Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

How Techniques of Neutralization Legitimize Norm- and Attitude-Inconsistent Consumer Behavior

  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In accordance with societal norms and values, consumers readily indicate their positive attitudes toward sustainability. However, they hardly take sustainability into account when engaging in exchange relationships with companies. To shed light on this paradox, this paper investigates whether defense mechanisms and the more specific concept of neutralization techniques can explain the discrepancy between societal norms and actual behavior. A multi-method qualitative research design provides rich insights into consumers’ underlying cognitive processes and how they make sense of their attitude–behavior divergences. Drawing on the Ways Model of account-taking, which is advanced to a Cycle Model, the findings illustrate how neutralization strategies are used to legitimize inconsistencies between norm-conforming attitudes and actual behavior. Furthermore, the paper discusses how the repetitive reinforcement of neutralizing patterns and feedback loops between individuals and society are linked to the rise of anomic consumer behavior.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. This is also true for converging concepts such as corporate social responsibility (CSR) and business ethics, which will be used interchangeably in this paper. After all, consumers can hardly distinguish between these “twin ideas” (Hildebrand et al. 2011, p. 1353) but rather refer to the underlying principle of a responsible and sustainable approach toward society and the environment.

  2. We would like to thank an anonymous reviewer for pointing us toward this distinction.

  3. This normative character, however, is a rather flexible one and dependent on the consumer context (Chatzidakis et al. 2007). Therefore, in specific situations and referring to specific consumers, other factors such as personal norms and values might exert a stronger relative influence on intentions.

  4. Some researchers might question whether such judgments can be made based on qualitative data. Nevertheless, the qualitative findings provide interesting pointers for future research.

References

  • Akers, R. L., Krohn, M. D., Lanza-Kaduce, L., & Radosevich, M. (1979). Social learning and deviant behavior: A specific test of a general theory. American Sociological Review, 44(4), 636–655.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baumeister, R. F. (1982). A self-presentational view of social phenomena. Psychological Bulletin, 91(1), 3–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Belk, R. W., Devinney, T., & Eckhardt, G. (2005). Consumer ethics across cultures. Consumption, Markets & Culture, 8(3), 275–289.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boulstridge, E., & Carrigan, M. (2000). Do consumers really care about corporate responsibility? Highlighting the attitude-behaviour gap. Journal of Communication Management, 4(4), 355–368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bray, J., Johns, N., & Kilburn, D. (2011). An exploratory study into the factors impeding ethical consumption. Journal of Business Ethics, 98(4), 597–608.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, T. J., & Dacin, P. A. (1997). The company and the product: Corporate associations and consumer product responses. Journal of Marketing, 61(1), 68–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carrigan, M., & Attalla, A. (2001). The myth of the ethical consumer-do ethics matter in purchase behaviour? Journal of Consumer Marketing, 18(7), 560–577.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chabowski, B., Mena, J., & Gonzalez-Padron, T. (2011). The structure of sustainability research in marketing, 1958–2008: A basis for future research opportunities. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39(1), 55–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chan, R. Y. K. (2001). Determinants of Chinese consumers’ green purchase behavior. Psychology & Markting, 18(4), 389–413.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chatzidakis, A., Hibbert, S., & Smith, A. (2007). Why people don’t take their concerns about fair trade to the supermarket: The role of neutralisation. Journal of Business Ethics, 74(1), 89–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cialdini, R. B., Reno, R. R., & Kallgren, C. A. (1990). A focus theory of normative conduct: Recycling the concept of norms to reduce litterin in public places. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(6), 1015–1026.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coleman, J. W. (2005). The criminal elite: Understanding white-collar crime. New York: Worth Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, D. (1989). Organizational harm, legal condemnation and stakeholder retaliation: A typology, research agenda and application. Journal of Business Ethics, 8(1), 1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cone. (2010). The 2010 cone cause evolution study. Boston: Cone.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cone. (2011). Cone green gap trend tracker. Boston: Cone.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cowe, R., & Williams, S. (2000). Who are the ethical consumers?. Manchester: The Co-operative Bank.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cromwell, P. F., & Thurman, Q. C. (2003). The devil made me do it: Use of neutralizations by shoplifters. Deviant Behavior, 24(6), 535–550.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Bock, T., & Van Kenhove, P. (2011). Double standards: The role of techniques of neutralization. Journal of Business Ethics, 99(2), 283–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Pelsmacker, P., Driesen, L., & Rayp, G. (2005). Do consumers care about ethics? Willingness to pay for fair-trade coffee. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 39(2), 363–385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Devinney, T. M., Auger, P., & Eckhardt, G. M. (2010). The myth of the ethical consumer. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Devinney, T. M., Auger, P., Eckhardt, G. M., & Birtchnell, T. (2006). The other CSR: Consumer social responsibility. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 4, 30–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dolan, P. (2002). The sustainability of sustainable consumption. Journal of Macromarketing, 22(2), 170–181.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunford, F. W., & Kunz, P. R. (1973). The neutralization of religious dissonance. Review of Religious Research, 15(1), 2–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ehrich, K. R., & Irwin, J. R. (2005). Willful ignorance in the request for product attribute information. Journal of Marketing Research, 42(3), 266–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. The Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elster, J. (1989). Social norms and economic theory. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 3(4), 99–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fehr, E., & Fischbacher, U. (2004). Social norms and human cooperation. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8(4), 185–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fenichel, O. (1945). The psychoanalytic theory of neurosis. New York: Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford: University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, R. J. (1993). Social desirability bias and the validity of indirect questioning. Journal of Consumer Research, 20(2), 303–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Folkes, V. S., & Kamins, M. A. (1999). Effects of information about firms’ ethical and unethical actions on consumers’ attitudes. Journal of Consumer Psychology (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates), 8(3), 243–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freestone, O., & McGoldrick, P. (2008). Motivations of the ethical consumer. Journal of Business Ethics, 79(4), 445–467.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freud, A. (1936). The ego and the mechanisms of defense. New York: Hogarth.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fritsche, I. (2002). Account strategies for the violation of social norms: Integration and extension of sociological and social psychological typologies. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 32(4), 371–394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fritsche, I. (2005). Predicting deviant behavior by neutralization: Myths and findings. Deviant Behavior, 26(5), 483–510.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and self-identity: Self and society in the late modern age. Stanford: University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Hawthorne: Aldine Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris, L. C., & Dumas, A. (2009). Online consumer misbehaviour: An application of neutralization theory. Marketing Theory, 9(4), 379–402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hazani, M. (1991). The universal applicability of the theory of neutralization: German youth coming to terms with the holocaust. Crime Law and Social Change, 15(2), 135–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henry, S., & Eaton, R. (1999). Degrees of deviance: Student accounts of their deviant behavior. Salem: Sheffield Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hildebrand, D., Sen, S., & Bhattacharya, C. B. (2011). Corporate social responsibility: A corporate marketing perspective. European Journal of Marketing, 45(9/10), 1353–1364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of delinquency. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holloway, W., & Jefferson, T. (2000). Doing qualitative research differently: Free association, narrative, and the interview method. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, T. (Ed.). (2006). The earthscan reader in sustainable consumption. London: Earthscan.

