Governments, institutions, and brands try various intervention strategies for countering growing cyberbullying, but with questionable effectiveness. The authors use hypocrisy induction, a technique for subtly reminding consumers that they have acted contrary to their moral values, to see whether it makes consumers more willing to support brand-sponsored anti-cyberbullying CSR campaigns. Findings demonstrate that hypocrisy induction evokes varying reactions depending on regulatory focus, mediated by guilt and shame. Specifically, consumers who have a dominant promotion (prevention) focus feel guilt (shame), which motivates (...) them to overcome their discomfort by supporting (avoiding) an anti-cyberbullying campaign. Moral regulation is drawn as a theoretical underpinning to explain various consumer reactions to hypocrisy induction, the moderating role of regulatory focus, and mediating role of guilt and shame. The research contributes to the literature and provides practical implications by explaining when and why brands can use hypocrisy induction to persuade consumers to support social causes through the lens of moral regulation theory. (shrink)

This paper is a section that is included in a philosophy of education doctoral thesis on John Locke’s educational epistemology. In this part, I argue that Locke’s conception of liberty as limited based on the natural law and later the civil laws can shed a light on our understanding of freedom in our educational practice. Lockean call for the balance between limited freedom of individual and limited governance of political authority is theoretically translated at the end of this paper into (...) the call for the practical balance between limited freedom of students and limited governance of teachers. Then this paper will offer logical ground for Locke’s understanding of freedom and its limitation, and suggest a theoretical connection to an argument on epistemic liberty in education. (shrink)