Do consumers care about morality? A review and framework for understanding morality's marketplace influence

Philipp-Muller, Aviva; Teeny, Jacob; Petty, Richard E.

doi:10.1002/arcp.1072

Cited by 12 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 209 publications

(243 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Past research has examined insensitivity to consequences only among GE food opponents. Because people are more likely to moralize negative attitudes than positive ones, it may be that there are no consequence-insensitive GE supporters (Philipp-Muller et al, 2022). However, in a pilot study (described in more detail in the Supplemental Material), we found that both GE crop supporters and opponents said they based their attitudes on their "gut feelings" to a surprising extent (M = 4.0 for supporters; M = 4.2 for opponents on a 1 [Not at All]-6 [Absolutely] scale).…”

Section: Consequence Insensitivity Among Ge Supportersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mitigating consequence insensitivity for genetically engineered crops.

Inbar¹,

Waldhof²

2023

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many opponents of genetically engineered (GE) food say that it ought to be prohibited regardless of the risks and benefits (Scott et al., 2016). If many people are truly unwilling to consider risks and benefits in evaluating GE technology, this poses serious problems for scientists and policymakers. In a large demographically-representative German sample (N = 3,025), we investigate consequence-insensitive beliefs about GE crops among GE supporters and opponents, as well as whether these beliefs can be mitigated. We find that a large majority of opponents and a substantial minority of supporters are consequence-insensitive: They say that risks and benefits are irrelevant to their views. At the same time, the responses of consequence-insensitive participants to subsequent belief probes show substantial flexibility. Participants often gave responses inconsistent with the unconditional prohibition or permission of GE crops. These results suggest that professed consequence insensitivity should be taken as an expression of a strong moral belief rather than as literal endorsement of policy. Public Significance StatementThis study finds that many people in Germany say GMOs should be banned (or allowed) regardless of the risks or benefits of doing so. This is more common among people who are anti-GMO than those who are pro-GMO. However, even people who say that risks and benefits don't matter sometimes take them into account when they are asked to think harder about what might change their minds.

show abstract

Section: Consequence Insensitivity Among Ge Supportersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mitigating consequence insensitivity for genetically engineered crops.

Inbar¹,

Waldhof²

2023

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Consumption behavior is naturally associated with morality, since it raises issues of perceived fairness, as well as self versus social interests (Grayson, 2014; Harrison et al, 2005; Philipp‐Muller et al, 2022; Wilk, 2001). Today, consumers place increasing importance on the morality of companies, which in turn impacts consumer choice (Freestone & McGoldrick, 2008; Grappi et al, 2013; L. Hassan et al, 2013; Hilton, 2009; Nielsen & McGregor, 2013; Smith, 1990).…”

Section: Conceptual Background and Hypothesis Developmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Thus, moral violations can lead to poorer brand or company evaluations. Companies' moral actions are particularly liable to influence consumer evaluations and subsequent choices when the values are emotional or are seen as relevant to the values and identity of the consumer (Philipp‐Muller et al, 2022).…”

Section: Conceptual Background and Hypothesis Developmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In recent years there has been a surge in marketing research on morality (Grappi et al, 2013; Grayson, 2014; S. M. Hassan et al, 2022; Kuokkanen & Sun, 2020; Luttrell et al, 2021; McGregor, 2006; Philipp‐Muller et al, 2022; Xie & Bagozzi, 2019) driven by the central role of morality in people's lives in general and in business in particular (Brambilla & Leach, 2014; Chowdhury, 2018; Luttrell et al, 2021; Shaw et al, 2005; Smith, 1990; Zhao, 2020). Moral judgment tends to be an important aspect of consumers' identity (C. M. Chapman et al, 2020; Forsyth, 1980, 1992; Schlenker & Forsyth, 1977).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The influence of companies' moral associations on the product consumption experience: The role of moral disgust

Tal

Gvili

Amar

2022

Psychology and Marketing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Can moral associations linked with food products harm hedonic consumption experience? Across four studies, we show that moral associations linked to food that clash with values (racism and animal welfare) held by today's ethical consumers can engender moral disgust, which in turn undermines both expected and actual taste experience. The studies contribute to the literature by showing that associations impact consumption experience even in the absence of concrete actions, and by revealing moral disgust as the mechanism underlying this phenomenon. Importantly, this effect was observed even when the moral associations involved racism or sustainability (e.g., animal welfare), which have no direct relationship to product quality. This reveals that mere moral associations, rather than quality associations, influence hedonic consumption experience, rather than quality associations. More broadly, the findings point to the ways in which extrinsic attributes affect product experience and evaluation, particularly in hedonic consumption. This may be particularly impactful for values clashing with those championed by ethical consumers. From a practical perspective, these studies provide a broader perspective on corporate social responsibility by showing that companies should exercise caution when exploiting the moral associations linked to their products.

show abstract

“…Both positive and negative triple bottom line messages can impact firms’ ethical reputation because they act as a signal that can increase (in the case of positive messages) or decrease (in the case of negative messages) consumer perceived ethicality (Brunk and de Boer, 2020). Although the issue of ethicality is inherent to triple bottom line conceptualization, it is rarely empirically addressed from a consumer perspective (Philipp-Muller et al , 2022). More specifically, the influence of triple bottom line messages on consumer perceived ethicality of the brand, spillover effects on consumer perceptions of brand and product attributes and even the effects of each triple bottom line dimension on consumer perceptions and purchase intentions need broader exploration (Chen and Huang, 2018).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

When brands behave badly: signaling and spillover effects of unethical behavior in the context of triple bottom line sustainability

Nichols

Kirchoff

Confente

et al. 2023

JPBM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The triple bottom line of sustainability performance is well known; however, little research links it to consumer brand perceptions and intentions. This is important because consumers believe that brands should develop sustainability strategies and conduct business in ways that support those strategies. Using the theoretical lenses of signaling theory and spillover effects, this study aims to examine the impact of negative messages about brands’ triple bottom line sustainability activities on consumer perceived brand ethicality, perceived product quality and purchase interest. Design/methodology/approach This research includes two lab experiments with the US participants. Findings When brands have sustainability failures, consumers feel the firm is less ethical, its products are lower in quality and purchase interest suffers – regardless how the failure relates to the triple bottom line (environmental, social or economic). These effects are moderated by brand familiarity and the message source. Brand familiarity seems to protect a firm’s ethicality image as does when the information comes from a corporate source, contrary to the prevalent literature. Originality/value Unlike most sustainability research, this study provides comparison effects across all three dimensions of the triple bottom line. In doing so, this study highlights nuances in how consumers connect brands’ sustainability-related activities with perceptions about ethics and brand expectations. This research also contextualizes the findings through brand familiarity and message source and contributes to the growing body of literature on sustainability branding.

show abstract

Do consumers care about morality? A review and framework for understanding morality's marketplace influence

Cited by 12 publications

References 209 publications

Mitigating consequence insensitivity for genetically engineered crops.

Mitigating consequence insensitivity for genetically engineered crops.

The influence of companies' moral associations on the product consumption experience: The role of moral disgust

When brands behave badly: signaling and spillover effects of unethical behavior in the context of triple bottom line sustainability

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About