (i.e., belongingness and emphasison relationships with others; Herche, 1994) appearsto have a positive influence on consumer participa-tion (Xie, Bagozzi, & Troye, 2008). Thus, resultantself-enhancement (Schwartz, 1992), a value dimensionrelated to interpersonal issues (Schwartz, Verkasalo,Antonovsky, & Sagiv, 1997), should have a signif-icant effect in explaining consumer participationin self-production. The theory of values developedby Schwartz and colleagues (e.g., Schwartz, 1992;Schwartz & Sagiv, 1995) is probably one of the mostwidely used value theories since the early 1990s.Schwartz’s theory proposes 10 types of value forminga continuum of related motivations, which gives riseto a circular structure (see Figure 2). This structurecaptures the notion that the pursuit of different valuetypes can be compatible or in conflict, depending onhow close the value types are (Schwartz, 1992). Thereare two basic bipolar dimensions defining the circularspace: conservation versus openness to change, andself-enhancement versus self-transcendence.

The two value types constituting the self-enhancement pole are power and achievement, whilethe two value types forming the self-transcendence poleare benevolence and universalism. Thus, the bipolar di-mension of self-enhancement versus self-transcendenceprovides arrays of values:

. . . in terms of the extent to which they motivatepeople to enhance their own personal interests (evenat the expense of others) versus the extent to whichthey motivate people to transcend selfish concernsand promote the welfare of others, close and distant,and of nature. (Schwartz, 1992, pp. 43–44)

The representation of this bipolar dimension isthe value dimension of resultant self-enhancement,which refers to the importance attached to self-enhancement relative to the importance attached toself-transcendence (Feather, 1995; Steenkamp, Hofst-ede, & Wedel, 1999). The self-enhancement and self-transcendence value dimensions appear to be directly


Self-Transcendence

Self-Enhancement

ConservationOpennessto change

UNIVERSALISM BENEVOLENCE

SECURITY

CONFORMITY

TRADITION

POWERACHIEVEMENT

HEDONISM

STIMULATION

SELF-DIRECTION

Figure 2. Theoretical model of relations among motivational types of values, higher order value domains, and bipolar valuedimensions (Schwartz, 1992).

associated with different positive and negative be-haviors/outcomes in life. There are consistent find-ings that values of self-enhancement have positiveinfluences, while values of self-transcendence dimen-sion have the opposite effect on the negative behav-iors or outcomes, such as convenience food consump-tion (i.e., an unhealthy eating behavior; Costa et al.,2007; Botonaki & Mattas, 2010; Brunsø, Scholderer, &Grunert, 2004; Gofton, 1995), consumer complaint be-havior and negative word of mouth (Raajpoot, Sharma,& Lefebvre, 2012), alcohol consumption (Liu et al.,2007), and smoking behavior (Cole et al., 2007). Re-search also suggests negative influences of values ofself-enhancement dimension, but the opposite impactsof values of self-transcendence dimension, for positivebehaviors or outcomes including social responsible con-sumption behaviors (Pepper, Jackson, & Uzzell, 2009),proenvironmental purchasing behaviors (Collins, Steg,& Koning, 2007), and willingness to purchase cosmet-ics without harmful ingredients (Hansen, Risborg, &Steen, 2012). In the area of self-production research,Xie, Bagozzi, & Troye (2008) found that interpersonalvalue, which is closely related to self-transcendencedimension (Schwartz et al., 1997), has a positive ef-fect on the preparation of dinner for guests. Thus, thisstudy proposes that consumers high in resultant self-enhancement are more likely to have an unfavorable at-titude toward consumer participation in self-productionas a positive behavior (e.g., Etgar, 2008; Hoyer et al.,2010).

H5: Resultant self-enhancement negatively influ-ences consumer attitude toward self-production.

Self-Control as a Moderator of Resultant Self-Enhancement—Attitude Relationship. Severalstudies have confirmed the moderating role of self-control on the relationship between domain-specificmotivations (i.e., domain-specific values) and consumerbehavior. Hofmann, Rauch, and Gawronski (2007) findthat dietary restraint standards significantly reducecandy consumption when the participants’ self-controlis high. Friese, Hofmann, and Wanke (2008) showthat personal standards to refrain from drinking onlynegatively influence beer consumption among highself-control individuals rather than ones with lowself-control. This means that high self-control canstrengthen a desirable influence of motivation, whichin this case is the negative impact of motivation torestrain a negative behavior (e.g., candy eating ordrinking) on the actual performance of this behavior.Therefore, it is possible to expect a reversed influ-ence (i.e., weaken) of high self-control in the case ofundesirable influences.

As discussed above, the present study expectsthat resultant self-enhancement negatively influencesattitude toward self-production. This means that, themotivation of resultant self-enhancement restricts theformation of a favorable attitude toward a positivebehavior (i.e., self-production). This is an undesirableinfluence of motivation. Thus, this study expects thathigh self-control can weaken this impact. For example,an individual high in resultant self-enhancement tendsto have an unfavorable attitude toward home mealpreparation. However, a low level of participation inhome meal preparation can be related to immoral andunhealthy issues (Costa et al., 2002; Gofton, 1995) that


are in conflict with standards that high self-control in-dividuals maintain, such as morals, social expectations(Baumeister, Vohs, & Tice, 2007), and healthy eating(Tangney, Baumeister, & Boone, 2004). Thus, in orderto bring their participation behavior in home mealpreparation into line with their pursuit of moral stan-dards and healthy eating, an individual high in both re-sultant self-enhancement and self-control may not havean unfavorable attitude toward home meal preparationas individuals high in resultant self-enhancement butwith low self-control may have. Parks and Guay (2009)suggest that personality and values can interact inthe formation of behavior. Thus, based on the abovediscussion, the present study proposes the hypothesis:

H6: Self-control weakens the negative impact of re-sultant self-enhancement on attitude towardself-production.

METHOD

Sample and Procedure

The study involved the use of a questionnaire, devel-oped first in English and then translated into Viet-namese, and pretested through pilot interviews. Onlysmall revisions were necessary. In total, 415 householdsin Nha Trang City, Vietnam, responded to the revisedanonymous questionnaire. In each household, the re-spondent was the person mainly responsible for mealpreparation. This procedure affected the distribution ofgender in favor of females (88.7%). The age of the re-spondents varied between 17 and 71 years of age, withan average age of 36 years. Only 2% were single house-holds and approximately 73% had four persons or morein the household. Almost 75% of the sample had fur-ther education after high school graduation, and 45%of the families had a gross income above 96 000 000Vietnamese dongs ($4800).

Measure

The measurement of time use comprised two items:“In general, how much time do you usually spend onpreparing everyday main meals per day?” and “In gen-eral, how much time do you usually spend on preparingeveryday main meals per week (except at weekends andon holidays)?” Both time use items asked for the timein minutes.

Measurement of consumer participation depth wasthrough three items rated on a 7-point semantic differ-ential scale in the form: “In general, I would describemy level of participation in everyday meal preparationactivities as: superficial/deep; not active/very active; notinvolved/very involved.” The items were adaptations ofthe measures and/or the conceptualization of consumerparticipation behavior of previous studies (Auh et al.,

2007; Chan, Yim, & Lam, 2010; Fang, Palmatier, &Evans, 2008).

The measurement of attitude toward consumer par-ticipation consisted of three items on a 7-point semanticdifferential scale framed as follows: “In general, whenI participate in everyday home meal preparation ac-tivities, I feel: unpleasant/pleasant; negative/positive;dislike/liking.” These items are widely used for measur-ing attitudes toward different objects/activities (Eagly& Chaiken, 1993).

Self-control comprised the 13-item brief self-controlscale (Tangney, Baumeister, & Boone, 2004), used byrecent studies of consumer behavior (e.g., Sultan, Joire-man, & Sprott, 2012; Wilcox, Block, & Eisenstein,2011). The respondents indicated the extent to whicheach of the statements reflects how they typically areusing a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 7(very much). Example items include “I am good at re-sisting temptation” and “I have a hard time breakingbad habits” (reversed item). These 13 items formed thebasis for the creation of indicators of the self-controllatent construct (as explained subsequently in the an-alytical procedures).

To measure agreeableness, participants rated the ex-tent to which each pair of traits applied to them on a7-point scale (1 = disagree strongly, 7 = agree strongly)in the form: “I see myself as: kind, nice to others; gener-ous, understanding; warm, sympathetic”. This measureis an adaptation of the 10-item personality inventory(TIPI; Gosling, Rentfrow, & Swann, 2003) and the ad-jective list of the Big Five items of Goldberg (1992).

For resultant self-enhancement, measurement wasby a short form of the Schwartz value survey (Schwartz,1992), developed by Stern, Dietz, and Guagnano (1998).The use of this short inventory of values helps to reducethe length of the questionnaire by measuring valuesthrough 12 items instead of the 56 items of the longerinstrument (Schwartz, 1992). This inventory of valueshas acceptable reliability (Stern, Dietz, & Guagnano,1998) and appears in studies of consumer behavior (e.g.,Kilbourne & LaForge, 2010; Urien & Kilbourne, 2011).Respondents rated each value “a guiding principle inmy life” on a 9-point scale from −1 (opposed to my val-ues) to 7 (of supreme importance). Example items in-clude “wealth,” “influence,” and “a world of peace.” Thepresent study used these 12 items to correct the rawvalues data and then create two indicators (i.e., one rep-resenting self-enhancement, one representing reversedself-transcendence) of the resultant self-enhancementlatent construct (as explained subsequently in the an-alytical procedures).

Analytical Procedures

First, as suggested by Schwartz et al. (1997), correctionof the raw values data was necessary due to individualdifferences in the use of the response scale. Followingthe correcting procedure, the authors computed eachindividual’s mean score on all 12 value items, then


centered the scores of each of the items for an individ-ual around that individual’s mean score. Subsequently,the authors used six of the 12 corrected value itemsto index the value domains of the self-enhancementversus self-transcendence dimension.

The relatively high number of single items of re-sultant self-enhancement value dimension (six items)and self-control personality trait (13 items) led to theuse of parceling to reduce the number of indicatorsof these constructs, following the recommendation ofBagozzi and Heatherton (1994), thus allowing for amore optimal variable to sample size ratio and for morestable parameter estimates. A parcel is an aggregate-level indicator comprising the sum (or average) ofseveral single items. As resultant self-enhancementhas two facets, one being self-enhancement andthe other inverted self-transcendence, the presentstudy used the internal consistency approach(Little, Cunningham, Shahar, & Widaman, 2002) toform two parcels as indicators of resultant self-enhancement: the mean importance score of self-enhancement and the reversed mean importance scoreof self-transcendence. For the self-control trait, the au-thors used the random assignment approach (Littleet al., 2002) to create three parcels by randomly split-ting the 13 items used to measure this construct, eachincluding four or five items.

In the next stage of the analytical procedure, a con-firmatory factor analysis of the six latent constructsconfirmed that each indicator reflected the intendedconstruct (convergent validity) and that the constructswere distinct from each other (discriminant validity).Then, the authors ignored the moderating effect to gen-erate a rival model with only the proposed direct effects,and tested this model using structural equation mod-eling by maximum likelihood estimation. In the laststage, the present study used a multiple group analysisto test the moderating effect.

The researchers used the statistical package SPSS15.0 for the data correction and parceling, and AMOS7.0 for the confirmatory analysis, structural equationanalysis, and multiple group analysis. In order to eval-uate the goodness of fit of the model, this paper reportsthe χ2 (chi-square) fit test. However, because the χ2 testis inappropriate for a large sample size (Browne & Cud-eck, 1992), the paper also reports some other indices:the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA),standardized root mean square residual (SRMR), andcomparative fit index (CFI). CFI value exceeding 0.90and SRMR, RMSEA values below 0.08 indicate accept-able model fits (Browne & Cudeck, 1992).

RESULTS

Confirmatory Factor Analysisand Validation of Measures

Confirmatory factor analysis of the six latent constructsdetermined the constructs’ convergent and discrim-

Table 1. Measurement Model: Factor Loadings(Standardized Solution).

Constructs andIndicators

StandardizedFactor

LoadingsCompositeReliability

VarianceExtracted

Self-control 0.84 0.63Parcel 1 0.76Parcel 2 0.87Parcel 3 0.75Agreeableness 0.79 0.56Kind, nice to others 0.73Generous,

understanding0.75

Warm, sympathetic 0.76Resultant

self-enhancement0.72 0.57

Self-enhancement 0.75Reversed

self-transcendence0.76

Attitude 0.83 0.61Unpleasant/pleasant 0.77Negative/positive 0.79Dislike/like 0.79Depth 0.81 0.59Superficial/deep 0.81Not active/very active 0.75Not involved/very

involved0.75

Time use 0.95 0.90Time use per day 0.92Time use per week 0.98

Note: All factor loadings are significant at p < 0.001. Fit statistics:χ2 = 115.6, df = 89, RMSEA = 0.027, SRMR = 0.031, CFI = 0.99.

inate validity. The overall fit statistics indicate anacceptable fit of the measurement model with the data:χ2(89) = 115.6, RMSEA = 0.027, SRMR = 0.031, andCFI = 0.99. The item reliability or factor loadings on thesix constructs are all high (from 0.73 to 0.98) and signif-icant (p < 0.001; Table 1), which satisfies the criteria forconvergent validity (Bagozzi, Yi, & Phillips, 1991). Interms of construct reliability, all the individual scalesexceed the recommended minimum standards proposedby Bagozzi and Yi (1988): composite reliability greaterthan 0.70 and variance extracted greater than 0.50(Table 1).

Table 2 presents the intercorrelations among theconstructs. All the correlations are significant andlower than 0.55. To access further the discriminant va-lidity of the measures, the authors followed a proceduresuggested by Bagozzi, Yi, & Phillips (1991). Within eachsubset of measures, the authors examined the pairs ofconstructs in a series of two-factor confirmatory factormodels and conducted chi-square difference tests. Theresults show that for all the pairs of constructs, the two-factor solution is better than the single-factor solution(the chi-square difference statistics are significant atp < 0.001). Thus, the measures of the latent constructsin the present study achieve high reliability and suffi-cient convergent and discriminant validity.


Table 2. Construct Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations.

Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6

1. Self-control 4.30 1.02 -2. Agreeableness 5.42 0.96 0.23 -3. Resultant self-enhancement −0.91 1.15 −0.21 −0.27 -4. Attitude 5.45 1.10 0.21 0.28 −0.35 -5. Depth 5.36 1.13 0.13 0.24 −0.21 0.54 -6. Time use 241.12 152.49 0.14 0.06ns −0.13 0.15 0.35 -

Note: ns = not significant.

Table 3. Results of Estimation Structure Model.

PathStandardized

Estimate t-Value

H1: Attitude →Self-production time use

0.19 3.23∗∗

H2: Attitude →Self-production depth

0.55 8.47∗∗

H3: Self-control → Attitude 0.14 2.55∗H4: Agreeableness →

Attitude0.22 3.63∗∗

H5: Resultantself-enhancement →Attitude

−0.28 −4.50∗∗

Model Fit Statisticsχ2 (df) 186.2 (99)p-Value 0.000SRMR 0.079CFI 0.97RMSEA 0.046R² attitude 0.15R² depth 0.30R² time use 0.04

∗∗p < 0.001; ∗p < 0.05.

Hypotheses Testing

Testing the Direct Effects. The rival model reveals agood fit with the data: χ2(99) = 186, RMSEA = 0.046,SRMR = 0.079, and CFI = 0.97. Table 3 presentsthe standardized structural parameter estimates andt-value of the hypothesized direct effects. The resultsshow that attitude toward self-production has signifi-cantly positive influences on both dimensions of self-production behavior including time use and depth.Thus, the results indicate support for hypotheses H1and H2. One can see that the effect of attitude on thedepth dimension (b = 0.55, p < 0.001) is much strongerthan that on time use dimension (b = 0.19, p < 0.001).In order to test H2b further, the authors compared thisrival model with another model in which the structuralrelationships between attitude and depth and betweenattitude and time use were set equal. This new con-strained model yields a significantly worse fit with thedata compared to the original rival model (�χ2(1) = 9.8,p < 0.01), providing support for H2b. The results re-veal that individual difference factors have significanteffects on attitude toward self-production. Among threeindividual difference constructs, the value dimension—

resultant self-enhancement—has the strongest impacton attitude with a highly significant negative influence(b = −0.28, p < 0.001). Both personality traits—self-control (b = 0.14, p < 0.05) and agreeableness (b =0.22, p < 0.001)—have positive influences on attitudetoward self-production. Thus, this paper finds supportfor hypotheses H3, H4, H5.

Testing the Mediating Effects. In order to test thefull or partial mediation effects of attitude in the re-lationship between the independent variables (self-control, agreeableness, self-enhancement) and the de-pendent variables (depth and time use), a modifiedmodel, including additional direct effects from the in-dependent variables to the dependent variables, wastested. The modified model yields satisfactory fit andthe results show that all the direct effects from the in-dependent variables to the dependent variables are notsignificant. Thus, this indicates full mediation effects ofattitude in the relationship between self-control, agree-ableness, self-enhancement, and the depth and timeuse dependent variables.

Testing the Moderating Effect of Self-Control. Thepresent study used a multigroup analysis to test ifthe resultant self-enhancement–attitude relationshipis significantly different between the low and high self-control groups. Table 4 shows the results of the mod-eration analysis. First, the authors tested a fully con-strained model in which all the structural estimateswere set equal across low and high self-control groups.Then, the authors compared this fully constrainedmodel with the less constrained model in which onlythe structural relationship between resultant self-enhancement and attitude was set to vary freely acrossthe two groups. The two models yielded satisfactoryfits (except SRMR in fully constrained model with a lit-tle higher than the standard; fully constrained model:χ2(203) = 285, p < 0.001, RMSEA = 0.031, SRMR =0.084, and CFI = 0.97; less constrained model: χ2(202)= 275.8, p < 0.001, RMSEA = 0.030, SRMR = 0.078,and CFI = 0.97). The difference in the chi-square statis-tic is significant (χ2(1)= 9.2, p < 0.01), indicating thatthe causal link between resultant self-enhancementand attitude toward self-production is significantly dif-ferent between the two groups. As shown in Table 4,the influence of resultant self-enhancement on attitudeis significant negative when self-control is low, but this


Table 4. Standardized Estimates for Moderating Effect of Self-Control.

Low Self-Control (n = 208) High Self-Control (n = 207)

Path Estimate t-Value Estimate t-Value �χ2(1)

Resultant self-enhancement → Attitude −0.37 −4.16∗∗ −0.17 −1.55ns 9.2∗

Note: ns = not significant.∗∗p < 0.001; ∗p < 0.01.

effect becomes insignificant when self-control is high.Thus, the results indicate support for H6.

DISCUSSION

The present study aims to provide an understandingof how personality and personal values simultaneouslyinfluence attitude toward self-production and how at-titude differently influences two dimensions of self-production behavior. The results show empirical sup-port for our conceptual model.

The finding that attitude has a significant positiveinfluence on self-production behavior in home mealpreparation among the Vietnamese supports previousstudies applying attitude theories to explain consumerparticipation phenomena in other contexts (e.g., Bob-bitt & Dabholkar, 2001; Curran, Meuter, & Surprenant,2003; Dabholkar & Bagozzi, 2002; Xie, Bagozzi, &Troye, 2008). Moreover, the results show that theimpact of attitude on self-production depth is signif-icantly stronger than on time use in self-production.This finding supports our suggestion that the depthdimension relates more closely to the motivationalcommitment dimension of consumer participation(Hunt, Geiger-Oneto, & Varca, 2012; Randall, Gravier,& Prybutok, 2011). This finding is also in accordancewith theories suggesting a greater consistency betweenattitude and intention/motivation than between atti-tude and behavior (Fishbein & Ajzen, 2010; Sheeran,2002). The reason for this is probably that time useis more dependent on internal and external factors,such as skills or knowledge to perform self-productionactivities, cooperation from others, or appliances toperform the self-production task (Armitage & Conner,2001). Thus, this finding contributes to the literaturesuggesting consumer participation behavior as a mul-tidimensional construct (e.g., Gustafsson, Kristensson,& Witell, 2012; Hunt, Geiger-Oneto, & Varca, 2012;Randall, Gravier, & Prybutok, 2011; Yi & Gong,2013).

The finding that high self-control individuals havea favorable attitude toward self-production supportsprevious studies suggesting the role of other controlconstructs in explaining consumer participation (e.g.,Buttgen, Schumann, & Ates, 2012; Etgar, 2008; Xie,Bagozzi, & Troye, 2008). Thus, this finding is con-sistent with previous studies suggesting that highself-control individuals are more likely to have pos-itive behaviors or outcomes (e.g., Ein-Gar, Golden-berg, & Sagiv, 2012; Romal & Kaplan, 1995; Tangney,

Baumeister, & Boone, 2004). This conclusion also ac-cords with suggestions that consumer participationis a desirable or positive behavior with various ben-efits or values for the consumer (e.g., Etgar, 2008;Hoyer et al., 2010; Lusch, Brown, & Brunswick, 1992;Williams, 2008), and studies indicating the positiveeffect of consumer participation on different positiveoutcomes, such as consumers’ evaluation of productionquality (e.g., Troye & Supphellen, 2012), satisfaction(e.g., Chan, Yim, & Lam, 2010; Dabholkar & Sheng,2011; Dong, Evans, & Zou, 2008), and loyalty (e.g., Auhet al., 2007; Healy & McDonagh, 2013).

The positive effect of agreeableness, a personalitytrait within the widely used Big Five model (McCrae &John, 1992), on self-production attitude supports pre-vious studies, suggesting the role of other social factorsin predicting consumer participation (e.g., Etgar, 2008;Wolf & McQuitty, 2011; Xie, Bagozzi, & Troye, 2008).Given that consumer participation is a desirable be-havior (e.g., Etgar, 2008, Hoyer et al., 2010; Williams,2008), the finding that agreeable consumers have apositive attitude toward self-production is also in ac-cordance with studies confirming that agreeableness ismore related to positive behaviors or outcomes (e.g.,Ferguson, Paulin, & Bergeron, 2010; Hurley, 1998;King, George, & Hebl, 2005).

The results show that resultant self-enhancementhave a significant negative effect on attitude towardself-production, thus supporting the study of Xie,Bagozzi, & Troye (2008) who confirm the importantrole of other interpersonal general values in predict-ing consumer participation (Xie, Bagozzi, & Troye,2008). Thus, this finding supports studies confirmingthat positive behaviors or outcomes are negativelyassociated with the self-enhancement dimension andpositively related to the self-transcendence dimen-sion (e.g., Collins, Steg, & Koning, 2007; Hansen,Risborg, & Steen, 2012; Pepper, Jackson, & Uzzell,2009).

The finding of the significant effects of both per-sonality traits (i.e., self-control and agreeableness) onself-production attitude in the present study corrobo-rates previous studies confirming the role of person-ality in explaining consumer participation phenomena(Dabholkar & Bagozzi, 2002; Fuller, Matzler, & Hoppe,2008; Lee et al., 2010). These findings, combined withthat of the direct influence of attitude on self-productionbehavior, demonstrates support for previous studiessuggesting conceptual frameworks in which personal-ity is considered the most abstract construct in the hi-erarchy model with the impact flowing to more specific


constructs (i.e., attitude or intention) to specific behav-ior, such as the 3M model of motivation and personality(Mowen, 2000) and the theory of planned behavior inte-grated with personality (e.g., Conner & Abraham, 2001;Rhodes, Courneya, & Jones, 2004).

The significant effect of resultant self-enhancementon self-production attitude found in the present studyextends the finding of Xie, Bagozzi, & Troye (2008) con-cerning the role of global values in the formation ofthe more narrower specific tendencies of consumer par-ticipation (i.e., domain-specific values, attitudes, andintention). Compared to the framework investigated byXie, Bagozzi, & Troye (2008), the present study con-tributes to the consumer participation literature byconfirming the direct effect of general personal valueson attitude, and the direct effect of attitude on behav-ior, which they did not examine. The finding that re-sultant self-enhancement has a significant effect onself-production attitude and this attitude in turn in-fluences self-production behavior provides additionalevidence for the predictive power of the VAB hierarchi-cal framework (Homer & Kahle, 1988; Vaske & Don-nelly, 1999) in explaining consumer participation inself-production.

In summary, the results show that both generaldimensions of personality and personal values signif-icantly predict self-production attitude and correlatesignificantly with self-production behavior, includingdepth and time use. Thus, the findings demonstratesupport for our hierarchical framework of integratingboth personality and personal values to predict self-production process, including self-production attitudeand behavioral outcomes. Moreover, it is worth not-ing that there is a difference in the contribution ofpersonality and values in explaining self-productionprocess where the personal values dimension (i.e.,resultant self-enhancement) has a stronger effect onself-production attitude than do personality traits (i.e.,self-control and agreeableness). The explanation forthis finding may lie in the suggestion of Roccas et al.(2002), who theorized that values are likely to trumppersonality in predicting attitudes or behaviors overwhich individuals have cognitive control or choice.Given that consumer participation in coproduction isoptional (Vargo & Lusch, 2008), the finding that valuesare better predictors of self-production is in accordancewith this suggestion of Roccas et al. (2002). Thus, in-tegrating both personal values and personality in onemodel helps to clarify our understanding of their rela-tive importance in explaining self-production process.

Although self-control is shown to have a relativelyweak influence on self-production attitude compared toother the two individual difference factors (i.e., agree-ableness and resultant self-enhancement), its role inexplaining the self-production process may not be lessimportant when considering its moderating effect onthe causal link between resultant self-enhancementand attitude. The results show that self-control weak-ens the negative effect of resultant self-enhancementon attitude toward self-production. This finding

implies that high self-control can reduce the unde-sirable influence of motivation, and thus is in accor-dance with previous studies confirming the role of self-control in strengthening the desirable influence of mo-tivation (e.g., Friese, Hofmann, & Wanke, 2008; Hof-mann, Rauch, and Gawronski, 2007). This finding isalso consistent with the suggestion of Parks and Guay(2009) that values and personality may interact in pre-dicting behavior. Thus, besides showing the relative im-portance of personal values and personality in termsof their influence on the self-production process, thepresent study also contributes to the literature of con-sumer participation by indicating that these individualdifference variables may interact to influence consumerparticipation in self-production.

