Gender Differences in Double Standards

The purpose of the present study is to investigate gender differences in the use of double standards in ethical judgements of questionable conduct instigated by business or consumers. We investigate if consumers are more critical towards unethical corporate versus consumer actions and if these double standards depend on the gender of the respondent. In the first study, we compared evaluations of four specific unethical actions [cfr. DePaulo, 1987, in: J. Saegert (ed.) Proceedings of the Division of Consumer Psychology (American Psychological Association, Washington DC)] instigated by either the consumer or the corporation. In a second study, we investigated the perception of some general consumer and corporate (un)ethical actions in addition to DePaulo’s unethical scenarios. Both researches show that females are less likely to use double standards when it comes to their own (un)ethical behaviour compared to corporate (un)ethical actions. Furthermore, gender differences in the use of double standards depend on the type of unethical behaviour. Limitations and suggestions for further research are discussed.     

“What’s the Harm in Being Unethical? These Strangers are Rich Anyway!” Exploring Underlying Factors of Double Standards

Previous studies show evidence of double standards in terms of individuals being more tolerant of questionable consumer practices than of similar business practices. However, whether these double standards are necessarily due to the fact that one party is a business company while the other is a consumer was not addressed. The results of our two experimental studies, conducted among 277 (Study 1) and 264 (Study 2) participants from a Western European country by means of an anonymous self-administered online survey, demonstrate that the respondents were not only harsher in their judgments of unethical business (vs. consumer) behavior, but also harsher in their judgments of unethical behavior by prosperous (vs. non-prosperous) consumers and prosperous (vs. non-prosperous) business companies (Study 1). Further, they were also less tolerant of unethical behavior by consumers (vs. one’s best friend) and business companies with which they have a less than good (vs. a good) relationship (Study 2). These results indicate that double standards are due to differences in perceived wealth between subjects and in the individual’s relationship with subjects. These two factors imply that double standards are not strictly reserved to consumer–business relations, but might also be used in business–business and consumer–consumer relations. Further, these results indicate that companies need to be aware of the fact that good financial figures may backfire as they might lead individuals to be more critical of a company’s deceptive practices. Moreover, these findings point to the importance of businesses investing resources—and to keep investing resources—in developing a good relationship with stakeholders as these good relationships lead to stakeholders being less prone to make moral condemnations.     

Consumer Reactions to Unethical Service Recovery

Ethical business practices have been widely prescribed, but why? Consumer’s views on unethical business practices have been studied, but possibly more important to marketers and researchers are consumer actions and reactions to unethical business practices and the businesses themselves. Do consumers react negatively, or in such a way as to "punish" the unethical business? If so, what is the nature and extent of the punishment? This research seeks answers to these questions by examining consumer reactions, such as complaining and switching, to instances of unethical business practices. Using equity theory, this research proposes that consumers should be willing to tolerate some unethical behavior as long as they feel their investments and outcomes remain proportionately equal. Consumers who perceive that their outcome/investment ratio is proportionately unequal to their comparison other will respond by switching or complaining. In this research consumers were exposed to two types of service failures with different levels of service recovery in vignettes. Costs incurred by the consumer during the service transaction were also manipulated in the vignettes. Significant differences were found for complaint behavior in the failure recovery vignettes tested. Specifically, voice complaint was higher in the high cost service encounters in both types of services tested. The recovery attempt used (ethical, unethical, or none) led to significance differences in the variables of complaint, voice complaint, satisfaction, and quality. Higher satisfaction and quality ratings were found for the ethical recovery attempt and higher intentions to use complaint and voice complaint in the unethical recovery attempts. One significant interaction between cost and recovery attempt was found. Intentions to use voice complaint were higher in the high cost situations of ethical and unethical recovery, while approaching equality at the no recovery attempt.     

Religiosity, Attitude Toward Business, and Ethical Beliefs: Hispanic Consumers in the United States

Growth of the Hispanic consumer population in America is changing the marketplace landscape. Due to their considerable buying power, a better understanding of Hispanic consumer behavior has become a necessity. The marketing literature has examined issues regarding religiosity and attitude toward business in regards to consumer ethical beliefs as well as research differentiating consumers on the basis of ethnicity due to their inherently different religious principles. Therefore, the present study contributes to the existing consumer ethics literature by examining the roles of religiosity and attitude toward business in determining consumer ethical beliefs. Furthermore, this study compares the relationships among religiosity, attitude toward business, and ethical beliefs at the sub-cultural level (i.e., between Hispanic and Anglo-American consumers). Survey data compare a sample of 187 predominately Catholic Hispanic consumers with a sample of 127 predominately protestant Anglo consumers. Results suggest a positive relationship between intrinsic religiousness and beliefs that questionable consumer activities are unethical. However, extrinsic religiousness does not impact consumer views as to the ethicality of consumer practices. Hispanics exhibit higher levels of extrinsic religiousness than Anglos, but no difference in terms of their intrinsic religiousness. Results also suggest that Hispanics have a more negative attitude toward business than Anglos do. Implications of these results are discussed.     

The Role of Moral Emotions and Consumer Values and Traits in the Decision to Support Nonprofits

We investigate the mediating role of moral emotions and their contingency on individual characteristics between perceptions of corporate ethical/unethical actions and consumer support for nonprofits. We conducted two between-subjects experiments to test our hypotheses on a sample of adult consumers. The results show that social justice values moderate elicitation of gratitude upon exposure to corporate ethical actions, which subsequently impacts consumer support for nonprofits. Furthermore, important individual characteristics (social justice values, moral identity) moderate the elicitation of negative moral emotions (contempt, anger, disgust) upon perception of corporate unethical actions, which then leads to consumer support for nonprofits. Our study adds to extant research on prosocial behavior by investigating how actions by for-profit companies impact individual helping and by examining a new psychological mechanism (i.e., moral emotional processes and their contingencies) underlying consumer support for nonprofits.     

Anger punishes,compassion forgives: How discrete emotions mitigate double standards in consumer ethical judgment

Prior research has identified that consumers may judge similar unethical behaviors differently depending on the actor in such behaviors; a phenomenon called double standards. While some studies have examined why consumer double standards may occur, it is less clear how to mitigate their occurrence. The present study examines the role of different, discrete emotions – anger and compassion – in mitigating double standards using two experimental studies, involving a total of 562 participants from Indonesia. The results indicate the existence of double standards, in that consumers were harsher in their judgment of unethical conduct by prosperous (vs. non-prosperous) companies. More importantly, the findings establish that anger and compassion can diminish double standards in consumer ethical judgments. Furthermore, these emotion effects are explained by two distinct mechanisms. Specifically, anger reduces repurchase likelihood when mediated by perceived justice, while compassion mediated by forgiveness increases repurchase likelihood. The research limitations and implications are also discussed.     

Reflections on Consumer Sophistication and Its Impact on Ethical Business Practice

This paper investigates consumer sophistication and its role in the development of proactive public policy. Consumer sophistication is examined in light of several historical shifts in market structure and consumer lifestyles. These shifts create market conditions that foster the emergence of a “Corporate Dilemma” in which unsophisticated consumers reward unethical business practices and punish ethical business behavior. To reduce unethical business practices in the market, this paper proposes that the optimum level of interim government intervention should be based on the level of consumer sophistication in the market.     

Consumer ethics: An empirical investigation of factors influencing ethical judgments of the final consumer

Business and marketing ethics have come to the forefront in recent years. While consumers have been surveyed regarding their perceptions of ethical business and marketing practices, research has been minimal with regard to their ethical beliefs and ideologies. This research investigates general attitudes of consumers relative to business, government and people in general, and compares these attitudes to their beliefs concerning various questionable consumer practices. The results show that consumers' ethical beliefs are determined, in part, by who is at fault in the unethical behavior (the seller or the buyer). The results also indicate that those with a more positive attitude toward business are less likely to engage in questionable consumer practices, but one's attitudes toward salespeople, the government and people in general arenot related to the consumer's ethical beliefs.Scott J. Vitell is an Associate Professor and the Michael S. Starnes Professor of Marketing and Business Ethics at the University of Mississippi. His publications have appeared in theJournal of Macromarketing, theJournal of Business Ethics, theJournal of the Academy of Marketing Science, theJournal of Business Research, Research in Marketing and numerous other journals and proceedings.James A. Muncy is Assistant Professor of Marketing at Clemson University. His publications have appeared in theJournal of Marketing, Journal of Business Research, Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising, Journal of Marketing Education, andAdvances in Consumer Research. He has also published in the National Proceedings of the American Marketing Association and the American Psychological Association and has published five chapters in books. He is active in the Association for Consumer Research, acting as its Publications Director and Newsletter Coeditor.     

‘Consumers’ Evaluation of Unethical Marketing Behaviors: The Role of Customer Commitment’

While there is a significant amount of research investigating managerial ethical judgments, a limited amount examines consumer judgments of unethical corporate behavior and its impact on the marketplace. This study examines how consumers’ commitment to a company impacts not only their ethical judgment of corporate behavior but also the outcomes of that judgment. The authors test hypotheses with data from 334 consumers and find that consumers’ level of commitment attenuates the level of perceived fairness. More specifically, highly committed consumers may forgive companies for behaviors when perceived harm is low, but become progressively dissatisfied as the level of perceived harm increases. Results of the study point to the importance of considering ethical behavior from a consumer perspective. If corporate actions are perceived as unethical, the company stands to lose favor with their most committed customers. Considering that more time, effort and investment is required to gain a new customer as to retain an old, this study shows that engaging in behavior perceived as unethical by consumers risks alienating the most committed customers.     

Corporate Scandals and Capital Structure

The present study investigates the influence of self-regulatory focus on consumer ethical beliefs (i.e., consumers’ judgment of various unethical consumer practices). The self-regulatory focus framework is highly influential and applies to an impressively wide spectrum of topics across a diverse array of domains. However, previous research has not yet examined the link between this personality construct and the consumer ethics field. Findings indicate that promotion affects one’s attitude toward questionable consumer practices with those having a stronger (versus weaker) promotion focus being more likely to believe these consumer misbehaviors to be acceptable. Further, this study shows that prevention influences one’s perception of morally dubious consumer practices with those having a stronger (versus weaker) prevention focus being more inclined to believe these questionable consumer activities to be unacceptable.     

Research Ethics of Business Academic Researchers at AACSB Institutions

Academic researchers in business are likely to have different perceptions and attitudes regarding what constitute unethical behavior in conducting their research. In fact, some might consider certain actions to be totally ethical while other behaviors might be unacceptable in one discipline, but acceptable in another. Therefore, a survey was administered to a sample of professors at AACSB-accredited institutions to identify those actions felt to be unethical and to gauge the state of research ethics among business academics. The survey was developed around eleven substantive issues concerning business research ethics. Some of the topics included: treatment of data, confidentiality, plagiarism, working with co-authors, and multiple submissions. First, respondents were asked whether they felt the behavior was unethical. Secondly, they were asked whether they had ever personally engaged in such activity. Finally, they were asked if they were aware of colleagues who had taken a particular action.The primary contribution of the paper is to provide evidence on faculty definitions of unethical research practices and the extent of such behavior within the academic business environment. An overwhelming percentage of respondents (greater than 95%) condemned five of the eleven activities studied. They included: falsifying data, violating confidentiality of a client, ignoring contrary data, plagiarism, and failing to give credit to co-authors. Probably the most important finding of this paper concerns the level of unethical activity reported by faculty about their colleagues. While these findings likely include some degree of double counting within an institution, the level of unethical activity reported on colleagues and the number of institutions represented indicates the problem is quite common. Seven actions were reported by between 20 and 47% of respondents to have occurred within their institutions. These actions include adding names of persons not contributing to a paper, failing to give credit to co-authors, selective reporting of data, and plagiarism. These results indicate unethical practices occur frequently among researchers in AACSB accredited business schools and are not merely exceptions. Coverage of ethical issues in a graduate research methods course might force students to ponder these issues prior to confronting them in the world of business or academic research.     

Consumer intentions to falsify personal information online: unethical or justifiable?

ABSTRACT

Companies routinely analyse the online activities of consumers to understand shopping habits and buying patterns. As the amount of personal information available online has grown, so has the potential for its misuse. When consumers believe that their personal information is being used for an unstated purpose, they may consider the firm to be acting unethically. They may then falsify their personal information online as a reaction to apparent ethical violations by companies or as an opportunistic unethical act of their own. The purpose of the present research is to propose a framework that could be used to understand consumer intentions to falsify personal information online. The research is important from both a theoretical and business perspective. From a theoretical standpoint, they add to the literature on the dark side of marketing by examining ethically questionable behaviour by consumers. The research is relevant for firms because when consumers falsify personal information their ability to target consumers with personalised offers is diminished. The research is also relevant for policymakers as they evaluate existing regulatory safeguards intended to protect consumer information online.     

Marketing research and corporate litigation ... Where is the balance of ethical justice?

Tampering with the judicial system has long been regarded as an unethical and illegal standard of corporate behavior. Advances in behavioral research have recently, however, skirted the ‘letter of the law’ by applying consumer research techniques to the sampling universe from which prospective jurors are selected. This practice has resulted in an unfair and measurable advantage which offsets any balance of ethics and justice. This article adopts a protagonistic perspective to demonstrate research illustrating jury evaluation techniques. Because the legal system, which is based on jurisprudence, does not have the ability or resources to monitor or regulate these practices, the question must be addressed within the domain of business ethics. ... Where does the balance of ethical justice lie? Is the sole objective to win and protect the bottom line of the corporate income statement, or does a code of business ethics apply?     

Negative Publicity Effect of the Business Founder’s Unethical Behavior on Corporate Image: Evidence from China

The unethical behavior of a business founder often leads to negative publicity which substantially affects positive corporate image. The amount of negative publicity relating to business founders’ unethical behavior is on the rise in the age of online social media in China. Based on the stimulus–response theory and balance theory, this paper developed a theoretical model to examine how negative publicity about a business founder’s unethical behavior affects corporate image. The proposed model was tested by the partial least squares technique. Results show that perceived severity, publicity intensity and recovery performance are predictors of corporate image: perceived severity has a negative impact on positive corporate image; publicity intensity and recovery performance have positive impacts on positive corporate image; and founder image mediates the relationships between the three predictors and corporate image. Moreover, initial consumer impression of business founders has a positive impact on positive corporate image.     

Despite unethical retail store practices,consumers at the bottom of the pyramid continue to be loyal

Research in the area of retail store loyalty agrees that consumers reward retailers when they are satisfied with its products, services, and its image. Moreover, one would agree that if the retailer engages in unethical practices, the customer would quickly defect and even engage in word of mouth to influence others to defect. But this might not be the case universally. One consumer group that continues to be loyal to a retailer despite widespread unethical practices is the poor. A growing stream of research under the label of bottom of pyramid (BoP) and subsistence consumers has increasingly pointed out the market attractiveness of this segment to multinational companies. These poor consumers are individuals who earn approximately $2 per day. In this paper, we explain the nature of widespread unethical retail practices prevalent amongst the neighborhood retail stores (or kirana as they are referred to in India) that serve the BoP consumer, types of patronage behaviors, and the reasons ‘why’ these consumers continue to support the kirana store. The data for this paper comes from a qualitative study conducted with 58 urban poor consumers in India. This study carries significant implications for both domestic and multinational companies that market fast-moving consumer goods in the BoP market.     

Corporate Ethics Codes: A Practical Application of Liability Prevention

With the great increase in litigation, insurance costs, and consumer prices, both managers and businesses should take a proactive position in avoiding liability. Legal liability may attach when a duty has been breached; many actions falling into this category are also considered unethical. Since much of business liability is caused by a breach of a duty by a business to either an individual, another business, or to society, this article asserts that the practice of liability prevention is a practical business application of ethics. In today's highly litigious environment, it is appropriate for the concept of general liability prevention to be included in corporate codes of ethics.     

Consumer responses to corporate social irresponsibility: The role of moral emotions,evaluations, and social cognitions

We investigate the mediating roles of moral emotions and attitudes between perceptions of corporate irresponsible actions, on the one hand, and consumer responses, on the other hand, and further examine their contingencies based on consumer social cognitions. Our findings show that, for corporate transgressions, multiple social cognitions (moral identity, relational and collective self‐concepts, and affective empathy) moderate the elicitation of negative moral emotions (contempt and anger) and overall evaluations (attitudes), which, in turn, lead to negative responses toward the company (negative word of mouth, complaint behaviors, and boycotting). Our study adds to extant research on corporate social irresponsibility by examining three generic reactions people have toward corporate social irresponsibility and demonstrating important boundary conditions. In addition, hypotheses are tested on a sample of adult consumers. Implications for communication by firms are considered.     

Organizational Sensemaking of Non-ethical Consumer Behavior: Case Study of a French Mutual Insurance Company

Researchers and managers alike are becoming increasingly interested in the topic of unethical consumer behavior. Where most studies view unethical behavior as something that is identifiable per se, the authors of the present article believe that it only exists because it has been constructed by people operating within a specific context. Hence the efforts made by this paper to explore, at the level of one specific organization, how interactions between employees and consumers might lead to the construct of unethical consumers. Based on a case study of France’s AMDM—a mutual insurance company set up to serve a client base comprising motorcyclists—the paper addresses how one group of consumers ends up being categorized as unethical by revealing the existence of a sensemaking process within the target organization. This process develops in three main phases: the nurturing of a shared ethos; the protection of employees’ recognized status; and the demonization of any group of consumers threatening this status. Managers incorporating this sensemaking process can avoid or mitigate the negative effects befalling organizations when these kinds of unethical consumer behavior are constructed.     

Ethical Judgment of Food Fraud. Effects on Consumer Behavior

This study brings important insights for the food industry by addressing how consumers ethically judge or evaluate unethical firm behavior, in specific reference to food fraud, and if and to what extent that judgment affects the consumer–brand relationship and consumer behavior. it is an empirical investigation of the unethical intentional mislabeling in the U. S food industry. The paper analysis if there are statistically significant associations between brand attachment, ethical judgment, brand commitment, and purchase intention. Quantitative data (151) was collected about three different leading manufacturing food brands (three studies). Correlation and regression analyses were conducted. Findings reveal the important relation between all the constructs. Significant effects on how consumers ethically judged this brand transgression. Thus, it was found that as consumers judged this action as more unethical, the intentions to both stay committed to and purchase the brand were considerably damaged.