Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

“What’s the Harm in Being Unethical? These Strangers are Rich Anyway!” Exploring Underlying Factors of Double Standards

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

Abstract

Previous studies show evidence of double standards in terms of individuals being more tolerant of questionable consumer practices than of similar business practices. However, whether these double standards are necessarily due to the fact that one party is a business company while the other is a consumer was not addressed. The results of our two experimental studies, conducted among 277 (Study 1) and 264 (Study 2) participants from a Western European country by means of an anonymous self-administered online survey, demonstrate that the respondents were not only harsher in their judgments of unethical business (vs. consumer) behavior, but also harsher in their judgments of unethical behavior by prosperous (vs. non-prosperous) consumers and prosperous (vs. non-prosperous) business companies (Study 1). Further, they were also less tolerant of unethical behavior by consumers (vs. one’s best friend) and business companies with which they have a less than good (vs. a good) relationship (Study 2). These results indicate that double standards are due to differences in perceived wealth between subjects and in the individual’s relationship with subjects. These two factors imply that double standards are not strictly reserved to consumer–business relations, but might also be used in business–business and consumer–consumer relations. Further, these results indicate that companies need to be aware of the fact that good financial figures may backfire as they might lead individuals to be more critical of a company’s deceptive practices. Moreover, these findings point to the importance of businesses investing resources—and to keep investing resources—in developing a good relationship with stakeholders as these good relationships lead to stakeholders being less prone to make moral condemnations.

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
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. With regard to the individual scenarios, Hypothesis 1 can be confirmed for “passively benefiting at the expense of others” [F(1,270) = 40.02, p < 0.001], “actively benefiting from questionable practices” [F(1,270) = 43.13, p < 0.001], and “downloading copyrighted materials/buying counterfeit goods” F(1,270) = 28.21, p < 0.001].

  2. With regard to the individual scenarios, Hypothesis 2a can be confirmed for “actively benefiting from illegal activities” [F(1,270) = 12.34, p < 0.01], “passively benefiting at the expense of others” [F(1,270) = 18.36, p < 0.001], and “downloading copyrighted materials/buying counterfeit goods” [F(1,270) = 11.08, p < 0.01].

  3. With regard to the individual scenarios, Hypothesis 2b can be confirmed for “actively benefiting from illegal activities” [F(1,270) = 11.90, p < 0.01] and “passively benefiting at the expense of others” [F(1,270) = 4.60, p < 0.05].

  4. With regard to the individual scenarios, Hypothesis 2c can be confirmed for “passively benefiting at the expense of others” [F(1,270) = 15.37, p < 0.001] and “downloading copyrighted materials/buying counterfeit goods” [F(1,270) = 9.47, p < 0.01].

  5. With regard to the individual scenarios, Hypothesis 1 can be confirmed for “passively benefiting at the expense of others” [F(1,257) = 76.50, p < 0.001], “actively benefiting from questionable practices” [F(1,257) = 160.44, p < 0.001], “no harm/no foul” [F(1,257) = 5.32, p < 0.05], and “downloading copyrighted materials/buying counterfeit goods” [F(1,257) = 49.74, p < 0.001].

  6. With regard to the individual scenarios, Hypothesis 3a can be confirmed for “actively benefiting from illegal activities” [F(1,257) = 8.03, p < 0.01], “no harm/no foul” [F(1,257) = 4.22, p < 0.05], and “downloading copyrighted materials/buying counterfeit goods” [F(1,257) = 5.75, p < 0.05].

  7. With regard to the individual scenarios, Hypothesis 3b can be confirmed for “actively benefiting from illegal activities” [F(1,257) = 3.82, p = 0.052] and “downloading copyrighted materials/buying counterfeit goods” [F(1,257) = 7.27, p < 0.01].

  8. With regard to the individual scenarios, Hypothesis 3c can be confirmed for “actively benefiting from illegal activities” [F(1,257) = 4.26, p < 0.05] and “no harm/no foul” [F(1,257) = 9.89, p < 0.01].

  9. This subject was a consumer, one’s best friend, a company with which one has a less than good relationship, a company with which one has a good relationship, a non-prosperous consumer, a prosperous consumer, a non-prosperous company, or a prosperous company

References

  • Aksoy, L., Cooil, B., Groening, C., Keiningham, T. L., & Yalçin, A. (2008). The long-term stock market valuation of customer satisfaction. Journal of Marketing, 72(4), 105–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Al-Khatib, J. A., Vitell, S. J., & Rawwas, M. Y. A. (1997). Consumer ethics: A cross-cultural investigation. European Journal of Marketing, 31(11/12), 750–767.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Al-Khatib, J. A., Vitell, S. J., Rexeisen, R., & Rawwas, M. Y. A. (2005). Inter-country differences of consumer ethics in Arab countries. International Business Review, 14(4), 495–516.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Banaji, M. R., Bazerman, M. H., & Chugh, D. (2003). How (un)ethical are you? Harvard Business Review, 81(12), 56–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnett, J. H., & Karson, M. J. (1987). Personal values and business decisions: An exploratory investigation. Journal of Business Ethics, 6(5), 371–382.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baron, J., & Hershey, J. C. (1988). Outcome bias in decision evaluation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(4), 569–579.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baumhart, R. (1961). How ethical are businessmen? Harvard Business Review, 38(1), 6–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berry, L. L., & Seiders, K. (2008). Serving unfair customers. Business Horizons, 51(1), 29–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brenner, S. N., & Molander, E. A. (1977). Is the ethics of business executives changing? Harvard Business Review, 55(1), 57–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chan, A., Wong, S., & Leung, P. (1998). Ethical beliefs of Chinese consumers in Hong Kong. Journal of Business Ethics, 17(11), 1163–1170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chiou, J., & Pan, L. (2008). The impact of social Darwinism perception, status anxiety, perceived trust of people, and cultural orientation on consumer ethical beliefs. Journal of Business Ethics, 78(4), 487–502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Demoulin, N. T. M., & Zidda, P. (2009). Drivers of customers’ adoption and adoption timing of a new loyalty card in the grocery retail market. Journal of Retailing, 85(3), 391–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DePaulo, P. (1985). The ethics of deception in retail bargaining: Do consumers accept the game analogy? Paper presented at the 1985 Conference of the Southwestern Marketing Association. New Orleans.

  • DePaulo, P. (1987). Ethical perceptions of deceptive bargaining tactics used by salespersons and customers: A double standard. In J. Saegert (Ed.), Proceedings of the division of consumer psychology. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeScioli, P., Christner, J., & Kurzban, R. (2011). The omission strategy. Psychological Science, 22(4), 442–446.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dodge, H. R., Edwards, E. A., & Fullerton, S. (1996). Consumer transgressions in the marketplace: Consumers’ perspectives. Psychology & Marketing, 13(8), 821–835.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drucker, P. (1981). What is business ethics? The Public Interest, 63(2), 18–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fehr, E., & Schmidt, K. M. (1999). A theory of fairness, competition, and cooperation. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114(3), 817–868.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferrell, O. C., Fraedrich, J., & Ferrell, L. (2008). Business ethics. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forsyth, D. R. (1980). A taxonomy of ethical ideologies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(1), 175–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forsyth, D. R. (1992). Judging the morality of business practices: The influence of personal moral philosophies. Journal of Business Ethics, 11(5–6), 461–470.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Furnham, A. (1993). Just world beliefs in twelve societies. Journal of Social Psychology, 133(3), 317–329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gino, F., Gu, J., & Zhong, C. (2009). Contagion or restitution? When bad apples can motivate ethical behavior. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(6), 1299–1302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gino, F., & Pierce, L. (2010a). Robin Hood under the Hood: Wealth-based discrimination in illicit customer help. Organization Science, 21(6), 1176–1194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gino, F., & Pierce, L. (2010b). Lying to level the playing field: Why people may dishonestly help or hurt others to create equity. Journal of Business Ethics, 95(1), 89–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gino, F., Shu, L. L., & Bazerman, M. H. (2010). Nameless + harmless = blameless: When seemingly irrelevant factors influence judgment of (un)ethical behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 111(2), 93–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldschmied, N., & Vandello, J. A. (2009). The advantage of disadvantage: Underdogs in the political arena. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 31(1), 24–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hafer, C. L., & Bégue, L. (2005). Experimental research on just world theory: Problems, developments, and future challenges. Psychological Bulletin, 131(1), 128–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haidt, J. (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review, 108(4), 814–834.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, R. R., Jr. (1996). Selling the concept of loss prevention. Security Management, 40(12), 53–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heine, S. J., Lehman, D. R., Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1999). Is there a universal need for positive self-regard? Psychological Review, 106, 766–794.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoberg, E. J., Oveis, C., Keltner, D., & Cohen, A. B. (2009). Disgust as the moralization of purity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(6), 963–976.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Jost, J. T., & Banaji, M. R. (1994). The role of stereotyping in system-justification and the production of false consciousness. British Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 1–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jost, J. T., Banaji, M. R., & Nosek, B. A. (2004). A decade of system justification theory: Accumulated evidence of conscious and unconscious bolstering of the status quo. Political Psychology, 25(6), 881–919.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kay, A. C., & Jost, J. T. (2003). Complementary justice: Effects of ‘poor but happy’ and ‘poor but honest’ stereotype exemplars on system justification and implicit activation of the justice motive. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(5), 823–837.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kay, A. C., Jost, J. T., Mandisodza, A. N., Sherman, S. J., Petrocelli, J. V., & Johnson, A. L. (2007). Panglossian ideology in the service of system justification: How complementary stereotypes help us to rationalize inequality. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 39, 305–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, J., Allison, S. T., Eylon, D., Goethals, G. R., Markus, M. J., Hindle, S. M., et al. (2008). Rooting for (and then abandoning) the underdog. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38(10), 2550–2573.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kohlberg, L. (1976). Moral stages and moralization: The cognitive developmental approach. In T. Lickona (Ed.), Moral development and behavior (pp. 31–53). New York: Holt, Rinchart Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lammers, J., Stapel, D. A., & Galinsky, A. D. (2010). Power increases hypocrisy: Moralizing in reasoning, immorality in behavior. Psychological Science, 21(5), 737–744.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lerner, M. (1980). The belief in a just world: A fundamental delusion. New York: Plenum Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lerner, M. J., & Miller, D. T. (1978). Just world research and the attribution process: Looking back and ahead. Psychological Bulletin, 85(5), 1030–1051.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lowenstein, G. F., Thompson, L., & Bazerman, M. H. (1989). Social utility and decision making in interpersonal contexts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(3), 426–441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mazar, N., & Ariely, D. (2006). Dishonesty in everyday life and its policy implications. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 25(1), 117–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Messick, D. M. (1995). Equality, fairness, and social conflict. Social Justice Research, 8(2), 153–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muncy, J. A., & Eastman, J. K. (1998). Materialism and consumer ethics: An exploratory study. Journal of Business Ethics, 17(2), 137–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muncy, J. A., & Vitell, S. J. (1992). Consumer ethics: An investigation of the ethical beliefs of the final consumer. Journal of Business Research, 24(4), 297–311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neale, L., & Fullerton, S. (2010). The international search for ethics norms: Which consumer behaviors do consumers consider (un)acceptable? Journal of Services Marketing, 24(6), 476–486.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rallapalli, K. C., Vitell, S. J., Wiebe, F. A., & Barnes, J. H. (1994). Consumer ethical beliefs and personality traits: An exploratory analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 13(7), 487–495.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rawwas, M. Y. A., Patzer, G., & Klassen, M. (1995). Consumer ethics in cross-cultural settings. European Journal of Marketing, 29(7), 62–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rawwas, M. Y. A., Swaidan, Z., & Oyman, M. (2005). Consumer ethics: A cross-cultural study of the ethical beliefs of Turkish and American consumers. Journal of Business Ethics, 57(2), 183–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rawwas, M. Y. A., Vitell, S. J., & Al-Khatib, J. A. (1994). Consumer ethics: The possible effects of terrorism and civil unrest on the ethical values of consumers. Journal of Business Ethics, 13(3), 223–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schnall, S., Haidt, J., Clore, G., & Jordan, A. (2008). Disgust as embodied moral judgment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(8), 1096–1109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spranca, M., Minsk, E., & Baron, J. (1991). Omission and commission in judgment and choice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 27(1), 76–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stanaland, A. J. S., Lwin, M. O., & Murphy, P. E. (2011). Consumer perceptions of the antecedents and consequences of corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 102(1), 47–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steenhaut, S., & Van Kenhove, P. (2005). Relationship commitment and ethical consumer behavior in a retail setting: The case of receiving too much change at the checkout. Journal of Business Ethics, 56(4), 335–353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Chicago: Nelson-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Torres, A., & Tribo, J. A. (2011). Customer satisfaction and brand equity. Journal of Business Research, 64(10), 1089–1096.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turiel, E. (1983). The development of social knowledge: Morality and convention. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Valdesolo, P., & DeSteno, D. (2007). Moral hypocrisy: Social groups and the flexibility of virtue. Psychological Science, 18(8), 689–690.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Valdesolo, P., & DeSteno, D. (2008). The duality of virtue: Deconstructing the moral hypocrite. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44(5), 1334–1338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Kenhove, P., De Wulf, K., & Steenhaut, S. (2003). The relationship between consumers’ unethical behavior and customer loyalty in a retail environment. Journal of Business Ethics, 44(4), 261–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vandello, J. A., Goldschmied, N., & Richards, D. A. R. (2007). The appeal of the underdog. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33(12), 1603–1616.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vandello, J. A., Michniewicz, K. S., & Goldschmied, N. (2011). Moral judgments of the powerless and powerful in violent intergroup conflicts. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47(6), 1173–1178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verhoef, P. C. (2003). Understanding the effect of customer relationship management efforts on customer retention and customer share development. Journal of Marketing, 67(4), 30–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vermeir, I., & Van Kenhove, P. (2008). Gender differences in double standards. Journal of Business Ethics, 81(2), 281–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vitell, S. J., & Festervand, T. (1987). Business ethics: Conflicts, practices and beliefs of industrial executives. Journal of Business Ethics, 6(2), 111–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vitell, S. J., Lumpkin, J. R., & Rawwas, M. Y. A. (1991). Consumer ethics: An investigation of the ethical beliefs of elderly consumers. Journal of Business Ethics, 10(5), 365–375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vitell, S. J., & Muncy, J. A. (1992). Consumer ethics: An empirical investigation of factors influencing ethical judgments of the final consumer. Journal of Business Ethics, 11(8), 585–597.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vitell, S. J., & Muncy, J. A. (2005). The Muncy–Vitell Consumer Ethics Scale: A modification and application. Journal of Business Ethics, 62(3), 267–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vitell, S. J., Paolillo, J. G. P., & Singh, J. J. (2005). Religiosity and consumer ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 57(2), 175–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vitell, S. J., Singh, J. J., & Paolillo, J. G. P. (2007). Consumers’ ethical beliefs: The roles of money, religiosity and attitude toward business. Journal of Business Ethics, 73(4), 369–379.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whysall, P. (2000). Addressing ethical issues in retailing: A stakeholder perspective. International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, 10(3), 305–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilkes, R. E. (1978). Fraudulent behaviour by consumers. Journal of Marketing, 42(4), 67–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wirtz, J., & McColl-Kennedy, J. R. (2010). Opportunistic customer claiming during service recovery. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 38(5), 654–675.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Marketing, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Ghent University, Tweekerkenstraat 2, 9000, Ghent, Belgium

    Tine De Bock & Patrick Van Kenhove

  2. Department of Business Administration and Management, University College Ghent, Voskenslaan 270, 9000, Ghent, Belgium

    Iris Vermeir

  3. Department of Marketing, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Ghent University, Tweekerkenstraat 2, 9000, Ghent, Belgium

    Iris Vermeir

Authors
  1. Tine De Bock
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Iris Vermeir
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Patrick Van Kenhove
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tine De Bock.

Appendix

Appendix

Scenario 1: Actively Benefiting from Illegal Activities

A [subject]Footnote 9 returns a product to the supplier because it is damaged. However, the damage was the fault of the [subject] and not of the supplier.

Scenario 2: Passively Benefiting at the Expense of Others

A company needs to repay 40 euros to the bank account of a [subject]. However, through carelessness, the company pays 60 euros. The [subject] notices this, but does not say anything and keeps the extra 20 euros.

Scenario 3: Actively Benefiting from Questionable Practices

A [subject] does not tell the whole truth when negotiating with a car dealer about the price of a new vehicle.

Scenario 4: No Harm/No Foul

During a period of some weeks, a [subject] negotiates with an architect’s firm about the plans for a new accommodation, although the [subject] is not yet completely sure about the cooperation with the firm and maybe will shrug off the building plan.

Scenario 5: Downloading Copyrighted Materials/Buying Counterfeit Goods

A [subject] downloads (copyrighted) software on one of his/her/its computers without paying for it.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

De Bock, T., Vermeir, I. & Van Kenhove, P. “What’s the Harm in Being Unethical? These Strangers are Rich Anyway!” Exploring Underlying Factors of Double Standards. J Bus Ethics 112, 225–240 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1244-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1244-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation