pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.08079 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-09 · 💻 cs.IR · cs.HC

Search Changes Consumers' Minds: How Recognizing Gaps Drives Sustainable Choices

Frans van der Sluis , Leif Azzopardi This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 17:48 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.IR cs.HC
keywords ethical consumptionknowledge gapsconsumer searchintention-behavior gapresponsible purchasinginformation seekingsustainable choicesbehavior change
0
0 comments X

The pith

Recognizing gaps in ethical knowledge about products drives consumers toward more responsible purchasing decisions.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper examines how the intention-behavior gap in responsible shopping can be addressed through information seeking. Participants who searched for details on one ethical aspect of a product they planned to buy assigned greater overall importance to ethics. However, only those who explicitly recognized and addressed their own knowledge gaps showed meaningful shifts, including more future searching and stronger intent to change shopping habits. This positions responsible consumption as a partial information problem where self-awareness of missing knowledge acts as the trigger for change, rather than good intentions or search activity alone.

Core claim

In a study with 308 participants tasked with searching for information on one of eight ethical aspects of a product they were actively considering, searching increased the importance assigned to ethical factors. The decisive element was not the search itself or prior ethical intentions but the recognition and understanding of ethical considerations, which prompted participants to fill knowledge gaps. Those who did so exhibited behavior change such as increased searching and a stronger desire to alter future shopping habits. The work concludes that responsible consumption functions as a partial information problem, with awareness of personal knowledge limitations serving as the catalyst for a

What carries the argument

The recognition and filling of knowledge gaps in ethical aspects of product decisions, which shifts importance ratings and prompts behavior change beyond mere search activity or intentions.

Load-bearing premise

Self-reported increases in the importance of ethical aspects and stated desire to change future habits will translate into actual real-world purchasing behavior outside the study setting.

What would settle it

A field experiment that tracks real purchase records after exposing shoppers to prompts highlighting ethical knowledge gaps and finds no measurable increase in selection of more responsible products compared with controls.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.08079 by Frans van der Sluis, Leif Azzopardi.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: A simple model of the consumer buying process by [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: K-Means clustering of participants based on their EMCB answers, visualized using Principal Component Analysis [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Box plots illustrating the relationship between EMCB cluster and Importance ratings. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Exploratory analysis of variable groupings using EFA followed by KMeans clustering. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Regression model predicting importance change. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Despite a growing desire among consumers to shop responsibly, translating this intention into behaviour remains challenging. Previous work has identified that information seeking (or lack thereof) is a contributing factor to this intention-behaviour gap.In this paper, we hypothesize that searching can bridge this gap - helping consumers to make purchasing decisions that are better aligned with their values. We conducted a task-based study with 308 participants, asking them to search for information on one of eight ethical aspects regarding a product they were actively shopping for. Our findings show that actively searching for such information led to an overall increase in the importance participants' assigned to ethical aspects.However, it was the recognition and understanding of ethical considerations, rather than ethical intentions or search activity, that drove shifts towards more responsible purchasing decisions. Participants who acknowledged and filled knowledge gaps in their decision making showed significant behaviour change, including increased searching and a stronger desire to alter their future shopping habits. We conclude that responsible consumption can be considered a partial information problem, where awareness of one's own knowledge limitations may be the catalyst needed for meaningful consumer behaviour change.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper reports a controlled task-based experiment with 308 participants in which consumers actively search for information on one of eight ethical aspects of a product they intend to purchase. It claims that search activity increases the importance assigned to ethical considerations overall, but that the specific recognition and filling of knowledge gaps (rather than initial ethical intentions or search volume per se) produces shifts toward more responsible decisions, evidenced by increased task-internal searching and stronger self-reported desire to change future shopping habits. The authors conclude that responsible consumption is a partial information problem in which awareness of one's own knowledge limitations catalyzes meaningful behavior change.

Significance. If the core distinction holds, the work offers a useful reframing of the intention-behavior gap in sustainable consumption, emphasizing metacognitive gap recognition over simple information provision. This could inform the design of search systems or decision-support tools that explicitly surface knowledge gaps. The study is strengthened by its reasonably large sample size and use of an active, product-relevant search task rather than purely hypothetical scenarios. However, the absence of objective behavioral measures limits the immediate applicability of the findings to real-world purchasing.

major comments (3)
  1. [Results and analysis sections] Results and analysis sections: The manuscript provides no details on the statistical methods, regression models, effect sizes, or controls used to demonstrate that recognition of knowledge gaps (rather than search activity or intentions) is the primary driver of the reported shifts. Without these, the central claim that recognition is the causal mechanism cannot be evaluated.
  2. [Experimental design and measures] Experimental design and measures: Behavior change is operationalized solely via self-reported increases in importance of ethical aspects, task-internal search volume, and stated desire to alter future habits within a single lab session. No objective purchase records, choice data from a marketplace simulation, or longitudinal tracking are reported, so the conclusion that gap recognition produces 'responsible purchasing decisions' rests on unvalidated proxies.
  3. [Discussion and limitations] Discussion and limitations: The paper does not address potential demand effects or social-desirability bias in the self-report measures of ethical importance and habit-change intentions, which are especially relevant given the explicit focus on ethical aspects.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract and introduction] The abstract and introduction could more clearly distinguish the pre-registered hypotheses from exploratory analyses regarding the relative roles of recognition versus search volume.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We appreciate the referee's detailed and constructive comments on our manuscript. We address each of the major concerns below and outline the revisions we plan to make to strengthen the paper.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The manuscript provides no details on the statistical methods, regression models, effect sizes, or controls used to demonstrate that recognition of knowledge gaps (rather than search activity or intentions) is the primary driver of the reported shifts. Without these, the central claim that recognition is the causal mechanism cannot be evaluated.

    Authors: We thank the referee for pointing this out. Upon review, we realize that the results section could benefit from more explicit details on our analytical approach. In the revised manuscript, we will expand the Results and Analysis sections to include: (1) the specific statistical tests and regression models employed (e.g., hierarchical linear regression to control for baseline intentions and search volume), (2) effect sizes (such as standardized beta coefficients and R-squared values), and (3) all control variables used. This will allow readers to better evaluate the claim that gap recognition is the key driver independent of search activity or prior intentions. We will also include supplementary materials with full model outputs if space is limited. revision: yes

  2. Referee: Behavior change is operationalized solely via self-reported increases in importance of ethical aspects, task-internal search volume, and stated desire to alter future habits within a single lab session. No objective purchase records, choice data from a marketplace simulation, or longitudinal tracking are reported, so the conclusion that gap recognition produces 'responsible purchasing decisions' rests on unvalidated proxies.

    Authors: We agree that objective behavioral measures would provide stronger evidence. However, our study design prioritized ecological validity within a controlled lab environment by having participants search for a product they were actively considering purchasing. Task-internal search volume serves as an objective behavioral proxy within the session, while self-reports capture immediate shifts in intentions. We acknowledge the limitations of not having post-session purchase data or longitudinal follow-up. In the revision, we will clarify these as proxies and add a dedicated paragraph in the Discussion section discussing this limitation, along with suggestions for future studies incorporating marketplace simulations or real purchase tracking. We maintain that the combination of measures supports our conclusions but will temper the language regarding 'responsible purchasing decisions' to 'shifts toward more responsible decision-making intentions'. revision: partial

  3. Referee: The paper does not address potential demand effects or social-desirability bias in the self-report measures of ethical importance and habit-change intentions, which are especially relevant given the explicit focus on ethical aspects.

    Authors: This is a valid concern, particularly in studies involving ethical consumption. In the revised manuscript, we will add to the Limitations section a discussion of potential demand effects and social desirability bias. We will describe the steps taken to mitigate these, such as using neutral language in instructions, ensuring participant anonymity, and framing the task as a general information search rather than an ethics evaluation. Additionally, we will report any checks for these biases if available in our data (e.g., correlations with social desirability scales if measured, or consistency across measures). If not, we will note this as a limitation and propose it for future work. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: empirical study grounded in participant data and observations

full rationale

The paper reports results from a controlled task-based experiment with 308 participants who searched for ethical product information. Central claims rest on measured pre/post changes in self-reported importance of ethical aspects, stated desire to alter habits, and observed search behavior within the session. No equations, fitted parameters, or derivations appear; findings are presented as direct outcomes of the study design rather than reductions to inputs by construction. Self-citations (if any) support background context but do not bear the load of the key result that recognition of knowledge gaps drove reported shifts. The analysis is self-contained against external benchmarks of experimental reporting and does not invoke uniqueness theorems or ansatzes from prior author work.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on the assumption that the experimental task and self-report measures validly capture real consumer decision processes and that the chosen ethical aspects generalize.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Self-reported changes in assigned importance to ethical aspects and stated future shopping intentions accurately predict actual purchasing behavior.
    The study measures shifts via self-report after a simulated shopping task and concludes these indicate behavior change.
  • domain assumption The eight ethical aspects presented are representative of the broader set of ethical considerations consumers face.
    The manipulation uses a fixed set of aspects for one product type.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5485 in / 1493 out tokens · 35251 ms · 2026-05-10T17:48:35.138559+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

75 extracted references · 75 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Icek Ajzen. 1985. From Intentions to Actions: A Theory of Planned Behavior. In Action Control: From Cognition to Behavior, Julius Kuhl and Jürgen Beckmann (Eds.). Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 11–39. https://doi.org/10. 1007/978-3-642-69746-3{_}2

    work page 1985

  2. [2]

    1970.The Market for "Lemons": Quality Uncertainty and the Market Mechanism

    George A Akerlof. 1970.The Market for "Lemons": Quality Uncertainty and the Market Mechanism. Technical Report 3. 488–500 pages. https://about.jstor.org/ terms

    work page 1970

  3. [3]

    Dolores Albarracin and Sharon Shavitt. 2018. Attitudes and attitude change. Annual Review of Psychology69 (4 jan 2018), 299–327. https://doi.org/10.1146/ annurev-psych-122216-011911

    work page 2018

  4. [4]

    Azzurra Annunziata, Sara Ianuario, and Paola Pascale. 2011. Consumers’ attitudes toward labelling of ethical products: The case of organic and fair trade products. Journal of Food Products Marketing17, 5 (10 2011), 518–535. https://doi.org/10. 1080/10454446.2011.618790

    work page arXiv 2011

  5. [5]

    Leif Azzopardi and Frans Van Der Sluis. 2024. Seeking Socially Responsible Consumers: Exploring the Intention-Search-Behaviour Gap. InProceedings of the 2024 Conference on Human Information Interaction and Retrieval (CHIIR ’24). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 153–164. https: //doi.org/10.1145/3627508.3638324

    work page doi:10.1145/3627508.3638324 2024

  6. [6]

    Aayushi Badhwar, Saniyat Islam, Caroline Swee Lin Tan, Tarun Panwar, Stephen Wigley, and Rajkishore Nayak. 2024. Unraveling green marketing and green- washing: A systematic review in the context of the fashion and textiles industry. Sustainability16, 7 (26 mar 2024), 2738. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16072738

    work page doi:10.3390/su16072738 2024

  7. [7]

    Yoav Bar-Anan and Brian A Nosek. 2014. A comparative investigation of seven indirect attitude measures.Behavior Research Methods46, 3 (sep 2014), 668–688. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-013-0410-6

    work page doi:10.3758/s13428-013-0410-6 2014

  8. [8]

    1986.Consumer Search: An Extended Framework

    Peter H Bloch, Daniel L Sherrell, and Nancy M Ridgway. 1986.Consumer Search: An Extended Framework. Technical Report

    work page 1986

  9. [9]

    Pia Borlund. 2016. A study of the use of simulated work task situations in interactive information retrieval evaluations.Journal of Documentation72, 3 (9 may 2016), 394–413. https://doi.org/10.1108/{JD}-06-2015-0068

    work page 2016

  10. [10]

    Erik Brynjolfsson and Michael D. Smith. 2000. Frictionless Commerce? A Com- parison of Internet and Conventional Retailers.Management Science46, 4 (apr 2000), 563–585. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.46.4.563.12061

    work page doi:10.1287/mnsc.46.4.563.12061 2000

  11. [11]

    Marylyn Carrigan, Isabelle Szmigin, and Joanne Wright. 2004. Shopping for a better world? An interpretive study of the potential for ethical consumption within the older market.Journal of Consumer Marketing21 (10 2004). https: //doi.org/10.1108/07363760410558672

    work page doi:10.1108/07363760410558672 2004

  12. [12]

    Corporate digital responsibility

    Michal J. Carrington, Benjamin A. Neville, and Gregory J. Whitwell. 2014. Lost in translation: Exploring the ethical consumer intention–behavior gap.Journal of business research67, 1 (jan 2014), 2759–2767. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres. 2012.09.022

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jbusres 2014

  13. [13]

    Beatriz Casais and Joana Faria. 2022. The Intention-Behavior gap in Ethical Consumption: Mediators, Moderators and Consumer Profiles Based on Ethical Priorities.Journal of Macromarketing42, 1 (mar 2022), 100–113. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/02761467211054836

    work page doi:10.1177/02761467211054836 2022

  14. [14]

    Beatriz Casais and Joana Faria. 2022. The Intention-Behavior gap in Ethical Consumption: Mediators, Moderators and Consumer Profiles Based on Ethical Priorities.Journal of Macromarketing42, 1 (3 2022), 100–113. https://doi.org/10. 1177/02761467211054836

    work page 2022

  15. [15]

    2021.Bryman’s Social Research Methods(6 ed.)

    Tom Clark, Liam Foster, Luke Sloan, and Alan Bryman. 2021.Bryman’s Social Research Methods(6 ed.). Oxford Univ Press, Oxford. 670 pages

    work page 2021

  16. [16]

    Iain Andrew Davies and Sabrina Gutsche. 2016. Consumer motivations for mainstream “ethical” consumption.European Journal of Marketing50, 7/8 (1 2016), 1326–1347. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-11-2015-0795

    work page doi:10.1108/ejm-11-2015-0795 2016

  17. [17]

    Sara de Sio, Giulia Casu, Alessandra Zamagni, and Paola Gremigni. 2024. Product Characteristics and Emotions to Bridge the Intention-Behavior Gap in Green Food Purchasing.Sustainability16, 17 (25 aug 2024), 7297. https://doi.org/10. 3390/su16177297

    work page 2024

  18. [18]

    Tim Draws, Nirmal Roy, Oana Inel, Alisa Rieger, Rishav Hada, Mehmet Orcun Yalcin, Benjamin Timmermans, and Nava Tintarev. 2023. Viewpoint Diversity in Search Results. InAdvances in Information Retrieval, Jaap Kamps, Lorraine Goeuriot, Fabio Crestani, Maria Maistro, Hideo Joho, Brian Davis, Cathal Gurrin, Udo Kruschwitz, and Annalina Caputo (Eds.). Springe...

    work page 2023

  19. [19]

    Pam Ellen, Joshua Wiener, and Cathy Cobb-Walgren. 1991. The Role of Perceived Consumer Effectiveness in Motivating Environmentally Conscious Behaviors. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing10 (9 1991), 102–117. https://doi.org/10. 1177/074391569101000206

    work page 1991

  20. [20]

    James F. Engel. 1994.Consumer Behavior (The Dryden Press Series in Marketing) (8th edition ed.). Harcourt, Fort Worth. 951 pages

    work page 1994

  21. [21]

    Yi Fang, Ashudeep Singh, and Zhiqiang Tao. 2024. Fairness in search systems. Foundations and Trends in Information Retrieval18, 3 (2024), 262–416. https: //doi.org/10.1561/1500000101

    work page doi:10.1561/1500000101 2024

  22. [22]

    Anindya Ghose, Panagiotis G Ipeirotis, and Beibei Li. 2014. Examining the Impact of Ranking on Consumer Behavior and Search Engine Revenue.Management Science60, 7 (2 2014), 1632–1654. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2013.1828

    work page doi:10.1287/mnsc.2013.1828 2014

  23. [23]

    Sheng, Xiaoqiang Qiao, Athanasios V

    Carola Grebitus, Rod D. Roscoe, Ellen J. Van Loo, and Irfan Kula. 2020. Sustain- able bottled water: How nudging and Internet Search affect consumers’choices. Journal of Cleaner Production267 (sep 2020), 121930. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Search Changes Consumers’ Minds CHIIR ’25, March 24–28, 2025, Melbourne, VIC, Australia jclepro.2020.121930

    work page doi:10.1016/j 2020

  24. [24]

    Todd Green and John Peloza. 2014. Finding the right shade of green: the effect of advertising appeal type on environmentally friendly consumption.Journal of Advertising43, 2 (3 apr 2014), 128–141. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2013. 834805

    work page doi:10.1080/00913367.2013 2014

  25. [25]

    Diana Gregory-Smith, Andrew Smith, and Heidi Winklhofer. 2013. Emotions and dissonance in ethical consumption choices.Journal of Marketing Management 29, 11-12 (aug 2013), 1201–1223. https://doi.org/10.1080/{0267257X}.2013.796320

    work page arXiv 2013

  26. [26]

    Vüsal Hasanzade, Victoria Sophie Osburg, and Waldemar Toporowski. 2018. Se- lecting decision-relevant ethical product attributes for grocery shopping.Manage- ment Decision56, 3 (3 2018), 591–609. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-12-2016-0946

    work page doi:10.1108/md-12-2016-0946 2018

  27. [27]

    Hernandez, Murilo Carrazedo M

    José Mauro C. Hernandez, Murilo Carrazedo M. Costa Filho, Donald R. Gaffney, and Frank R. Kardes. 2023. The benefits of deciding now and not later: The influence of the timing between acquiring knowledge and deciding on decision confidence, omission neglect bias, and choice deferral.Judgment and decision making18 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1017/jdm.2022.2

    work page doi:10.1017/jdm.2022.2 2023

  28. [28]

    1974.Brand Choice Behavior as a Function of Information Load

    Jacob Jacoby, Donald E Speller, and Carol A Kohn. 1974.Brand Choice Behavior as a Function of Information Load. Technical Report 1. 63–69 pages

    work page 1974

  29. [29]

    2022.The Better World Shopping Guide:: Every Dollar Makes a Difference

    Ellis Jones. 2022.The Better World Shopping Guide:: Every Dollar Makes a Difference. New Society Publishers

    work page 2022

  30. [30]

    Sebastian Jäger, Jessica Greene, Max Jakob, Ruben Korenke, Tilman Santarius, and Felix Biessmann. 2022. GreenDB: Toward a Product-by-Product Sustainability Database.arXiv(2022). https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2205.02908

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2205.02908 2022

  31. [31]

    Frank R Kardes, Steven S Posavac, David Silvera, Maria L Cronley, David M Sanbonmatsu, Susan Schertzer, Felicia Miller, Paul M Herr, and Murali Chan- drashekaran. 2006. Debiasing omission neglect.Journal of Business Research59, 6 (2006), 786–792. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2006.01.016

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2006.01.016 2006

  32. [32]

    Tony Ke, Zuo Jun Max Shen, and J

    T. Tony Ke, Zuo Jun Max Shen, and J. Miguel Villas-Boas. 2016. Search for information on multiple products.Management Science62, 12 (12 2016), 3576–

    work page 2016

  33. [33]

    https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2015.2316

    work page doi:10.1287/mnsc.2015.2316 2015

  34. [34]

    Kevin Lane Keller and Richard Staelin. 1987. Effects of Quality and Quantity of Information on Decision Effectiveness.Journal of Consumer Research14, 2 (9 1987), 200–213. https://doi.org/10.1086/209106

    work page doi:10.1086/209106 1987

  35. [35]

    Xiaoping Liu, Lijing Mao, and Wenxiang Deng. 2018. The influence of consumer mindset and corporate social responsility on purchase intention.Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal46, 10 (2018), 1647–1656

    work page 2018

  36. [36]

    Byeong-Joon Moon. 2004. Consumer adoption of the internet as an information search and product purchase channel: some research hypotheses.International Journal of Internet Marketing and Advertising1, 1 (1 2004), 104–118. https: //doi.org/10.1504/IJIMA.2004.003692

    work page doi:10.1504/ijima.2004.003692 2004

  37. [37]

    Johnson, and Tuan Khanh Cao

    Thi Thu Huong Nguyen, Zhi Yang, Ninh Nguyen, Lester W. Johnson, and Tuan Khanh Cao. 2019. Greenwash and green purchase intention: the me- diating role of green skepticism.Sustainability11, 9 (9 may 2019), 2653. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11092653

    work page doi:10.3390/su11092653 2019

  38. [38]

    Dara O’Rourke and Abraham Ringer. 2016. The impact of sustainability informa- tion on consumer decision making.Journal of Industrial Ecology20, 4 (aug 2016), 882–892. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12310

    work page doi:10.1111/jiec.12310 2016

  39. [39]

    Nil Ozcaglar-Toulouse, Edward Shiu, and Deirdre Shaw. 2006. In search of fair trade: Ethical consumer decision making in France.International Journal of Consumer Studies30, 5 (2006), 502–514. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1470-6431.2006. 00532.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1470-6431.2006 2006

  40. [40]

    Eleni Papaoikonomou, Carmen Valor, and Matias Ginieis. 2018. Looking for info? Understanding ethical consumer information management using a diary approach.Management Decision56, 3 (3 2018), 645–662. https://doi.org/10.1108/ MD-11-2016-0761

    work page 2018

  41. [41]

    Bruce E Pfeiffer, Hélène Deval, Frank R Kardes, Douglas R Ewing, Xiaoqi Han, and Maria L Cronley. 2014. Effects of Construal Level on Omission Detection and Multiattribute Evaluation.Psychology & Marketing31, 11 (11 2014), 992–1007. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20748

    work page doi:10.1002/mar.20748 2014

  42. [42]

    Girish N Punj and David W Stewart. 1983. An Interaction Framework of Con- sumer Decision Making.Journal of Consumer Research10, 2 (9 1983), 181–196. https://doi.org/10.1086/208958

    work page doi:10.1086/208958 1983

  43. [43]

    Ronald E Robertson, Jon Green, Damian J Ruck, Katherine Ognyanova, Christo Wilson, and David Lazer. 2023. Users choose to engage with more partisan news than they are exposed to on Google Search.Nature618, 7964 (jun 2023), 342–348. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-06078-5

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-023-06078-5 2023

  44. [44]

    Jennifer Rowley. 2000. Product search in e-shopping: a review and research propositions.Journal of Consumer Marketing17, 1 (1 feb 2000), 20–35. https: //doi.org/10.1108/07363760010309528

    work page doi:10.1108/07363760010309528 2000

  45. [45]

    Sanbonmatsu, Frank R

    David M. Sanbonmatsu, Frank R. Kardes, David C. Houghton, Edward A. Ho, and Steven S. Posavac. 2003. Overestimating the importance of the given information in multiattribute consumer judgment.Journal of Consumer Psychology13, 3 (jan 2003), 289–300. https://doi.org/10.1207/{S15327663JCP1303_10}

    work page 2003

  46. [46]

    Célia Santos, Arnaldo Coelho, and Alzira Marques. 2024. A systematic literature review on greenwashing and its relationship to stakeholders: state of art and future research agenda.Management Review Quarterly74, 3 (sep 2024), 1397–1421. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-023-00337-5

    work page doi:10.1007/s11301-023-00337-5 2024

  47. [47]

    Reijo Savolainen. 1993. The sense-making theory: Reviewing the interests of a user-centered approach to information seeking and use.Information Processing & Management29, 1 (jan 1993), 13–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/0306-4573(93)90020- E

    work page doi:10.1016/0306-4573(93)90020- 1993

  48. [48]

    Rosa Schleenbecker and Ulrich Hamm. 2015. Information needs for a purchase of fairtrade coffee.Sustainability (Switzerland)7, 5 (2015), 5944–5962. https: //doi.org/10.3390/su7055944

    work page doi:10.3390/su7055944 2015

  49. [49]

    Schmidt and Richard A

    Jeffrey B. Schmidt and Richard A. Spreng. 1996. A proposed model of external consumer information search.Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science24, 3 (1996), 246–256. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070396243005

    work page doi:10.1177/0092070396243005 1996

  50. [50]

    Deirdre Shaw, Gillian Hogg, Elaine Wilson, Edward Shiu, and Louise Hassan

    work page

  51. [51]

    Journal of Strategic Marketing14, 4 (2006), 427–440

    Fashion victim: The impact of fair trade concerns on clothing choice. Journal of Strategic Marketing14, 4 (2006), 427–440. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 09652540600956426

    work page 2006

  52. [52]

    Jagdish N Sheth, Nirmal K Sethia, and Shanthi Srinivas. 2011. Mindful consump- tion: a customer-centric approach to sustainability.Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science39 (2011), 21–39. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID: 53987253

    work page 2011

  53. [53]

    Smith and Soo Young Rieh

    Catherine L. Smith and Soo Young Rieh. 2019. Knowledge-Context in Search Systems: Toward Information-Literate Actions. InProceedings of the 2019 Con- ference on Human Information Interaction and Retrieval - CHIIR ’19. ACM Press, New York, New York, USA, 55–62. https://doi.org/10.1145/3295750.3298940

    work page doi:10.1145/3295750.3298940 2019

  54. [54]

    Lynn Sudbury-Riley and Florian Kohlbacher. 2016. Ethically minded consumer behavior: Scale review, development, and validation.Journal of Business Research 69, 8 (2016), 2697–2710. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.11.005

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.11.005 2016

  55. [55]

    Olof Sundin, Dirk Lewandowski, and Jutta Haider. 2021. Whose relevance? Web search engines as multisided relevance machines.Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology73, 5 (21 aug 2021), 637–642. https: //doi.org/10.1002/asi.24570

    work page doi:10.1002/asi.24570 2021

  56. [56]

    Outi Uusitalo and Reetta Oksanen. 2004. Ethical consumerism: A view from Finland.International Journal of Consumer Studies28, 3 (2004), 214–221. https: //doi.org/10.1111/j.1470-6431.2003.00339.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1470-6431.2003.00339.x 2004

  57. [57]

    Frans van der Sluis. 2025. Wanting information: Uncertainty and its reduction through search engagement.Information Processing & Management62, 2 (mar 2025), 103890. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2024.103890

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ipm.2024.103890 2025

  58. [58]

    Frans Van der Sluis, Julien Faure, and Sofie Phutachard Homnual. 2024. An empirical exploration of the subjectivity problem of information qualities.Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology75, 7 (25 mar 2024), 829–

    work page 2024

  59. [59]

    https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24884

    work page doi:10.1002/asi.24884

  60. [60]

    van den Broek, Richard J

    Frans van der Sluis, Egon L. van den Broek, Richard J. Glassey, Elisabeth M. A. G. van Dijk, and Franciska M. G. de Jong. 2014. When Complexity becomes Interesting.Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 65, 7 (2014), 1478–1500. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23095

    work page doi:10.1002/asi.23095 2014

  61. [61]

    van den Broek, and Betsy van Dijk

    Frans van der Sluis, Egon L. van den Broek, and Betsy van Dijk. 2010. Information Retrieval eXperience (IRX): Towards a Human-Centered Personalized Model of Relevance. In2010 IEEE/WIC/ACM International Conference on Web Intelligence and Intelligent Agent Technology, Vol. 3. IEEE, 322–325. https://doi.org/10.1109/ {WI}-{IAT}.2010.222

    work page 2010

  62. [62]

    Frans van der Sluis, Tim van der Zee, and Jasper Ginn. 2017. Learning about Learning at Scale: Methodological Challenges and Recommendations. InProceed- ings of the Fourth (2017) ACM Conference on Learning @ Scale. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 131–140. https://doi.org/10.1145/3051457.3051461

    work page doi:10.1145/3051457.3051461 2017

  63. [63]

    Ward and Michael J

    Michael R. Ward and Michael J. Lee. 2000. Internet shopping, consumer search and product branding.Journal of Product & Brand Management9, 1 (feb 2000), 6–20. https://doi.org/10.1108/10610420010316302

    work page doi:10.1108/10610420010316302 2000

  64. [64]

    Martinez

    Marie Wiederhold and Luis F. Martinez. 2018. Ethical consumer behaviour in Germany: The attitude-behaviour gap in the green apparel industry.International Journal of Consumer Studies42, 4 (7 2018), 419–429. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs. 12435

    work page doi:10.1111/ijcs 2018

  65. [65]

    Yusuke Yamamoto and Takehiro Yamamoto. 2018. Query priming for promoting critical thinking in web search. InProceedings of the 2018 Conference on Human Information Interaction and Retrieval (CHIIR ’18). ACM Press, New York, New York, USA, 12–21. https://doi.org/10.1145/3176349.3176377

    work page doi:10.1145/3176349.3176377 2018

  66. [66]

    William Young, Kumju Hwang, Seonaidh McDonald, and Caroline J. Oates. 2010. Sustainable consumption: Green consumer behaviour when purchasing products. Sustainable Development18, 1 (1 2010), 20–31. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.394

    work page doi:10.1002/sd.394 2010

  67. [67]

    [Aspect Name]

    Katrin Zander and Ulrich Hamm. 2012. Information search behaviour and its determinants: The case of ethical attributes of organic food.International Journal of Consumer Studies36, 3 (5 2012), 307–316. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1470- 6431.2011.00998.x Search Changes Consumers’ Minds CHIIR ’25, March 24–28, 2025, Melbourne, VIC, Australia Supplementary Mate...

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1470- 2012

  68. [68]

    Positive Comments (Ease of Sense Making): Comments that describe how people could make sense of the informa- tion available for an aspect, or where (the ease of) sense making contributed to a change in their valuation of the importance of sustainable/responsible/ethical aspects

    work page

  69. [69]

    Negative Comments (Difficulties in Sense Making): Com- ments that describe how people could not make sense of the information, or the information was not available for an aspect, or where (difficulties in) sense making hindered an impact on their valuation of the importance of sustain- able/responsible/ethical aspects

    work page

  70. [70]

    Positive Comments (Decision-Making Recognition): Com- ments that describe people who changed their mind regard- ing their purchasing decision, recognized a gap in their understanding about an aspect, or where a gap contributed to a change in their valuation of the importance of sustain- able/responsible aspects

    work page

  71. [71]

    Negative Comments (No Decision-Making Recognition): Comments that describe people who did not change their mind regarding their purchasing decision, did not recognize a gap in their understanding about an aspect, or where a gap did not contribute to a change in their valuation of the importance of sustainable/responsible aspects

    work page

  72. [72]

    [comment]

    Other Comments (Not about Sense Making or Decision Making): Other comments that do not fit into the previous categories. Comment: “[comment]” Instructions: - List the most relevant tags that apply to the comment. - Only output the tag numbers and names (not descriptions). - Output in a comma-separated format. Comment Tagging and Categorization This prompt...

    work page 2025

  73. [73]

    I rarely ever consider child labour or employment rights when I buy things

    “Not at all. I rarely ever consider child labour or employment rights when I buy things. Most products are manufactured in China so it is pretty much a given that forced labour has at one point happend.” (Participant 189, Low EMCB)

    work page

  74. [74]

    Not that much as I’m not into ideologies

    “Not that much as I’m not into ideologies.” (Participant 76, High EMCB)

    work page

  75. [75]

    I am only interested in the brand name and product quality. DEI policies have no influence on my decision making

    “I am only interested in the brand name and product quality. DEI policies have no influence on my decision making.” (Par- ticipant 88, High EMCB) Examples of Apathy These comments show that for some, ethical concerns are sec- ondary, often overshadowed by more practical considerations

    work page