Correction to “Anti-Consumption Research: A Systematic Literature Review and Research Agenda”

Garima, Sangroya, D., and Y. Joshi. 2025. “Anti-Consumption Research: A Systematic Literature Review and Research Agenda.” International Journal of Consumer Studies, 49: e70014. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.70014.

Correction 1:

  

  

In Table 1, Serial No. 82, the journal name has been mistakenly replaced with the title.

  

  

Incorrect text:

This should have read:

  

  

  

Correction 2:

  

  

Correction to sections: 3.3.1.1 Personal Factors

 3.3.1.2 Social Cultural Factors

 3.3.1.3 Lifestyle-related Factors

 3.3.2.1 Attitudinal Factors

Description of error:

The numbered headings under the sections mentioned above were incorrect.

  

  

Incorrect text:

  

  

These headings should read as:

  

  

  

Correction 3:

Correction to Section 4.1.3 Self-Determination Theory

  

  

Description of error:

“Self-Determination Theory” should be used instead of the abbreviation “SDT” throughout the section.

  

  

Incorrect text:

SDT functions as a comprehensive framework exploring the dynamics of human motivation by emphasizing the intrinsic and extrinsic factors driving behavior (Gilal et al. 2019). The usage of for understanding AC behavior fills the existing gaps in the literature that has primarily focused on individual attitudes and motivations without fully examining the underlying psychological needs. Emphasizing the significance of meeting three fundamental psychological needs autonomy, competence, and relatedness, SDT elucidates how the fulfillment of these needs fosters well-being (Gilal et al. 2019). In the area of green consumption, SDT has been employed to investigate consumers' environmentally conscious behaviors and found that fulfillment of consumers' three psychological needs positively affects their environmental attitude (Wang et al. 2024). Thus, future research may use SDT and explain how fulfilling consumers' psychological needs can promote and sustain AC behavior. Specifically, researchers can investigate how enhancing individuals' skills and knowledge related to AC practices can boost their sense of competence and encourage AC behaviors. Further, future research can examine whether fostering a sense of relatedness through social support networks and community engagement can promote AC behaviors. Therefore, by integrating SDT into AC research, scholars can gain a deeper understanding on the role of autonomy, competence, and relatedness in influencing AC behavior.

Based on the previous discussion, we propose that future studies use social learning theory, behavioral reasoning theory, and SDT to examine the multifaceted drivers of AC behavior comprehensively. Specifically, by exploring how social influences, individual reasoning processes, and psychological needs interact and shape attitudes and behaviors toward reducing consumption, this comprehensive approach provides a thorough understanding of the motivations and barriers linked with AC behavior.

  

  

This text should read as:

Self-determination theory functions as a comprehensive framework exploring the dynamics of human motivation by emphasizing the intrinsic and extrinsic factors driving behavior (Gilal et al. 2019). The usage of self-determination theory for understanding AC behavior fills the existing gaps in the literature that has primarily focused on individual attitudes and motivations without fully examining the underlying psychological needs. Emphasizing the significance of meeting three fundamental psychological needs autonomy, competence, and relatedness, self-determination theory elucidates how the fulfillment of these needs fosters well-being (Gilal et al. 2019). In the area of green consumption, self-determination theory has been employed to investigate consumers' environmentally conscious behaviors and found that fulfillment of consumers' three psychological needs positively affects their environmental attitude (Wang et al. 2024). Thus, future research may use self-determination theory and explain how fulfilling consumers' psychological needs can promote and sustain AC behavior. Specifically, researchers can investigate how enhancing individuals' skills and knowledge related to AC practices can boost their sense of competence and encourage AC behaviors. Further, future research can examine whether fostering a sense of relatedness through social support networks and community engagement can promote AC behaviors. Therefore, by integrating self-determination theory into AC research, scholars can gain a deeper understanding on the role of autonomy, competence, and relatedness in influencing AC behavior.

Based on the previous discussion, we propose that future studies use social learning theory, behavioral reasoning theory, and self-determination theory to examine the multifaceted drivers of AC behavior comprehensively. Specifically, by exploring how social influences, individual reasoning processes, and psychological needs interact and shape attitudes and behaviors toward reducing consumption, this comprehensive approach provides a thorough understanding of the motivations and barriers linked with AC behavior.

  

  

Correction 4:

  

  

Description of error:

The abbreviation for “Behavioral Reasoning Theory (BRT)” is not included in Section 4.1.2.

  

  

Incorrect text:

Section 4.1.2 Behavioral Reasoning Theory

  

  

The heading should read as:

Section 4.1.2 Behavioral Reasoning Theory (BRT)

  

  

  

Correction 5:

Correction to the paragraph in Section 4.4 Methods

  

  

Incorrect text:

The AC literature demonstrates a range of methodological approaches. However, the synthesis conducted for this review indicates that among the 73 studies selected, the majority employed quantitative (26 studies), qualitative (18 studies), content analysis (8 studies), or conceptual methods (14 studies).

  

  

This should have read:

The AC literature demonstrates a range of methodological approaches. However, the synthesis conducted for this review indicates that among the 86 studies selected, the majority employed quantitative (27 studies), qualitative (29 studies), content analysis (16 studies), or conceptual methods (14 studies).

  

  

Correction 6:

  

  

Correction to Figure 3

Figure 3 has been updated and should be in black and white.

We apologize for these errors.