Consumer Ethics: The Role of Self-Regulatory Focus

Bock, Tine De; Kenhove, Patrick Van

doi:10.1007/s10551-010-0507-0

Cited by 43 publications

(31 citation statements)

References 79 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In line with this premise, regulatory fit has been applied to the exploration of consumer psychology in terms of people's consuming products [3], and perceiving consumer ethics [4]. However, it is questionable how regulatory fit accounts for consumers' response to unethical firms.…”

Section: Literaure Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

A close look at the role of regulatory fit in consumers’ responses to unethical firms

Mun

Shin

2018

ICRCC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Our knowledge is not enough to clearly explain how consumers respond to unethical firms, thereby forming attitudes toward unethical firms' brand and buying their products. In this sense, we conduct a one-way experimental design to test regulatory focus theory when it comes to attitudes toward unethical firms' brand and the purchase intention. Our findings reveal that promotion-oriented participants were more negative toward Mitsubishi, which violates achievement (e.g. fuel efficiency), than prevention-oriented participants. More importantly, promotion-oriented people were less likely to buy Mitsubishi automobiles than prevention-oriented people. In contrast, prevention-oriented consumers are negative toward Volkswagen which violates protection (e.g. carbon dioxide emission reduction).

show abstract

Section: Literaure Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

A close look at the role of regulatory fit in consumers’ responses to unethical firms

Mun

Shin

2018

ICRCC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The common rater effects may otherwise bias the responses due to "consistency motifs," "implicit theories" or "illusory correlations," and "social desirability" (p. 881), and through artificial covariance which may not be as a result of the content of the constructs (Podsakoff et al, 2003). The interval between each phase was restricted to about two weeks to reduce the extent of participants' attrition (De Bock & Van Kenhove, 2010;Avey, Luthans, Smith & Palmer, 2010). In the first wave, I measure the main predictor variables and included a "complete the sentence task," which also doubled up as a check on the quality of the participants.…”

Section: Research Design Overviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Our Quest for a Great Place to Work: Meaning in and at Work through the Fit Perspective

Kar¹,

Elangovan²

2018

Proceedings

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

For many of us our relationship with our work defines our life (Gini, 2000). We spend large portions of our life at work and/or thinking about issues concerning work. The work provides us with an identity, a community, a social status, and a means of livelihood (Chalofsky, 2010; Haavisto, 2010, as cited in Soininen, 2013; Pratt & Ashforth, 2003). Our work influences and shapes the way we behave and live. The perceived pleasantness or the bitterness of the experiences in our work spill over to our lives outside of work, to our families, to other interests, and even to

show abstract

“…Recent findings also show that the gain maximization focus of promotion focus leads them to prefer risky attributes in product (e.g., speed in car) or overlook safety aspects like braking mechanism (Sengupta and Zhou, 2007). Further, evidence shows that promotion focus is also more likely to tolerate negative behaviours, like unethical consumer practices (De Bock and Kenhove, 2010). When promotion focus is activated, people tend to weigh positive attributes more heavily, as they are consistent with their objectives of 'advancement' (Zhang and Mittal, 2007).…”

Section: Regulatory Focus and Attribute Based Product Evaluationmentioning

confidence: 99%

The effects of regulatory focus and mixed valence imagery and analytical attributes on product decisions

Roy

2017

MIP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose-This paper investigates the effects of regulatory focus (promotion vs. prevention) and mixed valence attributes (positive imagery and negative analytical vs. negative imagery and positive analytical) on consumers' evaluation and purchase intention for a product. Design/methodology/approach-A pre-test followed by a single between subject's experiment was conducted to test the major hypotheses in the study. Findings-Results show that promotion (prevention) focus prefer the product when it is described in terms of positive imagery but negative analytical (positive analytical but negative imagery) attributes in terms of both evaluation and purchase intention. Research limitations/implications-Future research may validate and extend the current findings with other product or service categories, and study the underlying processes that guide decision making. Practical implications-Findings from this study will help managers devise a range of marketing strategies in the areas of advertising, segmentation and product positioning. Originality/value-The current research is novel as it addresses lack of research that engages imagery and analytical attributes with different valences, and fills in a gap as to how regulatory focus will rely on imagery (analytical) attributes with different valences while making product decisions.

show abstract

Consumer Ethics: The Role of Self-Regulatory Focus

Abstract: consumer ethical beliefs, consumer ethics, consumer ethics scale, personal characteristics, self-regulatory focus,

Cited by 43 publications

References 79 publications

A close look at the role of regulatory fit in consumers’ responses to unethical firms

A close look at the role of regulatory fit in consumers’ responses to unethical firms

Our Quest for a Great Place to Work: Meaning in and at Work through the Fit Perspective

The effects of regulatory focus and mixed valence imagery and analytical attributes on product decisions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About