Claire Beach, Sitong Michelle Chen, Michael S. W. Lee
{"title":"培养消费者的矛盾心态:理解可持续发展中的紧张关系","authors":"Claire Beach, Sitong Michelle Chen, Michael S. W. Lee","doi":"10.1007/s13162-025-00304-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Greening, or adopting sustainable business practices, requires firms to balance economic, environmental, and social goals, which often creates tensions in sustainability. Firms frequently employ paradoxical logic to manage these tensions, pursuing these objectives simultaneously and without prioritization. However, using paradoxical logic may make it difficult for firms to communicate their greening initiatives to consumers. Messages that conflict with consumers' existing mental frameworks may amplify perceived tensions, arousing cognitive dissonance. Consumers with limited paradox mindsets may be unable to make sense of these tensions or tolerate their cognitive dissonance, prompting them to avoid or exit the firm or question its commitment to greening. To reduce these risks, greening firms need to consider and actively develop consumers’ paradox mindsets when crafting their sustainability communications. This paper draws on connections between cognitive dissonance and sensemaking to develop a conceptual model that illustrates how greening firms can develop consumers’ paradox mindsets. Through this iterative process, firms challenge consumers’ existing mental frameworks and offer sense-giving narratives that reframe tensions in sustainability as interdependent and complementary, reducing consumers’ cognitive dissonance. By tailoring their messages to align with consumers’ varying receptivity to paradoxical logic and sensitivity to tensions in sustainability, greening firms can craft coherent narratives that promote consumer engagement with the sensemaking process. When this process is successful, greening firms can develop consumers’ paradox mindsets and, thus, their ability to make sense of tensions in sustainability. This paper extends the literature on paradox mindset development from managers and employees to firm-consumer communications.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":7786,"journal":{"name":"AMS Review","volume":"15 1-2","pages":"289 - 300"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s13162-025-00304-1.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Developing consumers’ paradox mindsets: Making sense of tensions in sustainability\",\"authors\":\"Claire Beach, Sitong Michelle Chen, Michael S. W. Lee\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s13162-025-00304-1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Greening, or adopting sustainable business practices, requires firms to balance economic, environmental, and social goals, which often creates tensions in sustainability. Firms frequently employ paradoxical logic to manage these tensions, pursuing these objectives simultaneously and without prioritization. However, using paradoxical logic may make it difficult for firms to communicate their greening initiatives to consumers. Messages that conflict with consumers' existing mental frameworks may amplify perceived tensions, arousing cognitive dissonance. Consumers with limited paradox mindsets may be unable to make sense of these tensions or tolerate their cognitive dissonance, prompting them to avoid or exit the firm or question its commitment to greening. To reduce these risks, greening firms need to consider and actively develop consumers’ paradox mindsets when crafting their sustainability communications. This paper draws on connections between cognitive dissonance and sensemaking to develop a conceptual model that illustrates how greening firms can develop consumers’ paradox mindsets. Through this iterative process, firms challenge consumers’ existing mental frameworks and offer sense-giving narratives that reframe tensions in sustainability as interdependent and complementary, reducing consumers’ cognitive dissonance. By tailoring their messages to align with consumers’ varying receptivity to paradoxical logic and sensitivity to tensions in sustainability, greening firms can craft coherent narratives that promote consumer engagement with the sensemaking process. When this process is successful, greening firms can develop consumers’ paradox mindsets and, thus, their ability to make sense of tensions in sustainability. This paper extends the literature on paradox mindset development from managers and employees to firm-consumer communications.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7786,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"AMS Review\",\"volume\":\"15 1-2\",\"pages\":\"289 - 300\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s13162-025-00304-1.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"AMS Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13162-025-00304-1\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Business, Management and Accounting\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AMS Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13162-025-00304-1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Business, Management and Accounting","Score":null,"Total":0}
Developing consumers’ paradox mindsets: Making sense of tensions in sustainability
Greening, or adopting sustainable business practices, requires firms to balance economic, environmental, and social goals, which often creates tensions in sustainability. Firms frequently employ paradoxical logic to manage these tensions, pursuing these objectives simultaneously and without prioritization. However, using paradoxical logic may make it difficult for firms to communicate their greening initiatives to consumers. Messages that conflict with consumers' existing mental frameworks may amplify perceived tensions, arousing cognitive dissonance. Consumers with limited paradox mindsets may be unable to make sense of these tensions or tolerate their cognitive dissonance, prompting them to avoid or exit the firm or question its commitment to greening. To reduce these risks, greening firms need to consider and actively develop consumers’ paradox mindsets when crafting their sustainability communications. This paper draws on connections between cognitive dissonance and sensemaking to develop a conceptual model that illustrates how greening firms can develop consumers’ paradox mindsets. Through this iterative process, firms challenge consumers’ existing mental frameworks and offer sense-giving narratives that reframe tensions in sustainability as interdependent and complementary, reducing consumers’ cognitive dissonance. By tailoring their messages to align with consumers’ varying receptivity to paradoxical logic and sensitivity to tensions in sustainability, greening firms can craft coherent narratives that promote consumer engagement with the sensemaking process. When this process is successful, greening firms can develop consumers’ paradox mindsets and, thus, their ability to make sense of tensions in sustainability. This paper extends the literature on paradox mindset development from managers and employees to firm-consumer communications.
AMS ReviewBusiness, Management and Accounting-Marketing
CiteScore
14.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
17
期刊介绍:
The AMS Review is positioned to be the premier journal in marketing that focuses exclusively on conceptual contributions across all sub-disciplines of marketing. It publishes articles that advance the development of market and marketing theory.The AMS Review is receptive to different philosophical perspectives and levels of analysis that range from micro to macro. Especially welcome are manuscripts that integrate research and theory from non-marketing disciplines such as management, sociology, economics, psychology, geography, anthropology, or other social sciences. Examples of suitable manuscripts include those incorporating conceptual and organizing frameworks or models, those extending, comparing, or critically evaluating existing theories, and those suggesting new or innovative theories. Comprehensive and integrative syntheses of research literatures (including quantitative and qualitative meta-analyses) are encouraged, as are paradigm-shifting manuscripts.Manuscripts that focus on purely descriptive literature reviews, proselytize research methods or techniques, or report empirical research findings will not be considered for publication. The AMS Review does not publish manuscripts focusing on practitioner advice or marketing education.