Search results

The online sourcing, supply, and purchase of illicit drugs is fast transforming drug markets worldwide. Although the long-term development of simple communications technology over time (from pagers to mobile phones) continues to impact and extend local drug supply dynamics, it is the recent developments of dark web cryptomarkets, social media applications (like Instagram), encrypted messaging applications (like WhatsApp), and surface web platforms, such as LeafedOut, that are changing the drug supply landscape online. The use of technology in drug supply has tended to go hand in hand with improving the efficiency of supply and opportunities to reduce exchange-related risks for both buyers and sellers. In relation to app-mediated supply, for example, the use of encrypted messaging provides enhanced security for arranging purchases beyond the lurking surveillance of law enforcement. Despite the perception of improved safety, however, the use of social media apps and other online platforms can expose both buyers and sellers to risk scenarios they may not fully appreciate. Drawing on two recent studies on the use of social media apps and the online platform LeafedOut as mediators of drugs supply, this chapter will consider how these mid-range (between cryptomarkets and traditional telecommunications such as basic texting/calling and material ‘street’ markets) virtual spaces are being utilised for drug supply and the extent to which this is ‘just more of the same’ or provides new structures and experiences for those engaging with it and in what ways. Consideration will also be given to contradictions in the mid-range market space where the broad perception of reduced risk from the use of encrypted messaging can in fact produce greater levels of risk for some buyers and sellers depending on how they engage with the process/es.

The present study aimed to investigate whether male consumers report weaker green consumption values than their female counterparts, and whether such a presumed sex difference, at least in part, can be explained by different levels of intrasexual competition. In other words, the study tested the notion that intrasexual competition acts as a psychological mechanism explaining why male (vs female) consumers are sometimes less prone to prefer and purchase sustainable goods, with their higher tendency to compete with same-sex rivals making them less likely to engage in green consumption.

The study was based on a large cross-sectional survey, in which a final sample of 1,382 participants (823 female and 559 male) provided complete responses on well-validated scales measuring intrasexual competition and green consumption values. The large sample size implies that even small effect sizes could be detected with high statistical power. The data were analyzed using a series of Mann–Whitney U tests to compare the responses made by male and female participants. Subsequently, multiple linear regressions as well as regression-based mediation and moderation analyses were performed with control variables added to show robustness of the results, test the proposed chain of events, and demonstrate generalizability.

Male (vs female) participants expressed significantly higher levels of intrasexual competition both generally and on the two subdimensions corresponding to superiority striving and inferiority irritation. Further, they were slightly less inclined to express green consumption values. Importantly, the sex difference in green consumption values was mediated by inferiority irritation as well as the entire intrasexual competition scale but not by superiority striving. Thus, men's inferiority irritation, in particular, and their more pronounced propensity to compete with same-sex rivals, in general, drove them away from green consumption, whereas women's weaker willingness to compete with same-sex rivals instead increased their inclination of “going green.”

Drawing on findings from the domains of competitiveness and gender stereotypes, the current research demonstrates a novel mechanism through which green consumption responses can be understood. Specifically, this study provides empirical evidence for the mediating role of intrasexual competition, especially regarding the more negatively charged subdimension of inferiority irritation, in explaining why male and female consumers may differ in terms of their green consumption values. The present research also contributes to the literature by questioning the unidimensional structure of the intrasexual competition scale and showing that the negative (vs positive) subdimension of this scale is more influential in explaining sex-differentiated patterns in consumers' green consumption values, thereby supporting the notion that “bad is stronger than good.”