Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Ethical Attribute Stigma: Understanding When Ethical Attributes Improve Consumer Responses to Product Evaluations

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

Abstract

Although several articles have investigated ethical product attributes, earlier research has not empirically examined different benefits offered by ethical attributes (i.e., symbolic or utilitarian benefits). This study demonstrates that ethical attributes have functional benefits as well as symbolic benefits. More importantly, when the ethical attribute benefit is congruent with the product category benefit, ethical attributes improve product evaluations. In addition, products with a higher degree of physical contact with consumers are affected more positively by benefit congruity of ethical attributes. For products with lower degree of physical contact, benefit congruity of ethical attributes still has a positive impact, but not for consumers who have strong price–quality beliefs.

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
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. We used regression analysis to utilize the continuous price–quality belief measure, the results of repeated measures ANOVA with categorical price–quality belief (median-split) provided similar results.

References

  • Angyal, A. (1941). Disgust and related aversions. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 36(3), 393–412.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Argo, J. J., Dahl, D. W., & Morales, A. C. (2006). Consumer contamination: How consumers react to products touched by others. Journal of Marketing, 70(2), 81–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Argo, J. J., Dahl, D. W., & Morales, A. C. (2008). Positive consumer contagion: Responses to attractive others in a retail context. Journal of Marketing Research, 45(6), 690–701.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Auger, P., Devinney, T. M., Louviere, J. J., & Burke, P. F. (2008). Do social product features have value to consumers? International Journal of Research in Marketing, 25(3), 183–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barone, M. J., Norman, A. T., & Miyazaki, A. D. (2007). Consumer response to retailer use of cause-related marketing: Is more fit better? Journal of Retailing, 83(4), 437–445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Becker-Olsen, K. L., Cudmore, B. A., & Hill, R. P. (2006). The impact of perceived corporate social responsibility on consumer behavior. Journal of Business Research, 59(1), 46–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berens, G., van Riel, C. B. M., & van Rekom, J. (2007). The CSR-quality trade-off: When can corporate social responsibility and corporate ability compensate each other? Journal of Business Ethics, 74(3), 233–252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bettman, J. R., John, D. R., & Scott, C. A. (1986). Convariation assessment by consumers. Journal of Consumer Research, 13(3), 316–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bodur, H. O., & Grohmann, B. (2004). Goal-oriented ad design: An investigation of message type and consumption goal congruence. In F. F. Boctor & A. Martel (Eds.), Administrative sciences association of Canada conference proceedings, Quebec City, QC (Vol. 25).

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chandon, P., Wansink, B., & Laurent, G. (2000). A benefit congruency framework of sales promotion effectiveness. Journal of Marketing, 64(4), 65–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Darke, P. R., & Chung, C. M. Y. (2005). Effects of pricing and promotion on consumer perceptions: It depends on how you frame it. Journal of Retailing, 81(1), 35–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dhar, R., & Wertenbroch, K. (2000). Consumer choice between hedonic and utilitarian goods. Journal of Marketing Research, 37(1), 60–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, J. R., & Lambert, L. S. (2007). Methods for integrating moderation and mediation: A general analytical framework using moderated path analysis. Psychological Methods, 12(1), 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ellen, P. S., Webb, D. J., & Mohr, L. A. (2006). Building corporate associations: Consumer attributions for corporate socially responsible programs. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34(2), 147–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forehand, M., & Grier, S. R. (2003). When is honesty the best policy? The effect of stated company intent on consumer skepticism. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13(3), 349–357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, D. T., & Malone, P. S. (1995). The correspondence bias. Psychological Bulletin, 117(1), 21–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, A. F. (2012). Process: A versatile computational tool for observed variable mediation, moderation, and conditional process modeling. Accessed from http://www.afhayes.com/public/process2012.pdf. Accessed 24 Oct 2012.

  • Hirschman, E. C., & Holbrook, M. B. (1982). Hedonic consumption: Emerging concepts, methods and propositions. Journal of Marketing, 46(3), 92–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kardes, F. R., Cronley, M. L., Kellaris, J. J., & Posavac, S. S. (2004). The role of selective information processing in price–quality inference. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(2), 368–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • LeBoeuf, R. A., & Simmons, J. P. (2010). Branding alters attitude functions and reduces the advantage of function-matching persuasive appeals. Journal of Marketing Research, 47(2), 348–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin, Y. C., & Chang, C. A. (2012). Double standard: The role of environmental consciousness in green product usage. Journal of Marketing, 76(5), 125–134.

    Article  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 

  • Meyvis, T., & Janiszewski, C. (2002). Consumers’ beliefs about product benefits: The effect of obviously irrelevant product information. Journal of Consumer Research, 28(4), 618–635.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mishra, A. (2009). Influence of contagious versus noncontagious product groupings on consumer preferences. Journal of Consumer Research, 36(1), 73–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Monroe, K. B., & Krishnan, R. (1985). The effect of price on subjective product evaluations. Perceived Quality, 1, 209–232.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moraes, C., Carrigan, M., & Szmigin, I. (2012). The coherence of inconsistencies: Attitude–behavior gaps and new consumption communities. Journal of Marketing Management, 28(1–2), 103–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morales, A. C., & Fitzsimons, G. J. (2007). Product contagion: Changing consumer evaluations through physical contact with “disgusting” products. Journal of Marketing Research, 44(2), 272–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Naylor, R. W., & Trudel, R. (2012). Is less more when communicating sustainability? Consumer response to detailed sustainability product labels. In Proceedings of the association for consumer research, Vancouver, BC.

  • Nemeroff, C., & Rozin, P. (1989). “You are what you eat”: Applying the demand-free “impressions” technique to an unacknowledged belief. Journal of the Society for Psychological Anthropology, 17(1), 50–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nemeroff, C., & Rozin, P. (1994). The contagion concept in adult thinking in the United States: Transmission of germs and of interpersonal influence. Journal of the Society for Psychological Anthropology, 22(2), 158–186.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nemeroff, C., & Rozin, P. (2000). The makings of the magical mind: The nature and function of sympathetic magical thinking. In K. S. Rosengren, C. N. Johnson, & P. L. Harris (Eds.), Imagining the impossible: Magical, scientific, and religious thinking in children (pp. 1–34). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Newman, G. E., Diesendruck, G., & Bloom, P. (2011). Celebrity contagion and the value of objects. Journal of Consumer Research, 38(2), 215–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Okada, E. M. (2005). Justification effects on consumer choice of hedonic and utilitarian goods. Journal of Marketing Research, 42(1), 43–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park, C. W., Jaworski, B. J., & Maclnnis, D. J. (1986). Strategic brand concept-image management. Journal of Marketing, 50(4), 135–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Preacher, K., Rucker, D. D., & Hayes, A. F. (2007). Addressing moderated mediation hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42(1), 185–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rao, A. R., & Monroe, K. B. (1988). The moderating effect of prior knowledge on cue utilization in product evaluations. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(2), 253–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rifon, N. J., Choi, S. M., Trimble, C. S., & Li, H. (2004). Congruence effects in sponsorship. Journal of Advertising, 33(1), 29–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rozin, P., Millman, L., & Nemeroff, C. (1986). Operation of the laws of sympathetic magic in disgust and other domains. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(4), 703–712.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rozin, P., Nemeroff, C., Horowitz, M., Gordon, B., & Voet, W. (1995). The borders of the self: Contamination sensitivity and potency of the body apertures and other body parts. Journal of Research in Personality, 29(3), 318–340.

    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 

  • Shiv, B., Carmon, Z., & Ariely, D. (2005). Placebo effects of marketing actions: Consumers may get what they pay for. Journal of Marketing Research, 42(4), 383–393.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sloot, L. M., Verhoef, P. C., & Franses, P. H. (2005). The impact of brand equity and the hedonic level of products on consumer stock-out reactions. Journal of Retailing, 81(1), 15–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strahilevitz, M., & Myers, J. G. (1998). Donations to charity as purchase incentives: How well they work may depend on what you are trying to sell. Journal of Consumer Research, 24(4), 434–446.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Torelli, C. J., Monga, A. B., & Kaikati, A. M. (2012). Doing poorly by doing good: Corporate social responsibility and brand concepts. Journal of Consumer Research, 38(5), 948–963.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vermeir, I., & Verbeke, W. (2006). Sustainable food consumption: exploring the consumer “attitude-behavioral intention” gap. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 19(2), 169–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vlachos, P. A., Tsamakos, A., Vrechopoulos, A. P., & Avramidis, P. K. (2009). Corporate social responsibility: Attributions, loyalty and the mediating role of trust. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 37(2), 170–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Voss, K. E., Spangenberg, E. R., & Grohmann, B. (2003). Measuring the hedonic and utilitarian dimensions of consumer attitude. Journal of Marketing Research, 40(3), 310–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilcox, K., Kim, H. M., & Sen, S. (2009). Why do consumers buy counterfeit luxury brands? Journal of Marketing Research, 46(2), 247–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge the helpful comments of Kimberly Duval on earlier versions of the manuscript and the support of the Center for Multidisciplinary Behavioral Business Research (CMBBR).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Marketing Department, Concordia University, 1455 De Maisonneuve Blv. W., Montreal, QC, H3G 1M8, Canada

    H. Onur Bodur, Ting Gao & Bianca Grohmann

Authors
  1. H. Onur Bodur
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ting Gao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Bianca Grohmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to H. Onur Bodur.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bodur, H.O., Gao, T. & Grohmann, B. The Ethical Attribute Stigma: Understanding When Ethical Attributes Improve Consumer Responses to Product Evaluations. J Bus Ethics 122, 167–177 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1764-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1764-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation