No description available.

Cognitive dissonance theory and selective information exposure literature postulate that individuals ignore preference-inconsistent information and selectively process new information. Previous studies on selective information exposure have shown that preference-inconsistent information is not persuasive for consumer decision making. Given the limited amount of past research about the effect of preference-inconsistent information on decision-making in broad domains of consumer behavior studies, the current study investigated how preference-inconsistent information can persuade consumers to switch to a sustainable product alternative. The purpose of this study is to investigate the process how preference-inconsistent sustainability-related information can be considered as important, consequently changing consumers' initial preference to green alternatives. A series of online experiments was conducted using a shampoo product category. Study 1 tested a baseline effect on whether consumers in the preference-inconsistent condition were persuaded to change their initial choice significantly compared to those in the preference-consistent condition. Study 2 tested the effect of preference-inconsistent sustainability-related information in the acceptance process, focusing on the role of brand commitment and information quality. Study 3 examined the effect of preference-inconsistent sustainability-related information in the evaluation process, investigating the impact of consumer environmental concern and PCE. Findings of Study 1 revealed that consumers in the preference-inconsistent condition were significantly persuaded to change choice to a sustainable alternative, which is not consistent with selective exposure literature. However, Study 1 findings were not sufficient to determine what specific factors influenced respondents to be persuaded, which provides justifications for Study 2 and Study 3. Findings in Study 2 and Study 3 conclusively demonstrated the importance of the credibility of preference-inconsistent information in the acceptance process. Also, findings suggested that the effect of credibility is stronger than that of brand commitment in the acceptance process. Regarding brand commitment, the results have shown that high commitment consumers had a higher acceptance of inconsistent information which is opposite to expectations. Further, the findings demonstrated the importance of environmental concern and the conditional effect of PCE in the evaluation process. Moreover, results supported that the relative weighting of sustainability attributes is driving the effects of environmental concern and PCE as a mediator on persuasion outcomes in the evaluation process. The current study contributes to understanding the process in which the preference-inconsistent information can be effective in influencing consumer choice. Moreover, findings from this research can provide implications for selective exposure literature and sustainable consumption literature. Practically, the results of the study provide implications to guide marketers and information providers in establishing effective ways to change consumers' behavior in sustainable consumption context.