Awareness of wasteful consumption refers to the understanding and recognizing excessive or inefficient use of resources (Hanif et al., 2021, p. 123), and significantly influences individuals’ emotions toward wasteful consumption practices (Hanif et al., 2022; Zhang et al., 2025). This awareness aligns with the conservation of resources theory, which suggests that individuals are inherently motivated to protect their physical, social, and psychological resources (Schwartz, 1977). A growing body of literature demonstrates that increased awareness triggers adverse emotional responses such as anxiety, stress, and fear (Subramanian et al., 2022). However, the literature does not significantly identify the role of recognizing one’s wasteful behaviors in the context of e-waste generation. It is reasonable to assume that heightened awareness of wasteful consumption practices can make consumers more concerned about their actions, thereby triggering anxiety, fear, or worry towards wastefulness—termed as wastophobia. Therefore, considering based on the claims of Subramanian et al. (2022), Hanif et al. (2022), and Schwartz (1977), this study assumes that awareness of wasteful consumption can significantly impact wastophobia.

Awareness of consequences is a cognitive state wherein individuals understand the consequential impacts of their actions on health, communities, and ecosystems (Ryan and Spash, 2012, p. 2509; Schwartz, 1977). According to norm activation theory, such awareness activates personal norms which not only activate ethical standards but also promote sustainable consumption behavior (Schwartz, 1977). This heightened awareness makes individuals sensitive toward their personal needs (Harland et al., 2007) and compels them to reassess the ramifications of actions affecting human health and the environmental (Wang et al., 2018). According to Ryan and Spash (2012), such consciousness is a fundamental pillar of ethical standards. A recent study of Badawi et al. (2024) supports this claim, portraying that consumer possessing heightened awareness of consequences are more likely to boost their environmental behavioral intentions regarding plastic waste management. Despite that awareness of consequences significantly boosts anxieties for climate change concerns, however, none of the studies has identified awareness of consequences’ silent role in identifying the anxieties associated with wasteful consumption practices—encapsulated in the concept of wastophobia. This study posits that it is more likely that heightened awareness of consequences can lead to the development of wastophobia in consumer behavior, characterized by feelings of fear, dismay, and shame. Thus, the present study postulates that heightened awareness of consequences can significantly activate wastophobia in consumer behavior.

The section of the literature review examines the association among wastophobia and various behavioral outcomes, including consumer advocacy, creative performance, moral courage, and pro-environmental conduct of consumers. Initially, Consumer advocacy refers to activities that protect consumer interests, rights, promote informed choices, and encourage ethical practices. Advocacy for consumers’ aims to empower consumers’ concerns during the time of change (Chelminski and Coulter, 2011 p. 362). Their study further indicates that consumer advocacy is related to complaining behavior; it empowers consumers to voice their dissatisfaction and adapt to change. Padhy (2015) explains that fear appeals significantly influence consumer advocacy in the context of smoking quitting behavior and brands acceptance (Jayasimha et al., 2017). However, no research has been conducted to date on the impact of wastophobia on consumer advocacy, particularly regarding the extension of product lifecycle by controlling planned obsolescence. In this context, we assume that potential customers would demand more sustainable and efficient appliances if their level of wastophobia grows. It is assumed that consumers who are more possessive towards e-waste and their consequences are more likely to seek products with extended lifespan. Consequently, this research proposes the following hypothesis in consideration of the arguments put forth by Jayasimha et al. (2017) and Parvatiyar and Sheth (2023). Therefore, based on the argument of Jayasimha et al. (2017) and Parvatiyar and Sheth (2023) this study postulates that wastophobia can significantly influence consumer advocacy towards sustainable electronic goods consumption and e-waste reduction.

