A Meta-Analytical Assessment of the Effect of Deontological Evaluations and Teleological Evaluations on Ethical Judgments/Intentions

Abstract

Deontological and teleological evaluations are widely utilized in the context of consumer decision-making. Despite their use, the differential effect of these distinct types of evaluations, and the conditions under which they hold, remains an unresolved issue. Thus, we conduct a meta-analysis of 316 effect sizes, from 53 research articles, to evaluate the extent to which deontological and teleological evaluations influence ethical judgments and intentions, and under what circumstances the influence occurs. The effect is explored across three categories of moderators: (1) contextual elements of the ethical issue, (2) stakeholders, and (3) methodological characteristics of primary studies. We find that the overall effect of deontological evaluations on ethical judgments and intentions is stronger than for teleological evaluations; however, the magnitude of the effect is contingent on several moderators. Deontological evaluations are weaker in offline consumer contexts and stronger when there are financial implications of the ethical issue. Conversely, the effect of teleological evaluations is relatively stable across ethical consumer contexts. Teleological evaluations are stronger from a utilitarian perspective than from an egoist one. Furthermore, the effect of deontological evaluations is weaker, but the effect for teleological evaluations is stronger, when the decision-maker has a personal relationship (as compared to an organizational relationship) with the victim of the unethical act. Findings validate the effect of both deontological and teleological evaluations on ethical judgments and intentions and highlight their importance in consumers’ ethical decision-making. Implications for developing programs to prevent consumer unethical behavior are discussed.

Perceived Income Inequality, Trust, and Consumers’ Ethical Judgments

“…Such negative effects on consumers’ ethical judgments in unequal societies are paradoxically more likely to be evident among those having higher socio-economic status (who are already reaping the benefits of inequality). Thus, this study advances knowledge in the burgeoning research field examining consumers’ ethical judgments (Hassan, Rahman, and Paul 2022; Smith et al 2023).…”

“…Macro marketers and business ethicists have an enduring interest in understanding consumers’ ethical judgments (Casais and Faria 2022; Chowdhury 2020; Smith et al 2023), as consumers are a key stakeholder and participant in marketing systems (Layton 2007). Consumers’ ethical judgments are important to examine as, in many instances, these are related to unethical or pro-social consumer behavior (Vitell and Hunt 2015).…”

“…Over the last three decades there has been considerable research on understanding the antecedents of consumers’ ethical judgments (see Hassan, Rahman, and Paul 2022; Smith et al 2023, for recent reviews on this stream of research). Much of the research on examining consumers’ ethical judgments has been based on the theoretical framework proposed in the Hunt-Vitell theory of marketing ethics (Hunt and Vitell 1986, 2006).…”

Brand ethicality as a driver of psychological, affective and behavioral response to a brand

“…Ethical theory and psychological ownership theory in marketing Ethical theory offers the basic foundation for the concept of CPBE (Barnett et al, 2005). As per ethical theory, which is governed by moral philosophy, there are two ethical evaluation guiding principlesdeontological and teleological (Smith et al, 2023). Deontological principles are "rules" based where assessment is dependent upon the "right" or "wrong" of higher moral standards, norms and laws.…”

“…, 2005). As per ethical theory, which is governed by moral philosophy, there are two ethical evaluation guiding principles – deontological and teleological (Smith et al ., 2023). Deontological principles are “rules” based where assessment is dependent upon the “right” or “wrong” of higher moral standards, norms and laws.…”