The findings of the current study have managerialimplications for marketing managers, whose offeringsare essential inputs for the consumers’ self-productionactivities (e.g., kitchen tools, or building materials).The finding of the negative influence of resultant self-enhancement on the self-production process impliesthat self-production consumers attach more importanceto values of the self-transcendence dimension, includ-ing benevolence and universalism (e.g., helpfulness, re-sponsibility, honesty, loyalty, equality, inner harmony,a world of beauty, social justice, and protecting the envi-ronment). Thus, managers should emphasize these val-ues in communicating the firm’s products to consumersby linking the products and related self-production ac-tivities to one or more of these values through theirdelivered benefits. The findings that self-control andagreeableness have a positive influence on the self-production process suggest that marketing managersshould promote relevant aspects of the products and therelated self-production activities with these traits, suchas good self-discipline, better life management, health(i.e., self-control), friendliness, and generosity (i.e.,agreeableness). Thus, the present study provides usefulguidance to make firms’ products gain self-relevance forthe self-production consumers through the linkage withtheir individual differences. The findings of this studycan therefore help businesses produce self-productioninputs to focus on their potential market with more ef-fective positioning and targeting strategies.

LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH

The findings of this study provide robust support forthe theoretical model proposed and predicted relation-ships. However, like any research, this study has somelimitations and future research is necessary to con-firm and expand the findings. The fact that this studyrelated to a single context—home meal preparation—may limit the generalizability. Therefore, additional re-search should investigate the conceptual model in otherself-production contexts, such as home maintenance,gardening, and childcare.

Another limitation of the current study is thatit only investigates two general personality traits


(self-control, agreeableness) and one general value con-struct (resultant self-enhancement). Future researchmay gain yet more valuable insights by examiningother potential values and personality traits in theframework employed in this study. The remainingvalue dimension of Schwartz’s value scale (i.e., conser-vation vs. openness to change; Schwartz, 1992) may beworth examining. This value dimension refers to “val-ues in terms of the extent to which they motivate peopleto follow their own intellectual and emotional interestsin unpredictable and uncertain directions versus topreserve the status quo and the certainty it providesin relationships with close others, institutions, andtraditions” (Schwartz, 1992, p. 43). Thus, home mealpreparation, as a means of maintaining and reinforc-ing the family relationship and reproducing tradition(Moisio, Arnould, & Price, 2004) could be influencedby this value dimension. The remaining four person-ality dimensions of the Big Five (i.e., extraversion,openness, conscientiousness, and neuroticism; McCrae& John, 1992) have been suggested to positivelyinfluence healthy diet (Booth-Kewley & Vickers, 1994;Hampson et al., 2007). Therefore, it may be fruitfulto explore the role of these personality dimensions inexplaining home meal preparation as a healthy eatingbehavior.

The present study only investigates attitude as asingle mediator in the relationship between personal-ity/value and self-production behavior. Future researchmay investigate other potential mediators that havebeen confirmed as important predictors of consumerparticipation, such as perceived control constructs (e.g.,Buttgen, Schumann, & Ates, 2012; Collier & Sherrell,2010), social norms (e.g., Xie, Bagozzi, & Troye, 2008).In addition, the inclusion of motivational constructs (in-tention, desire; Bagozzi & Warshaw, 1990; Fishbein &Ajzen, 2010) into the present model, as a mediator be-tween attitude and self-production behavior, may give adeeper and more comprehensive insight into the issue.

The present study shows how self-production atti-tude differently influences distinct dimensions of self-production behavior (i.e., depth and time use). Thus,a promising area of research might be to examinehow attitude differently influences other dimensionsof consumer participation, such as frequency, direc-tion, modality, and content (Gustafsson, Kristensson, &Witell, 2012), and commitment and behavioral involve-ment (Hunt, Geiger-Oneto, & Varca, 2012). It could alsobe interesting to see if and how self-production depthand time use differently impact consumer participationoutcomes, such as the evaluation of input products (e.g.,Troye & Supphellen, 2012), satisfaction (e.g., Chan,Yim, & Lam, 2010; Dabholkar & Sheng, 2011), and loy-alty (e.g., Healy & McDonagh, 2013). In the presentstudy, measurement of the time use dimension of self-production behavior relied on consumers’ self-reports.Future research should measure the actual time use inself-production to increase the accuracy and reliabilityof this measurement. Finally, this study has limitationswith regard to claims concerning causality due to the

use of cross-sectional data to test the conceptual model.Thus, alternative research designs, including experi-mental and longitudinal, are necessary to address is-sues of causality in future studies.

REFERENCES

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organiza-tional Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179–211.

Ajzen, I. (2002). Residual effects of past on later behavior:Habituation and reasoned action perspectives. Personalityand Social Psychology Review, 6, 107–122.

Auh, S., Bell, S. J., McLeod, C. S., & Shih, E. (2007). Co-production and customer loyalty in financial services. Jour-nal of Retailing, 83, 359–370.

Bagozzi, R. P., & Dholakia, U. M. (2002). Intentional socialaction in virtual communities. Journal of Interactive Mar-keting, 16, 2–21.

Bagozzi, R. P., & Dholakia, U. M. (2006). Antecedents andpurchase consequences of customer participation in smallgroup brand communities. International Journal of Re-search in Marketing, 23, 45–61.

Bagozzi, R. P., & Heatherton, T. F. (1994). A general approachto representing multifaceted personality constructs: Appli-cation to state self-esteem. Structural Equation Modeling:A Multidisciplinary Journal, 1, 35–67.

Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1990). Trying to consume.Journal of Consumer Research, 17, 127–140.

Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structuralequation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Sci-ence, 16, 74–94.

Bagozzi, R. P., Yi, Y., & Phillips, L. W. (1991). Assessing con-struct validity in organizational research. AdministrativeScience Quarterly, 36, 421–458.

Baumeister, R. F. (2002). Yielding to temptation: Self-controlfailure, impulsive purchasing, and consumer behavior.Journal of Consumer Research, 28, 670–676.

Baumeister, R. F., Vohs, K. D., & Tice, D. M. (2007). Thestrength model of self-control. Current Directions in Psy-chological Science, 16, 351–355.

Bettencourt, L. A. (1997). Customer voluntary performance:Customers as partners in service delivery. Journal of Re-tailing, 73, 383–406.

Bilsky, W., & Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Values and personality.European Journal of Personality, 8, 163–181.

Bobbitt, L. M., & Dabholkar, P. A. (2001). Integrating attitu-dinal theories to understand and predict use of technology-based self-service: The internet as an illustration. Interna-tional Journal of Service Industry Management, 12, 423–450.

Booth-Kewley, S., & Vickers, R. R. (1994). Associations be-tween major domains of personality and health behavior.Journal of Personality, 62, 281–298.

Botonaki, A., & Mattas, K. (2010). Revealing the values behindconvenience food consumption. Appetite, 55, 629–638.

Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1992). Alternative ways of as-sessing model fit. Sociological Methods & Research, 21,230–258.

Brunsø, K., Scholderer, J., & Grunert, K. G. (2004). Testingrelationships between values and food-related lifestyle: Re-sults from two European countries. Appetite, 43, 195–205.

Buttgen, M., Schumann, J. H., & Ates, Z. (2012). Service lo-cus of control and customer coproduction: The role of prior


service experience and organizational socialization. Jour-nal of Service Research, 15, 166–181.

Calder, B. J., & Malthouse, E. C. (2003). The behavioral scoreapproach to dependent variables. Journal of Consumer Psy-chology, 13, 387–394.

Caprara, G. V., Schwartz, S., Capanna, C., Vecchione, M., &Barbaranelli, C. (2006). Personality and politics: Values,traits, and political choice. Political Psychology, 27, 1–28.

Carbonell, P., Rodriguez-Escudero, A., & Pujari, D. (2012).Performance effects of involving lead users and close cus-tomers in new service development. Journal of ServicesMarketing, 26, 497–509.

Carver, C. S., & Connor-Smith, J. (2010). Personality and cop-ing. Annual Review of Psychology, 61, 679–704.

Cermak, D. S. P., File, K. M., & Prince, R. A. (1994). Customerparticipation in service specification and delivery. Journalof Applied Business Research, 10, 90–97.

Chan, K. W., Yim, C. K., & Lam, S. S. K. (2010). Is customerparticipation in value creation a double-edged sword? Evi-dence from professional financial services across cultures.Journal of Marketing, 74, 48–64.

Chandon, P., Morwitz, V. G., & Reinartz, W. J. (2005). Dointentions really predict behavior? Self-generated validityeffects in survey research. Journal of Marketing, 9, 1–14.

Cole, M., Stanton, B., Deveaux, L., Harris, C., Cottrell, L.,Clemens, R., et al. (2007). Latent class analysis of riskbehaviors among Bahamian young adolescents: Relation-ship between values prioritization and latent class. SocialBehavior and Personality: An International Journal, 35,1061–1076.

Collier, J. E., & Sherrell, D. L. (2010). Examining the influenceof control and convenience in a self-service setting. Journalof the Academy of Marketing Science, 38, 490–509.

Collins, C. M., Steg, L., & Koning, M. A. S. (2007). Customers’values, beliefs on sustainable corporate performance, andbuying behavior. Psychology & Marketing, 24, 555–577.

Conner, M., & Abraham, C. (2001). Conscientiousness and thetheory of planned behavior: Toward a more complete modelof the antecedents of intentions and behavior. Personalityand Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 1547–1561.

Costa, A. I. A., Schoolmeester, D., Dekker, M. D., & Jongen,W. M. F. (2002). Perceptions of Dutch seniors regardinghome meal replacements: A focus group study. In C. A. A.Butijn, J. P. Groot-Marcus, M. V. D. Linden, L. P. A. Steen-bekkers, & P. M. J. Terpstra (Eds.), Changes at the otherend of the chain: Everyday consumption in a multidisci-plinary perspective (pp. 91–101). The Netherlands: ShakerPublishing.

Costa, A. I. A., Schoolmeester, D., Dekker, M. D., & Jongen,W. M. F. (2007). To cook or not to cook: A means-end studyof motives for choice of meal solutions. Food Quality andPreference, 18, 77–88.

Curran, J. M., Meuter, M. L., & Surprenant, C. F. (2003).Intentions to use self-service technologies: A confluence ofmultiple attitudes. Journal of Service Research, 5, 209–224.

Czellar, S. (2003). Consumer attitude toward brand exten-sions: An integrative model and research propositions. In-ternational Journal of Research in Marketing, 20, 97–115.

Dabholkar, P. A., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2002). An attitudinalmodel of technology-based self-service: Moderating effectsof consumer traits and situational factors. Journal of theAcademy of Marketing Science, 30, 184–201.

Dabholkar, P. A., & Sheng, X. (2011). Consumer participa-tion in using online recommendation agents: Effects onsatisfaction, trust, and purchase intentions. The ServiceIndustries Journal, 32, 1433–1449.

Dong, B., Evans, K. R., & Zou, S. (2008). The effectsof customer participation in co-created service recovery.Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36, 123–137.

Donnelly, G., Iyer, R., & Howell, R. T. (2012). The big five per-sonality traits, material values, and financial well-being ofself-described money managers. Journal of Economic Psy-chology, 33, 1129–1142.

Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of atti-tudes. Orlando , FL: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich CollegePublishers.

Ein-Gar, D., Goldenberg, J., & Sagiv, L. (2012). The role ofconsumer self-control in the consumption of virtue prod-ucts. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 29,123–133.

Etgar, M. (2008). A descriptive model of the consumer co-production process. Journal of the Academy of MarketingScience, 36, 97–108.

Fang, E., Palmatier, R. W., & Evans, K. R. (2008). Influenceof customer participation on creating and sharing of newproduct value. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Sci-ence, 36, 322–336.

Feather, N. T. (1995). Values, valences, and choice: The influ-ences of values on the perceived attractiveness and choice ofalternatives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,68, 1135–1151.

Ferguson, R. J., Paulin, M., & Bergeron, J. (2010). Customersociability and the total service experience: Antecedents ofpositive word-of-mouth intentions. Journal of Service Man-agement, 21, 25–44.

Firat, A. F., Dholakia, N., & Venkatesh, A. (1995). Marketingin a postmodern world. European Journal of Marketing, 29,40–56.

Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (2010). Prediction and change of be-havior: The reasoned action approach. New York: Psychol-ogy Press.

Fraj, E., & Martinez, E. (2006). Influence of personality onecological consumer behaviour. Journal of Consumer Be-haviour, 5, 167–181.

Friese, M., Hofmann, W., & Wanke, M. (2008). When impulsestake over: Moderated predictive validity of explicit and im-plicit attitude measures in predicting food choice and con-sumption behaviour. British Journal of Social Psychology,47, 397–419.

Fuller, J., Matzler, K., & Hoppe, M. (2008). Brand commu-nity members as a source of innovation. Journal of ProductInnovation Management, 25, 608–619.

Gathergood, J. (2012). Self-control, financial literacy and con-sumer over-indebtedness. Journal of Economic Psychology,33, 590–602.

George, B. (2002). The relationship between lottery ticket andscratch-card buying behaviour, personality and other com-pulsive behaviours. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 2, 7–22.

Gofton, L. (1995). Convenience and the moral status of con-sumer practices. In D. W. Marshall (Ed.), Food choice andthe consumer (pp. 152–181). London, UK: Blackie Academic& Professional.

Goldberg, L. R. (1992). The development of markers for thebig-five factor structure. Psychological Assessment, 4, 26–42.

Gosling, S. D., Rentfrow, P. J., & Swann Jr, W. B. (2003).A very brief measure of the big-five personality domains.Journal of Research in Personality, 37, 504–528.

Gountas, J., & Gountas, S. (2007). Personality orien-tations, emotional states, customer satisfaction, and


intention to repurchase. Journal of Business Research, 60,72–75.

Gustafsson, A., Kristensson, P., & Witell, L. (2012). Customerco-creation in service innovation: A matter of communica-tion? Journal of Service Management, 23, 311–327.

Hampson, S. E., Goldberg, L. R., Vogt, T. M., & Dubanoski,J. P. (2007). Mechanisms by which childhood personalitytraits influence adult health status: Educational attain-ment and healthy behaviors. Health Psychology, 26, 121–125.

Hansen, T., Risborg, M. S., & Steen, C. D. (2012). Understand-ing consumer purchase of free-of cosmetics: A value-drivenTRA approach. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 11, 477–486.

Healy, J. C., & McDonagh, P. (2013). Consumer roles in brandculture and value co-creation in virtual communities. Jour-nal of Business Research, 66, 1528–1540.

Herche, J. (1994). Measuring social values: A multi-item adap-tation to the list of values MILOV. Working paper reportnumber. 94–101. Cambridge, MA: Marketing Science Insti-tute.

Hofmann, W., Rauch, W., & Gawronski, B. (2007). And de-plete us not into temptation: Automatic attitudes, dietaryrestraint, and self-regulatory resources as determinants ofeating behavior. Journal of Experimental Social Psychol-ogy, 43, 497–504.

Homburg, C., & Giering, A. (2001). Personal characteristicsas moderators of the relationship between customer satis-faction and loyalty—An empirical analysis. Psychology &Marketing, 18, 43–66.

Homer, P. M., & Kahle, L. R. (1988). A structural equationtest of the value-attitude-behavior hierarchy. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 54, 638–646.

Hoyer, W. D., Chandy, R., Dorotic, M., Krafft, M., & Singh, S. S.(2010). Consumer cocreation in new product development.Journal of Service Research, 13, 283–296.

Hunt, D. M., Geiger-Oneto, S., & Varca, P. E. (2012). Satisfac-tion in the context of customer co-production: A behavioralinvolvement perspective. Journal of Consumer Behaviour,11, 347–356.

Hurley, R. F. (1998). Customer service behavior in retail set-tings: A study of the effect of service provider personality.Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 26, 115–127.

Jensen-Campbell, L. A., Knack, J. M., Waldrip, A. M., & Camp-bell, S. D. (2007). Do big five personality traits associatedwith self-control influence the regulation of anger and ag-gression? Journal of Research in Personality, 41, 403–424.

Kaufman, C. F., Lane, P. M., & Lindquist, J. D. (1991). Explor-ing more than 24 hours a day: A preliminary investigationof polychronic time use. Journal of Consumer Research, 18,392–401.

Kellogg, D. L., Youngdahl, W. E., & Bowen, D. E. (1997). Onthe relationship between customer participation and satis-faction: Two frameworks. International Journal of ServiceIndustry Management, 8, 206–219.

Kilbourne, W. E., & LaForge, M. C. (2010). Materialism and itsrelationship to individual values. Psychology & Marketing,27, 780–798.

King, E. B., George, J. M., & Hebl, M. R. (2005). Linking per-sonality to helping behaviors at work: An interactional per-spective. Journal of Personality, 73, 585–608.

Kumar, V., Pozza, I. D., & Ganesh, J. (2013). Revisitingthe satisfaction–loyalty relationship: Empirical generaliza-tions and directions for future research. Journal of Retail-ing, 89, 246–262.

Lanseng, E. J., & Andreassen, T. W. (2007). Electronic health-care: A study of people’s readiness and attitude toward

performing self-diagnosis. International Journal of ServiceIndustry Management, 18, 394–417.

Lee, H. J., Cho, H. J., Xu, W., & Fairhurst, A. (2010). Theinfluence of consumer traits and demographics on intentionto use retail self-service checkouts. Marketing Intelligence& Planning, 28, 46–58.

Little, T. D., Cunningham, W. A., Shahar, G., & Widaman, K.F. (2002). To parcel or not to parcel: Exploring the ques-tion, weighing the merits. Structural Equation Modeling:A Multidisciplinary Journal, 9, 151–173.

Liu, H., Yu, S., Cottrell, L., Lunn, S., Deveaux, L., Brath-waite, N., et al. (2007). Personal values and involve-ment in problem behaviors among Bahamian early ado-lescents: A cross-sectional study. BMC Public Health, 7,135–143.

Lusch, R. F., & Vargo, S. L. (2006). Service-dominant logic:Reactions, reflections and refinements. Marketing Theory,6, 281–288.

Lusch, R. F., Brown, S. W., & Brunswick, G. J. (1992). Ageneral framework for explaining internal vs. external ex-change. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 20,119–134.

Lusch, R. F., Vargo, S. L., & O’Brien, M. (2007). Compet-ing through service: Insights from service-dominant logic.Journal of Retailing, 83, 5–18.

McCrae, R. R., & John, O. P. (1992). An introduction to the five-factor model and its applications. Journal of Personality,60, 175–215.

Moisio, R., Arnould, E. J., & Price, L. L. (2004). Be-tween mothers and markets: Constructing family identitythrough homemade food. Journal of Consumer Culture, 4,361–384.

Mowen, J. C. (2000). The 3-M model of motivation and per-sonality: Theory and empirical applications to consumerbehavior. Boston: Kluwer Academic Press.

Mowen, J. C., Park, S., & Zablah, A. (2007). Toward a theoryof motivation and personality with application to word-of-mouth communications. Journal of Business Research, 60,590–596.

Mulyanegara, R. C., & Tsarenko, Y. (2009). Predicting brandpreferences: An examination of the predictive power of con-sumer personality and values in the Australian fashionmarket. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management,13, 358–371.

Nambisan, S., & Baron, R. A. (2009). Virtual customer en-vironments: Testing a model of voluntary participation invalue co-creation activities. Journal of Product InnovationManagement, 26, 388–406.

Okada, E. M., & Hoch, S. J. (2004). Spending time versusspending money. Journal of Consumer Research, 31, 313–323.

Oliver, R. L. (2010). Satisfaction: A behavioral perspective onthe consumer. Armonk, New York ME Sharpe.

Ouellette, J. A., & Wood, W. (1998). Habit and intention ineveryday life: The multiple processes by which past behav-ior predicts future behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 124,54–74.

Parks, L., & Guay, R. P. (2009). Personality, values, and mo-tivation. Personality and Individual Differences, 47, 675–684.

Parks, L., & Guay, R. P. (2012). Can personal values pre-dict performance? Evidence in an academic setting. AppliedPsychology, 61, 149–173.

Pepper, M., Jackson, T., & Uzzell, D. (2009). An examinationof the values that motivate socially conscious and frugalconsumer behaviours. International Journal of ConsumerStudies, 33, 126–136.


Pirog, S. F., & Roberts, J. A. (2007). Personality and creditcard misuse among college students: The mediating role ofimpulsiveness. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice,15, 65–77.

Quinn, P. D., & Fromme, K. (2010). Self-regulation as a pro-tective factor against risky drinking and sexual behavior.Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 24, 376–385.

Raajpoot, N., Sharma, A., & Lefebvre, J. (2012). Use of coun-terfactual thinking for understanding the impact of per-sonal value orientation on blame assignment and customercomplaint behavior. Atlantic Marketing Journal, 1, 1–24.

Randall, W. S., Gravier, M. J., & Prybutok, V. R. (2011). Con-nection, trust, and commitment: Dimensions of co-creation?Journal of Strategic Marketing, 19, 3–24.

Raynor, D. A., & Levine, H. (2009). Associations betweenthe five-factor model of personality and health behav-iors among college students. Journal of American CollegeHealth, 58, 73–82.

Rhodes, R. E., Courneya, K. S., & Jones, L. W. (2004). Person-ality and social cognitive influences on exercise behavior:Adding the activity trait to the theory of planned behavior.Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 5, 243–254.

Roccas, S., Sagiv, L., Schwartz, S. H., & Knafo, A. (2002). Thebig five personality factors and personal values. Personalityand Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 789–801.

Romal, J. B., & Kaplan, B. J. (1995). Difference in self-controlamong spenders and savers. Psychology: A Journal of Hu-man Behavior, 32, 8–17.

Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structureof values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20countries. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25,1–65.

Schwartz, S. H., & Bilsky, W. (1987). Toward a universal psy-chological structure of human values. Journal of Personal-ity and Social Psychology, 53, 550–562.

Schwartz, S. H., & Sagiv, L. (1995). Identifying culture-specifics in the content and structure of values. Journalof Cross-Cultural Psychology, 26, 92–116.

Schwartz, S. H., Verkasalo, M., Antonovsky, A., & Sagiv, L.(1997). Value priorities and social desirability: Much sub-stance, some style. British Journal of Social Psychology, 36,3–18.

Sheeran, P. (2002). Intention-behavior relations: A conceptualand empirical review. European Review of Social Psychol-ogy, 12, 1–36.

Steenkamp, J.-B. E. M., Hofstede, F. t., & Wedel, M. (1999).A cross-national investigation into the individual and na-tional cultural antecedents of consumer innovativeness.Journal of Marketing, 63, 55–69.

Stern, P. C., Dietz, T., & Guagnano, G. A. (1998). A brief in-ventory of values. Educational and Psychological Measure-ment, 58, 984–1001.

Strober, M. H., & Weinberg, C. B. (1980). Strategies used byworking and nonworking wives to reduce time pressures.Journal of Consumer Research, 6, 338–348.

Sultan, A. J., Joireman, J., & Sprott, D. E. (2012). Buildingconsumer self-control: The effect of self-control exerciseson impulse buying urges. Marketing Letters, 23, 61–72.

Taber, B. J., Hartung, P. J., & Borges, N. J. (2011). Person-ality and values as predictors of medical specialty choice.Journal of Vocational Behavior, 78, 202–209.

Tangney, J. P., Baumeister, R. F., & Boone, A. L. (2004). Highself-control predicts good adjustment, less pathology, bettergrades, and interpersonal success. Journal of Personality,72, 271–324.

Troye, S. V., & Supphellen, M. (2012). Consumer participationin coproduction: “I made it myself” effects on consumers’sensory perceptions and evaluations of outcome and inputproduct. Journal of Marketing, 76, 33–46.

Urien, B., & Kilbourne, W. (2011). Generativity and self-enhancement values in eco-friendly behavioral intentionsand environmentally responsible consumption behavior.Psychology & Marketing, 28, 69–90.

Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2004). Evolving to a new dominantlogic for marketing. Journal of Marketing, 68, 1–17.

Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2008). Service-dominant logic:Continuing the evolution. Journal of the Academy of Mar-keting Science, 36, 1–10.

Vaske, J. J., & Donnelly, M. P. (1999). A value-attitude-behavior model predicting wildland preservation voting in-tentions. Society & Natural Resources, 12, 523–537.

Vohs, K. D. (2006). Self-regulatory resources power the reflec-tive system: Evidence from five domains. Journal of Con-sumer Psychology, 16, 217–223.

Vohs, K. D., & Faber, R. J. (2007). Spent resources: Self-regulatory resource availability affects impulse buying.Journal of Consumer Research, 33, 537–547.

Vohs, K. D., Baumeister, R. F., and Tice, D. M. (2008).Self-regulation: Goals, consumption, and choices. In C.P. Haugtvedt, P. Herr, and F. Kardes (Eds.), Hand-book of Consumer Psychology (pp. 349–366). New York:LEA/Psychology Press.

Volk, S., Thoni, C., & Ruigrok, W. (2011). Personality, per-sonal values and cooperation preferences in public goodsgames: A longitudinal study. Personality and IndividualDifferences, 50, 810–815.

Wilcox, K., Block, L. G., & Eisenstein, E. M. (2011). Leavehome without it? The effects of credit card debt and avail-able credit on spending. Journal of Marketing Research,48, 78–90.

Williams, C. C. (2008). Re-thinking the motives of do-it-yourself (DIY) consumers. The International Review of Re-tail, Distribution and Consumer Research, 18, 311–323.

Witell, L., Kristensson, P., Gustafsson, A., & Lofgren, M.(2011). Idea generation: Customer co-creation versus tradi-tional market research techniques. Journal of Service Man-agement, 22, 140–159.

Wolf, M., & McQuitty, S. (2011). Understanding the do-it-yourself consumer: DIY motivations and outcomes. AMSReview, 1, 154–170.

Wood, W., & Neal, D. T. (2009). The habitual consumer. Jour-nal of Consumer Psychology, 19, 579–592.

Xie, C., Bagozzi, R. P., & Troye, S. V. (2008). Trying to pro-sume: Toward a theory of consumers as co-creators of value.Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36, 109–122.

Yap, S. F., & Lee, C. K. C. (2013). Does personality matterin exercise participation? Journal of Consumer Behaviour,12, 401–411.

Yi, Y., & Gong, T. (2013). Customer value co-creation behav-ior: Scale development and validation. Journal of BusinessResearch, 66, 1279–1284.

The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial funding fromThe Research Council of Norway (Project 159453/110).

Correspondence regarding this article should be sent to: MaiThi Xuan Huynh, Lecturer, Faculty of Accounting and Fi-nance, Nha Trang University, 02 Nguyen Dinh Chieu, NhaTrang, Vietnam (e-mail: [email protected]).


Documents

shapping behavior