Creative performance is the ability to generate new and innovative ideas or solutions to the complex problems (Amabile, 1993, p. 364). It encompasses numerous characteristics, including innovation, elegance, originality, and ability to solve poorly structured issues (Mumford and Gustafson, 2007). Intrinsic motivation is a powerful driver of creativity (Amabile, 1988) which unfolds over time in a systematic way (Clydesdale, 2006). Organizations aiming to improve their competitive position need to promote employees’ creative performance (Mumford et al., 2023). Moreover, Gabriel (2023) propagates that the fear of failure significantly enhances the creative performance of employees. Although the literature synthesizes that fear significantly impacts the creativity and creative performance of employees, there is a notable gap in the literature regarding the impact of wastophobia on consumer creative performance. Consumers with a high intensity of wastophobia will likely think more creatively, innovatively, and elegantly to develop innovative ideas for e-waste minimization by enhancing their creative performance. Therefore, building upon the argument of Mumford et al. (2023) and Gabriel (2023), the present study postulates that wastophobia can significantly enhance creative performance.

Moral courage is the tendency of individuals to act according to customs, norms, and values of society and remain steadfast in their views, even in the face of potential penalties, such as social exclusion (Kidder and McLeod, 2005, p. 201). Past research has demonstrated that witnessing wrongdoing often inspires individuals’ moral courage (Miller, 2002) to perform ethically when they recognize the detrimental consequences of their choices (Aydin and Yildirim, 2021). Capoano et al. (2024) supported this claim by arguing that youngsters with a heightened awareness of the detrimental environmental consequences of their unsustainable consumption practices are more likely to adopt greener morals. Social cognitive theory supports this claim by arguing that moral courage is the outcome of personal, social, and environmental factors (Bandura, 2002). Thus, existing research synthesized that morally courageous individuals are more conscious of their actions (Ogunfowora et al., 2021) and their associated negative environmental costs (Hannah et al., 2011). Despite that, there remained a significant gap in the literature to explore the potential impact of wastophobia on moral courage. Despite that, there remained a significant gap in the literature to explore the potential impact of wastophobia on moral courage. Wastophobia may encourage moral courage, facilitating consumers to act ethically and align their behavior with ethical standards of sustainable consumption. Therefore, building on the insights from Kidder and McLeod (2005), Miller (2002), Bandura (2002), Ogunfowora et al. (2021), and Capoano et al. (2024), the present study hypothesizes that wastophobia can significantly promote moral courage.

Pro-environmental behavior encompasses actions aimed at minimizing environmental impact and promoting sustainability (Schultz, 2014, p. 108). Past research portrays a positive association between climate change anxiety and environmentally responsible behavior (Clayton and Karazsia, 2020). Individuals who are more conscious of the detrimental effects of climate change are more likely to participate in environmentally responsible behaviors (Parvatiyar and Sheth, 2023). Furthermore, conscious consumer regarding climate change anxiety demonstrate their commitment to being good stewards of the environment and prefer greener behaviors (Shimul et al., 2024). However, there is a notable gap in the literature examining the role of wastophobia on pro-environmental behavior. None of the studies have examined how consumers respond to anxieties associated with wastophobia. To cover this gap, the present study posits that wastophobia can motivate consumers to rethink their consumption practices, especially when it comes to electronic consumption where there is a tendency to frequently discard electronic gadgets which are linked to environmental damage. Research has demonstrated that when consumers experience anxiety or fear-based emotions associated with wastophobia, they are more likely to adopt pro-environmental behavior. Therefore, based on the arguments of Clayton and Karazsia (2020), Parvatiyar and Sheth (2023), and Shimul et al. (2024), the presented study hypothesizes that consumers will respond more positively to develop pro-environmental behavior when they get familiar with wastophobia.

According to González-Rodríguez et al. (2019), awareness challenges established norms and promotes consumer advocacy for a sustainable future. Awareness is the initial step that enables consumers to boost their creative performance as a means to align their actions with their values (Mumford et al., 2023; Brown and Treviño, 2014). Ganu (2018) highlighted that awareness of consequences often results in moral courage. In line with this, norm activation theory also postulates that awareness of consequences significantly activates personal norms and compels individuals to act morally (Schwartz, 1977). Parvatiyar and Sheth (2023) argued that awareness pushes individuals to strengthen their pro-environmental intentions for the preservation of the environment. The addressed literature synthesizes that awareness significantly promotes consumer advocacy, creative performance, moral courage, and pro-environmental behavior. However, none of the studies has attempted to examine the role of awareness in the context of recognizing one’s wasteful consumption practices and their consequential impact on discussed behavioral outcomes including consumer advocacy, creative performance, moral courage, and pro-environmental behavior through the mediation of wastophobia–fear of wasteful consumption. It is more likely that heightened wastophobia can significantly strengthen the association between awareness of wasteful consumption, awareness of consequences, consumer advocacy, creative performance, moral courage, and pro-environmental behavior. Therefore, based on the identified literature gaps, the present postulate that wastophobia can significantly mediate between awareness and multiple behavioral outcomes.

This study employs two theoretical lenses including the theory of interpersonal behavior (TIB) (Donovan, 2011) and a comprehensive model of environmental psychology (Klockner, 2013) to develop a theoretical framework (see Figure 3). The key purpose is to explore the antecedents and consequences of wastophobia, which remained overlooked in the past literature. Additionally, to explore the association of cognitive and emotional factors to promote sustainable consumption behavior, and reduce the tendency of product discard, and planned obsolescence. TIB addresses the complexities in human behavior, which is difficult to predict accurately (Bravi et al., 2020). Past researchers highlight that solely focusing on cognitive aspects is inadequate for understanding the motivation behind wasteful consumption behavior and emphasizing the need for an integrated approach that combines cognitive and emotional factors (Filimonau et al., 2020). The TIB lens advocates this integration by postulating that behavioral responses toward e-waste are indeed complex and multifaceted (Ibrahim et al., 2018). Therefore, the study posits that cognitive (i.e., awareness of wasteful consumption and awareness of consequences) and emotional factors (i.e., wastophobia) would jointly promote and maintain sustainable consumption behavior. Therefore, the present research particularly investigates the contribution of cognitive factors (awareness of wasteful consumption and awareness of consequences), along with the emotional reactions associated with wastophobia (Hanif et al., 2022) to the reduction of e-waste. The major justifications for selecting these variables include: (a) contemporary studies highlight a significant relationship between emotions associated with waste (Roberts et al., 2017). In addition, (b) the improper disposal of waste causes emotional reactions such as guilt and grief, where guilt regarding the waste can motivate individuals to reassess their behavior on moral grounds (Clayton and Karazsia, 2020). Finally, (c) it is also true that moral courage is related to having self-determination (Karbasi, 2024) because it can encourage responsible consumption practices and discourage practices that negatively affect the environment for a long time.

The CMEP model simultaneously grasps the core psychological aspects that motivate individuals to act in favor of maintaining a healthy environment (Klockner, 2013). Central to this model, wastophobia is incorporated as a significant emotional factor, which encompasses feelings of fear, shame, guilt, and dismay. The study posits that when consumers experience heightened wastophobia, they become more likely to be aware of the consequences that are posed by inefficient consumption practices, triggering feelings of guilt, that lead to behavioral changes and planning for waste accumulation. This framework postulates that fostering emotional engagement through boosting wastophobia enhances consumer advocacy, moral courage, creative performance, and pro-environmental behaviors, consequently promoting sustainable consumption practices by addressing the challenges of e-waste.

The combination of TIB and CMEP offers a robust integrated theoretical framework (see Figure 2) for comprehensively understanding the mechanism of cognitive and emotional factors influencing e-waste reduction intentions. The presented model overcomes the shortcomings of behavioral theories, such as the theory of planned behavior, which does not adequately explain the role of emotions, its weaker explanatory power, and the complexities associated with behavioral intentions. Specifically, this model provides a ground to understand the factors that can contribute to the occurrence of wastophobia as well as the repercussions of the phenomena on sustainable consumption behavior. In this context, the variables including awareness of wasteful consumption, awareness of consequences, consumer advocacy, moral courage, and creative performance are taken from TIP. While emotional factors including pro-environmental behaviors and wastophobia emanate from CMEP. The approach not only boosts the explanatory power of the integrated model but also provides guidelines to develop innovative targeted behavioral strategies to foster sustainable consumption behavior. The definitions of the study measures are presented in Table 1.

China produces 68 million metric tons of electronic waste, representing 20% of the worldwide e-waste (Wang et al., 2024). Domestic consumers are the largest contributor to e-waste as well as enormous (90%) CO₂ emissions of the overall electronic industry (Zhang et al., 2024). Hence, understanding the role of Chinese households in this context could help to devise strategies to reduce electronic waste.

Data was collected from electronics goods consumers living in Shenzhen city, China, as discussed earlier China is the leading economy in electronic goods production, consumption, waste generation, and CO₂ emission (Zhang et al., 2024), while Shenzhen is renowned for electronics goods manufacturing and consumption (Dong et al., 2024). The study identified the sampling unit as the consumers of electronic gadgets. The non-probability convenience sampling technique was followed to obtain a representative sample of the researched population, thus aiding in the collection of primary data that depicts different views and experiences of consumers. By doing so, it seeks to enhance the reliability and validity of results, thus deepening comprehension of wastophobia. For the sample size selection, two criteria were considered (a) a minimum of five responses per item estimate and (b) a sample size of 300 or more for structural equation modeling. The total measurement items were 25 in the current study. Considering the rule of five cases per parameter estimate, 125 responses were sufficient for examining the research hypotheses. However, as encouraged in the literature, it is desirable to use a large sampling to minimize the effects of sampling error (Wolf et al., 2013).

This study considered a 5-point Likert scale research questionnaire (5 represents “strongly disagree” and 1 represents “strongly agree”) for data collection purposes. The constructs in the questionnaire included awareness of wasteful consumption (Dewaters et al., 2013), awareness of consequences (Ryan and Spash, 2012) wastophobia (Marks and Mathews, 1979), consumer advocacy (Jayasimha et al., 2017), creative performance (Meinel et al., 2018), moral courage (Hannah et al., 2011), and pro-environmental behavior (Parvatiyar and Sheth, 2023) was adopted from the prior studies (see Table 1). To minimize the language barrier, the adopted scale was translated from English into Chinese and back-translated into English to ensure the equivalence in the meaning of the items in the scale (Brislin, 1986).

Data were collected in multi-waves (i.e., Time frame 1 and Time frame 2) to mitigate common method bias issue as recommended by Podsakoff et al. (2003). Initially, we visited 20 mega electronic outlets and obtained consent from 13 retailers to facilitate data collection from their actual customers. We set up 10 stalls outside the identified retail outlets and engaged only with those customers who actually purchase new electronic gadgets and recently discarded old gadgets. Each customer received a brief introduction to the study to obtain their informed consent. During time frame 1 (April 2024—May 2024), we gathered 410 responses related to constructs including awareness of wasteful consumption, awareness of consequences, and wastophobia. In the time frame 2 (August 2024—September 2024), a questionnaire containing constructs including consumer advocacy, creative performance, moral courage, and pro-environmental behavior was distributed among the same (410) consumers after a month time break (through online channels including WeChat and emails) and got back 330 questionnaires. The two-month (June–July) time-lag process facilitates ensuring the generalizability of the findings (Austin and Stuart, 2015).

A demographic assessment of the obtained responses (n = 302) revealed that 170 (56%) were female participants, 84 (28%) were in the 23- to 28-year-old age range, 141 (47%) were married, and 186 (62%) were doing jobs. The demographics of our sample demonstrate that the sample of the study was mature enough to comprehend the language and terminology utilized in the survey instruments.

Discriminant validity assessed the uniqueness of the construct, was assessed using the cross-loadings proposed by Hair et al. (2013). Discriminant validity is established when the items demonstrate higher loadings on their intended constructions relative to cross-loadings, as highlighted in bold in Table 3. Additionally, the results depicted that all the constructs exhibited significant loadings > 0.40 (Hair et al., 2013), and also fulfilled uni-dimensionality requirements (Mishra et al., 2019). This study established discriminant validity since all the cross-loadings of items were lower by 0.20 (Hair et al., 2010) when compared inside the same construct.

The internal consistency of items was measured through composite reliability, known as construct reliability. Hair et al. (2010) proposed the threshold value (> = 0.70) of composite reliability (CR). The extracted CR values (0.88–0.71) were deemed reliable for subsequent analyses. Moreover, the convergent validity determines whether the constructs converge or diverge. Convergent validity was accomplished as the average variance extracted (AVE) value (0.67–0.77) exceeded the threshold of 0.50 (Hair et al., 2013). When it comes to determining the reliability of a scale, Cronbach’s alpha (α) is most suitable. The minimum threshold for Cronbach’s Alpha is > 0.60 (Kline, 2014). The reliability of all scales is ensured as all alpha values remained greater than 0.60. The mean values represent the variable that is practiced more comparatively. The high mean score of awareness of consequences (3.93) indicated a high level of awareness of consequences, whereas the low mean score of PEB (1.83) indicated a low level of PEB among consumers. Nevertheless, the data for CA have high standard deviations, specifically 0.92, in comparison to other variables. The Pearson correlation analysis method was carried out to examine the association between each pair of variables examined (Armstrong, 2019). Based on the extracted correlation findings, awareness of wasteful consumption (AWC) and awareness of consequences (AC) indicated a substantial positive association with wastophobia (r = 0.279**; r = 0.175***) respectively. Furthermore, it is worth noting that wastophobia has a noteworthy positive connection with creative performance (r = 0.354**), moral courage (r = 0.290, ρ < 0.01), and pro-environmental behavior (r = 0.274**), except consumer advocacy (r = −0.010). These findings presented in Table 4 are theoretically justified (Hair et al., 2013).

The model fit was assessed in the measurement model testing phase of confirmatory factor analysis using various fit indices including the degree of freedom index (χ 2 / DF < 3), Tucker–Lewis index (TLI ≥ 0.90), the incremental-fit index (IFI ≥ 0.90), comparative-fit index (CFI ≥ 0.90), goodness of fit index (GFI ≥ 0.90), the standardized root mean square residual (RMSR ≤ 50), and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA≤ 50) (Awang, 2012). The analysis initiated with a single factor model 1 and progressed through multiple iterations, examining two-factor model, three-factor model, four-factor model, five-factor model, and six-factor model, consequently culminating in seven-factor model (see Table 5). The fit indices (GFI, IFI, TLI, CFI, SRMR, RMSEA) for factor model 1 to 5 remained lower than the identified benchmark values, indicating unsatisfactory model fit. The factor model 6 showed slight improvements, but it still fell short of the benchmark criteria. The final factor model 7 demonstrating excellent fit, with values for χ 2 / DF 1.388, GFI, 0.916, IFI = 0.939, TLI = 0.926, CFI = 0.938, SRMR = 0.036, and RMSEA = 0.036, respectively. This model effectively balances the simplicity and complexity, thereby ensuring the reliability and generalizability of the model. Notably, during the modeling process, autocorrelation (error terms correlation) through modification indices (MIs) was assessed. The findings of model 7 revealed no association among error terms in the benchmark model 7 (see Figure 4) while other model fit indices (discussed above) has achieved the benchmark criterion, as suggested by Brown (2015), which illustrates not to remove any item from the final model. The absence of necessary adjustment in modification indices ensured that the model structure was data driven and theoretically sound (Byrne, 2016), prioritizing the integrity of construct over statistical alterations.

The results of the measurement model indicated a significant impact of AWC (H₁: β = 0.262, p < 0.001) and AC (H₂: β = 0.102, p < 0.001) on wastophobia. While, the impact of wastophobia on creative performance (H_3b: β = 0.367, p < 0.001), moral courage (H_3c: β = 0. 0.261, p < 0.001), and pro-environmental behavior (H_3d: β = 0.235, p < 0.001) remained statistically significant at 1% confidence interval. However, the wastophobia indicated a negatively insignificant impact on consumer advocacy (H_3a: β = −0.090, p > 0.01) (see Direct effects in Table 6 and Figure 5).

The mediating relationships were assessed using the bootstrap method (N = 10,000 at 95% confidence interval). The mediating mechanism of wastophobia (WP) among awareness of wasteful consumption and consumer advocacy (AWC ➜ WP ➜ CA), creative performance (AWC ➜ WP ➜ CP), moral courage (AWC ➜ WP ➜ MC), and pro-environmental behavior (AWC ➜ WP ➜ PEB) was examined through direct, indirect effects, their level of significance, and their lower and upper boundaries. The same criteria were followed to assess the mediation mechanism of Wastophobia for awareness of consequences.

The findings presented in Table 7 represented the mediation mechanism of wastophobia. The direct effect of AWC on CA was negative and significant (β = −0.122, LL = −0.356, UP = −0.038, p < 0.05), while the indirect effect remained negative but insignificant. Moreover, upper and lower limits are summed-up at zero (β = −0.024, LL = −0.078, UP = 0.022, p > 0.10). The findings concluded that wastophobia has no significant mediating impact on consumer advocacy. Thus, the study rejects the hypothesis. H4a. In hypothesis H_4b, AWC effect was empirically tested on CP considering the mediating effect of wastophobia. The results indicated that the direct effect of AWC remained positive but insignificant. The upper and lower limits were found to be zero and probability values remained insignificant at 10% (β = −0.024, LL = −0.008, UP = 0.022, p > 0.10). On the other side, the indirect effect was found significant at 1% (β = 0.096, LL = 0.048, UP = 0.155, p < 0.01). These results concluded that wastophobia fully mediates the relationship between AWC and CP. Thus, the study accepted hypothesis H_4b.

The mediating effect of wastophobia between AWC and MC was empirically tested in Hypothesis H_4c. The statistical results portrayed that both the direct (β = 0.187, LL = 0.097, UP = 0.327, p < 0.01) and indirect effects (β = 0.069, LL = 0.029, UP = 0.116, p < 0.01) remained statistically significant. While no zero value was observed in the upper and lower boundaries. Thus, the study concludes that wastophobia partially mediates the relationship between AWC and MC. Hence, hypothesis H_4c is accepted. In hypothesis H_4d, the mediating effect of wastophobia was empirically tested between AWC and BEP. The findings depicted that AWC has significant positive direct effects on PEB (β = 0.114, LL = 0.013, UP = 0.213, p < 0.05). While the indirect effect was found significantly positive (β = 0.062, LL = 0.025, UP = 0.104, p < 0.01). The findings concluded that wastophobia partially mediates between AWC and BEP. Thus, the study accepted hypothesis H_4d.

The role of AC on CA in the presence of Wastophobia was examined in hypothesis H_5a. The results depicted that the direct effect of AC on CA remained statistically negative but insignificant (β = −0.059, LL = −0.184, UP = 0.054, p > 0.10). Moreover, the indirect mediating effect of wastophobia between AC on CA also remained negative but insignificant (β = −0.009, LL = −0.033, UP = 0.008, p > 0.10). We found zero in the upper and lower limits of direct and indirect effects. Based on these findings, the study concluded that wastophobia has no mediation effect and hypothesis H_5a is rejected. Further, the mediating role of wastophobia between AC and CP is empirically assessed in hypothesis H_5b. The result portrayed that the direct effect of AC on CP was found positive and insignificant (β = 0.056, LL = −0.016, UP = 0.129, p > 0.10). While the indirect effect was found statistically significant positive (β = 0.37, LL = 0.014, UP = 0.065, p < 0.01). The study concludes that wastophobia fully mediates the relationship between AC and CP and thus hypothesis H_5b is accepted.

In hypothesis H_5c, the mediating role of wastophobia was empirically assessed between AC and MC. The results indicated that the direct effect of AC on MC was found statistically positive but insignificant (β = 0.025, LL = −0.058, UP = 0.106, p > 0.10). We found zero in the upper and lower limits during the bootstrapping process. While the indirect mediating effect of wastophobia remained statistically significantly positive between AC and MC (β = 0.027, LL = 0.008, UP 0.049, p < 0.01). The findings concluded that wastophobia fully mediates the relationship between AC and MC. The study accepted hypothesis H_5c. Finally, the mediating role of wastophobia was examined between AC and PEB. The results indicate that the direct effect of AC and PEB was found statistically positive but insignificant (β = 0.013, LL = −0.051, UP 0.075, p > 0.01). Moreover, the mediating indirect effect of wastophobia was found statistically significant and positive (β = 0.024, LL = 0.007, UP 0.044, p < 0.01). The results portrayed that wastophobia significantly strengthens the association between AC and PEB. Thus, the study accepted the hypothesis H_5d.

This research enriches the theoretical literature in several key dimensions including consumer psychology, sustainable production and consumption, and environmental psychology. First, this study identified two fundamental antecedents of wastophobia including awareness of wasteful consumption and awareness of consequences. The study suggested that these antecedents (AWC, AC) are interrelated but played distinct role in activating wastophobia in consumer behavior. Importantly, consumers are more fascinated towards information seeking for their wasteful consumption practices as they perceive that such behavior is directly concerning to their routine actions raising personal expenses. Likewise, the AC proved a driving force that increases the degree of danger perceived from waste or inefficient consumption activities on the environment and individual well-being. These findings are linked to the past study of Hanif et al. (2022) which highlighted the significant role of AWC on wastophobia. Our study advances the discourse by suggesting that not only AWC but also AC plays a crucial role, thereby offering a more comprehensive understanding of the psychological drivers behind wastophobia.

Second, this research made an important contribution by exploring the consequences of wastophobia. The findings suggest that heightened wastophobia triggers a chain reaction and alleviates multiple consequences including CP, MC, and PEB. Wastophobia enforces consumers to think critically, perform creatively, morally, and take meaningful environmentally friendly steps to minimize their inefficient resource consumption practices, oppose disposability culture, and promote a sustainable future. This contribution reinforces the Conservation of Resources (COR) theory, which states that changes in behavior arise from perceived threats against valued resources (Arkorful et al., 2023). In addition, the study found that wastophobia served as an intervening variable between AWC, AC, and the identified behavioral outcome. Although the direct path remained significant but the presence of wastophobia as a mediating factor, improved the explanatory powers of CP, MC, and PEB.

The introduced groundbreaking theoretical research framework centered on the wastophobia construct contributes to the literature of TIB and CMEP. Wastophobia performed as a mediating mechanism and full mediation was observed among awareness of consequences, moral courage, and pro-environmental behavior. While, fully mediates between awareness of wasteful consumption, awareness of consequences, moral courage, creativity, and pro-environmental behavior. The findings revealed that the direct effect is lower than the indirect effect. It indicated that emotions make it possible for people to follow rules that promote pro-social behavior driven by cognizance of things happening around them. Therefore, this evidence reinforces NAT’s proposition that cognitive understanding and affective responses act as triggers to moral norms hence providing a deeper comprehension of how knowledge transforms into action.

The findings of this research are well aligned with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals—embedded within the UN 2030 agenda and China Dual Carbon Neutrality Goals 2030–2060 which is an action plan for sustainable development focusing on issues like climate change (Pal et al., 2021). The conclusions drawn from the study have therefore far-reaching implications for various consumer, governments, organizations, and societal perspectives.

Initially, the study suggests policymakers to utilize awareness of wasteful consumption and awareness of consequences in their promotional strategies to educate consumer about their electronic waste practices and their environmental implications. Heightened awareness of wasteful consumption practices should enable consumers to comprehensively understand how their conscious and unconscious inefficient consumption practices reduce the lifecycle of usable products. It should also inform the consumers about the destructive consequences of frequently discarding functionally usable gadgets increases their expenses. On the other side, a heightened awareness of consequences guides the consumers about their own actions’ impacts on waste accumulation and the severe environmental degradation consequences. This dual awareness should catalyze a reassessment of their consumption pattern, potentially trigger a sense of wastophobia, categorized as a psychological response based on fear of wastefulness.

Second, wastophobia as a psychological force should motivate consumers to change how they use and discard electronic devices, emphasizing the role of community and social considerations. The finding implies that wastophobia, which develops from comprehending spending and their repercussions, makes customers feel guilty. This implies that shame and fear may affect customer behavior, even when involvement is required, like minimizing e-waste. Thus, e-waste disposal education and advertising should incorporate wastophobia to attract customers. Most communications about electronic waste and its effects focus on the negative aspects of societal waste problems, placing consumers at fault. Advocating for social concerns by highlighting personal rewards like greater productivity and boldness in tackling social challenges frequently connects with consumer values, resulting in enough support for the change. Thus, understanding emotional and cognitive factors could help practitioners and legislators build more complete e-waste solutions.

The amplified creative performance, moral courage, and pro-environmental behavior rooted in wastophobia will undoubtedly support the drive toward the minimization of electronic waste and sustainability. To the extent that creative performance is heightened, new products may be developed from old electronics, giving rise to creative repairs and upcycling activities to prolong the lifecycle of the products. Such a trait can also encourage businesses to come up with up and down designs whereby the product is easy to repair or replace some modular parts hence little wastage. In terms of moral courage, it encourages such consumers to support and get involved in recycling programs at their localities, especially those that target e-waste, hence, encouraging the local people to be concerned about waste issues. Furthermore, increased pro-environmental behavior compels consumers to seek eco-friendly goods and services, prompting manufacturers to embrace eco-conscious ways of production to satisfy such needs. All these effects of wastophobia, therefore, transcend the individual level and threaten to revolutionize the management of consumption and production toward a greener future with less electronic waste.

The present research has significant results and fills out certain key gaps in the existing literature. Nevertheless, there are still some limitations and research gaps that need to be acknowledged. Initially, the only source of the subjects in the study was the Chinese, therefore the validity of the findings of the study to other cultures and countries is questionable. Therefore, future investigation should evaluate another cultural group of household consumers residing in Asia as well as from the global perspective to fully understand the electronic waste mitigation intentions. Secondly, this study employed a cross-sectional design. Hence, the self-reported scales employed in this research are subject to certain methodological limitations. For instance, to increase their chances in the research, participants may have overestimated their willingness to reduce e-waste which compromised the validity and reliability of the findings (Schmidt, 2016). The following research plans should explore the consideration of tendencies toward wasteful behavior and actual waste reduction behavior in order to enhance generalizability by establishing a connection between intention and manifested behavior. Third, additional significant variables, such as attitudes toward finance, religion, and costs associated with electronic waste, should be included. Further, including aspects like psychographics, total number of people living in a household, family life cycle, as well as income, may also shed some valuable light on the consumer. In addition, we propose that further research should be directed towards consumers who buy electronics items for older parents and relatives as those in authority and respected roles in the family may have a unique perspective on electronic waste behavior.