  • Jones, T. M. (1991). Ethical decision making by individuals in organizations: An issue-contingent model. Academy of Management Review, 16(2), 366–395.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaiser, F. G., Byrka, K., & Hartig, T. (2010). Reviving Campbell’s paradigm for attitude research. Personality & Social Psychology Review, 14(4), 351–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaiser, F. G., & Schultz, W. P. (2009). The attitude–behavior relationship: A test of three models of the moderating role of behavioral difficulty. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 39(1), 186–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King, M. F., & Bruner, G. C. (2000). Social desirability bias: A neglected aspect of validity testing. Psychology & Marketing, 17(2), 79–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klockars, C. B. (1976). The professional fence. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Konty, M. (2005). Microanomie: The cognitive foundations of the relationship between anomie and deviance. Criminology, 43(1), 107–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kotler, P. (2011). Reinventing marketing to manage the environmental imperative. Journal of Marketing, 75(4), 132–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • LaPiere, R. T. (1934). Attitudes vs. actions. Social Forces, 13(2), 230–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lennick, D., & Kiel, F. (2005). Moral intelligence: Enhancing business performance and leadership success. Upper Saddle River: Pearson Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luchs, M. G., Naylor, R. W., Irwin, J. R., & Raghunathan, R. (2010). The sustainability liability: Potential negative effects of ethicality on product preference. Journal of Marketing, 74(5), 18–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maignan, I. (2001). Consumers’ perceptions of corporate social responsibilities: A cross-cultural comparison. Journal of Business Ethics, 30(1), 57–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maruna, S., & Copes, H. (2005). What have we learned from five decades of neutralization research? Crime and Justice, 32(221), 221–320.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGregor, S. L. T. (2008). Conceptualizing immoral and unethical consumption using neutralization theory. Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal, 36(3), 261–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Minor, W. W. (1981). Techniques of neutralization: A reconceptualization and empirical examination. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 18(2), 295–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mohr, L. A., & Webb, D. J. (2005). The effects of corporate social responsibility and price on consumer responses. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 39(1), 121–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mohr, L. A., Webb, D. J., & Harris, K. E. (2001). Do consumers expect companies to be socially responsible? The impact of corporate social responsibility on buying behavior. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 35(1), 45–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moisander, J. (2007). Motivational complexity of green consumerism. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 31(4), 404–409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nicholls, A., & Lee, N. (2006). Purchase decision-making in fair trade and the ethical purchase gap: Is there a fair trade twix? Journal of Strategic Marketing, 14(4), 369–386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Öberseder, M., Schlegelmilch, B. B., & Gruber, V. (2011). Why don’t consumers care about CSR?: A qualitative study exploring the role of CSR in consumption decisions. Journal of Business Ethics, 104(4), 449–460.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Papaoikonomou, E., Ryan, G., & Ginieis, M. (2011). Towards a holistic approach of the attitude behaviour gap in ethical consumer behaviours: Empirical evidence from Spain. International Advances in Economic Research, 17(1), 77–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prothero, A., Dobscha, S., Freund, J., Kilbourne, W. E., Luchs, M. G., Ozanne, L. K., et al. (2011). Sustainable consumption: Opportunities for consumer research and public policy. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 30(1), 31–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reno, R. R., Cialdini, R. B., & Kallgren, C. A. (1990). The transsituational influence of social norms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(1), 104–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rivis, A., & Sheeran, P. (2003). Descriptive norms as an additional predictor in the theory of planned behaviour: A meta-analysis. Current Psychology, 22(3), 218–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, J. A. (1996). Will the real socially responsible consumer please step forward. Business Horizons, 39(1), 79–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenbaum, M. S., Kuntze, R., & Wooldridge, B. R. (2011). Understanding unethical retail disposition practice and restraint from the consumer perspective. Psychology & Marketing, 28(1), 29–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sen, S., & Bhattacharya, C. B. (2001). Does doing good always lead to doing better? Consumer reactions to corporate social responsibility. Journal of Marketing Research, 38(2), 225–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sheeran, P. (2002). Intention-behavior relations: A conceptual and empirical review. European Review of Social Psychology, 12(1), 1–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon, F. L. (1995). Global corporate philanthropy: A strategic framework. International Marketing Review, 12(4), 20–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, J. R., & Louis, W. R. (2008). Do as we say and as we do: The interplay of descriptive and injunctive group norms in the attitude-behavior relationship. British Journal of Social Psychology, 47, 647–666.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spiggle, S. (1994). Analysis and interpretation of qualitative data in consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(3), 491–503.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strutton, D., Pelton, L. E., & Ferrell, O. C. (1997). Ethical behavior in retail settings: Is there a generation gap? Journal of Business Ethics, 16(1), 87–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sykes, G. M., & Matza, D. (1957). Techniques of neutralization: A theory of delinquency. American Sociological Review, 22(6), 664–670.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taneja, S., Taneja, P., & Gupta, R. (2011). Researches in corporate social responsibility: A review of shifting focus, paradigms, and methodologies. Journal of Business Ethics, 101(3), 343–364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thogersen, J., Jorgensen, A. K., & Sandager, S. (2012). Consumer decision making regarding a green everyday product. Psychology & Marketing, 29(4), 187–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tice, D. M. (1992). Self-concept change and self-presentation: The looking glass self is also a magnifying glass. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(3), 435–451.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • UNEP. (2003). Shopping for a better world. Paris: UNEP.

  • UNEP. (2005). Talk the walk? Advancing sustainable lifestyles through marketing and communications. Paris: UNEP/UN Global Compact.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zaltman, G., LeMasters, K., & Heffring, M. (1982). Theory construction in marketing: Some thoughts on thinking. New York: John Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for International Marketing Management, WU Vienna, Augasse 2-6, 1090, Vienna, Austria

    Verena Gruber & Bodo B. Schlegelmilch

Authors
  1. Verena Gruber
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Bodo B. Schlegelmilch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Verena Gruber.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Gruber, V., Schlegelmilch, B.B. How Techniques of Neutralization Legitimize Norm- and Attitude-Inconsistent Consumer Behavior. J Bus Ethics 121, 29–45 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1667-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1667-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation