1 |Masterthesis M.Sc. Business Administration, Marketing|
Sarafina
Burkhard,
2015
What’s your excuse?
Consumers’ techniques to deal with guilt pre and post
unethical purchase situations
What’s your excuse?
Consumers’ techniques to deal with guilt pre and post
unethical purchase situations
Sarafina R. Burkhard 10696946
Master Thesis Final Version 28.01.2015
Supervisor: Marlene Vock Second Reader: Lars Moratis
University of Amsterdam
Statement of Originality
This document is written by Sarafina Burkhard who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document. I declare that the text and the work presented in this document is original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it. The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents.
4
Abstract
Over the last decade, consumer’s awareness of the impact of their own consumption behavior on environmental and social issues has increased. However, consumers barely translate their concerns into ethical consumerism. Due to rising interest in ethical consumption, both practitioners and academia are interested in analyzing factors that may further or hamper ethical consumption. This study aims to shed light on consumers’ attitude-behavior gap. I investigate how the concepts of anticipatory and reactive consumer guilt impact the usage of the internal and external neutralisation techniques and, in turn, ethical purchase intention in the context of sweatshop labor fashion products. The results show that anticipatory and reactive guilt positively influence consumers ethical purchase intentions to the same extent. Moreover, guilt type does not influence the kind of neutralisation technique applied by the consumer. The negative effect of neutralisation techniques on ethical purchase intention, however, is higher for internal than for external neutralisation techniques.
5
Table of Content
List of tables, figures, appendices and abbreviations ... 6
1. Introduction ... 8
1.1 The attitude-behavior gap ... 8
1.2 Past research and intended scientific and managerial contribution ... 10
1.3 Research question ... 12
2. Theoretical framework ... 14
2.1 Ethical purchase intention ... 14
2.2 Consumer guilt ... 16 2.2.1 Anticipatory guilt... 17 2.2.2 Reactive guilt ... 18 2.3 Neutralisation techniques ... 22 2.4 Conceptual framework ... 33 3. Method ... 34 3.1 Measurement of variables ... 34 3.3 Procedure ... 40 3.4 Sample ... 41 4. Results ... 43 4.1 Manipulation check ... 44
4.2 Exploratory factor analysis and scale reliability ... 47
4.3 Correlation analysis ... 49 4.4 Preliminary analysis ... 51 4.5 Hypothesis 1 ... 51 4.6 Hypothesis 2 ... 55 4.7 Hypothesis 3 ... 57 4.8 Hypothesis 4 ... 58
4.9 Summary of research results ... 61
5. Discussion ... 62
5.1 Discussion of results and managerial implications ... 62
5.2 Limitations and suggestions for future research ... 67
6. References ... 70
6
List of tables, figures, appendices and abbreviations
Tables
Table 1: Ethical context of studies on consumer guilt ... 21
Table 2: Ethical context of studies on neutralisation techniques ... 32
Table 3: Manipulation check (adapted from Renner, 2013) ... 36
Table 4: Guilt feelings (adapted from Dahl, et al., 2003) ... 37
Table 5: Neutralisation technique items (adapted from Brunner, 2014) ... 38
Table 6: Ethical purchase intention ... 39
Table 7: Prosocial attitudes ... 39
Table 8: Overview Chronbachs alpha ... 44
Table 9: Manipulation check (pretest 1) ... 45
Table 10: Manipulation check (pretest 2) ... 46
Table 11: Manipualtion check (survey) ... 46
Table 12: Neutralisation items including mean values and standard deviation, factor and factor loadings ... 48
Table 13: Mean values, standard deviations, correlations and reliabilities ... 50
Table 14: Mean values and standard deviations per guilt condition ... 50
Table 15: Mean comparison of guilt feelings in dependence of AG and RG condition, respectively ... 51
Table 16: Hierarchical regression model of ethical purchase intention (AG condition) ... 52
Table 17: Hierarchical regression model of ethical purchase intention (RG condition) ... 53
Table 18: Mean differences between respondents in the anticipatory and reactive guilt, respectively, on ethical puchase intention ... 54
Table 19: Mean comparisons of the application of internal and external neutralisation techniques in dependence AG and RG, respectively ... 55
Table 20: Mean comparisons of the application of neutralisation techniques (in general) in dependence of AG and RG, respectively ... 56
Table 21: Multiple regression analysis ... 58
7
Table 23: Summary of research results ... 61
Figures Figure 1: Conceptual Framework ... 33
Figure 2: Multiple mediation ... 60
Appendices Appendix 1: Pretest 1 - Manipulation messages... 76
Appendix 2: Pretest 2 - Manipulation messages... 78
Appendix 3: Main survey - Manipulation message ... 81
Appendix 4: Questionnaire (main survey) ... 82
Appendix 5: Exploratory Factor Analysis ... 82
Appendix 6: Correlation Matrix ... 82
Appendix 7: H1a - SPSS Output ... 82
Appendix 8: H1b - SPSS Output ... 82 Appendix 9: H1c - SPSS Output ... 82 Appendix 10: H2 - SPSS Output ... 82 Appendix 11: H3 - SPSS Output ... 82 Appendix 12: H4 - SPSS Output ... 82 Abbreviations
AG: anticipatory guilt RG: reactive guilt
NT(s): neutralisation technique(s)
iNT(s): internal neutralisation technique(s) eNT(s): external neutralisation technique(s) LOC: locus of control
8
1. Introduction
1.1 The attitude-behavior gap
“Over the last decade, the reach of ethical consumerism has widened from the cultural fringes to mainstream society” (Carrington, Neville, & Whitwell, 2010, p. 139). Consumers’ ethical concerns and awareness of the impact of their own consumption on environmental and social issues has increased, and so has their demand for more ethical product alternatives. Although estimates vary, Vermeir and Verbeke (2006) synthesize that approximately 30% of the sampled consumers have a positive attitude towards ethical consumption. However, ethical attitudes do not necessarily translate into expressed buying behavior. Research in the UK for instance has shown that only 4% of total domestic consumer spending goes to the ethical product market. In other words, only about one-tenth of self-declared ethical concerned consumers translate their concerns into actual ethical purchase behavior (Blackmore, 2009). Throughout the literature, this phenomenon has been referred to as the attitude–behavior, or word-deed gap (Öberseder, Schlegelmilch, & Gruber, 2011; Padel & Foster, 2005; Vermeir & Verbeke, 2006). Consequently, our consumption patterns still lead to severe environmental and social issues. The Living Planet Index1, for instance, shows a 35% decline in the planet’s ecological health since 1970. Moreover, the trend of globalization allows companies to offshore production sites to countries where labor costs are much lower than in the industrialized world, causing social problems such as abuses of labor and human rights. Another example of ethical concern is the use of intensive livestock breeding in order to satisfy the great demand for meat, especially in industrialized countries (The Worldwatch Institute, 2004).
1indicator of the state of global biological health and diversity developed by WWF
9 But why do consumers’ ethical concerns not translate into ethical consumption? Due to the rising interest in ethical consumption, both practitioners and academia are interested in further analyzing consumers’ attitude-behavior gap. The aim is to find out about antecedents of ethical consumption and factors that possibly affect the relationship between the antecedents and actual ethical purchase behavior. Research already indicates that ethically concerned consumers who choose the unethical alternative when faced with a clear choice between fairly traded goods and mainstream products may feel cognitive dissonance (Chatzidakis, Hibbert, & Smith, 2007) and feelings of guilt (Brunner, 2014). These resulting feelings were found to shape consumer decision making processes (Burnett & Lunsford, 1994) as consumers tend to try to avoid behavior that might lead to this negative experience (e.g. Lindsey, 2005). In other words: guilt feelings which arise when planning to buy (anticipatory guilt) or having bought (reactive guilt) an unethical product might force consumers to rethink their choice and go for the ethical product instead (in the future). However, past studies dealing with consumers’ observed attitude-behavior gap, found that ethically concerned consumers tend to justify their unethical choices by giving arguments in favor of their choice (for instance by applying neutralisation techniques) with the objective of reducing their sense of moral responsibility (Antonetti, 2012), or, in other words, their negative feelings of guilt. For instance, consumers opting for cheap fashion items which they know have been produced under unethical working conditions may argue that they cannot afford more expensive clothes or that even the more expensive fashion items are produced in sweatshops. Another line of argument might be that workers in the sweatshops of third world countries are better off than their compatriots working in the fields. Therefore, both consumer guilt and justification strategies seem to be very important factors in the explanation of ethical consumption and the word-deed gap.
10 1.2 Past research and intended scientific and managerial contribution
The aim of this study is to contribute to scientific knowledge about ethical consumerism and the underlying reasons for the often observed attitude-behavior gap in ethical consumption. This research is the first that investigates the difference between anticipated and reactive guilt on (1) the application of neutralisation techniques and (2) consumers’ ethical purchase intention in the context of ethical consumption. Moreover, this study for the first time analyses (3) the mediating effect of internal and external neutralisation on the relationship between anticipated and reactive guilt and ethical purchase intention.
In past studies, anticipatory guilt was shown to have a significant effect on behavior, shaping it towards more desirable actions. Most of the research, however, was conducted in the context of ethical behavior other than ethical consumption, such as bone marrow donation (Lindsey, 2005), blood donation (Renner, Lindenmeier, Tscheulin, & Drevs, 2013), or recycling behavior (Elgaaied, 2012). Findings therefore are only conditionally transferable to consumerism. The only study on ethical purchase intention in a non-durable consumer goods context did not verify a positive relationship between anticipatory guilt and ethical purchase intention (Lwin & Phau, 2010). Research on the influence of reactive guilt on ethical behavior is very recent, rare and presents mixed results (Lwin & Phau, 2011; Renner et al., 2013), possibly evoked by limitations in the research design. Further research is therefore needed to fill the gap of knowledge about the effects of anticipated and reactive guilt on consumers’ ethical purchase intentions. Due to the fundamentally different characteristics of anticipatory and reactive guilt, they are likely to have differential effects on attitudes, behavior (LaBarge & Godek, 2005) and behavioral intentions. Yet, until to date only Renner et al. (2013) compared the effects of anticipated and reactive guilt on prosocial behavior in the non-consumption context of blood donation.
11 Prior studies on neutralisation techniques and consumer guilt are only of qualitative approach and treated guilt as a one-dimensional construct without differentiation between anticipatory guilt and reactive guilt (Chatzidakis, Hibbert, Mittusis, & Smith, 2004; Chatzidakis, Hibbert, & Smith, 2006). Therefore, it is not yet known whether there is a difference between the two concepts of guilt in the application of neutralisation techniques.
Past research thus far investigated that some neutralisation techniques are more widely used and are a better predictor of buying behavior than others in the context of purchasing fair trade products (Brunner, 2014; Chatzidakis et al., 2007). However, there is need to extend research to get more extensive empirical insights into the application of neutralisation strategies in a variety of consumer contexts (Brunner, 2014). By analyzing the impact of internal and external neutralisation techniques on consumers’ purchase intentions I will replicate the first study on this topic by Brunner (2014) in the context of sweatshop products, and extend it by including and differentiating between anticipatory and reactive guilt feelings.
When it comes to the managerial contribution of this study, we need to distinguish between ethical and unethical products. In the context of this study we deal with sweatshop-produced garments. We can differentiate between two kinds of apparel-producing companies: (1) the ethically correct company, which does not produce its garments in sweatshops, and (2) the ethically incorrect firm, which does use sweatshop labor. When consumers know about the company’s unethical behavior and still intend to buy there, they might feel anticipatory guilt if their purchase intention is contradictory to their moral norms and values. Consumers who already bought from an unethical company without knowing about the mistreatment of moral norms might feel reactive guilt when discovering the company’s appaling working conditions.
12 The recommendations of this study will focus on ethically firms, which manufacture their products in non-sweatshop conditions, only. Understanding how consumer guilt affects customers’ purchase intentions might help marketers to promote their products. Knowledge about whether anticipated or reactive guilt is more effective in influencing consumers’ ethical purchase intentions, for instance, can help marketers decide which guilt appeals to use in their communication strategy. Further, awareness of the differences in the guilt concepts and neutralisation techniques assists in deciding on guilt appeals in the company’s communication strategy and addressing the right issues at the right moment (either pre- or post-purchase) to disprove consumers’ neutralisation arguments. If, for example, internal neutralisation techniques such as denial of responsibility (“I don’t have enough money to buy non-sweatshop garments“) are shown to be the neutralisation technique that predicts ethical purchase intention the most in anticipatory guilt situations, marketers could convince consumers to choose an ethical alternative by appropriate means of communication. Indicating that prices for non-sweatshop labor garments are in fact not that much higher than costs of unethical products or that customers can even save money because of the higher quality and thus longer life cycle of the garments, for instance, could have the desired effect on ethical purchase intentions.
1.3 Research question
Against this background, I intend to answer the following research question:
How do the concepts of anticipatory and reactive consumer guilt impact the usage of the internal and external neutralisation techniques and, in turn, ethical purchase intention in the context of sweatshop labor fashion products?
More specifically I aim to identify whether and how anticipated guilt and reactive guilt (1) differ in their effects on consumers’ ethical purchase intentions, and (2) in the type
13 of neutralisation techniques employed, and (3) whether and how internal and external neutralisation techniques differ in their effect on consumers’ ethical purchase intention.
In order to answer the research questions, I plan to conduct a one-time cross-sectional online experimental survey in Germany. The experimental design will vary in the type of guilt (anticipatory vs. reactive guilt) induced to the subjects.
In the following sections I first discuss the concepts of (1) ethical consumption, (2) consumer guilt and their impact on ethical purchase intentions and (3) neutralisation techniques and their relation to consumer guilt and ethical consumption, each followed by the respective research hypotheses. Secondly I explain the research method, followed by the results of the experiment. Afterwards I summarize the study results and present managerial implications on how to use consumers’ guilt in favor of ethical consumption. I end with a discussion of this study’s limitations and an outlook for future research.
14
2. Theoretical framework
2.1 Ethical purchase intention
Ethical consumer behavior, on the one hand, can be broadly defined as the “decision
making, purchases, and other consumption experiences that are affected by the consumer's ethical concerns” (Cooper-Martin & Holbrook, 1993, p.10). Purchase intention, on the other hand, is defined as the individual’s plan to buy a particular good or service sometime in the near future (Peter & Olson, 2008). Ethical purchase intention therefore is the intent to engage in ethical consumer behavior in the future. Although definitions and degrees of ethicalness vary, Browne, Harris, Hofny-Collins, Pasiecznik, & Wallace (2000) identified three principles of ethicalness: (1) people centered, focusing on laborer welfare and dealing with topics such as child labor, wages, working conditions; (2) environment centered, focusing for instance on sustainable or non-degradative environment practices; and (3) animal centered, focusing on animal rights and welfare, such as animal testing and exploitation practices. Besides, ethical consumer behavior can be divided into ethical consumerism, referring to the practice of buying products and services produced in a manner that minimizes environmental and/or social harm, on which we will focus in the present research, and
consumer ethics, attributing to the consumer ethical misbehavior, e.g. failing to declare
undercharging (Chatzidakis et al., 2006).
The most central approach in developing a theoretical model of consumer’s ethical decision making has been Hunt & Vitell’s (1986) General Theory of Marketing Ethics, which has been applied to the context of ethical consumerism by Marks & Mayo (1991) and Vitell, Singhapakdi & Thomas (2001). According to the authors, ethical decision making starts with the consumer’s perception of an ethical issue. Consequently the consumer combines both
15 deontological2 and teleological3 evaluation in order to form an attitude about the ethical
issue (Vitell et al., 2001). The resulting ethical perception affects the consumer’s ethical behavioral intentions (Vitell et al., 2001), for instance intentions to purchase ethical, non-sweatshop produced clothes or fair trade products.
However, due to desirable consequences or situational conditions that may lead consumers to engage in unethical purchases, actual behavior may differ from consumers’ initial intention. Practice indicates that, although in general about 30% of the consumers show a positive attitude towards sustainable consumption, “they are largely passive in their role as consumer when it comes to supporting environmental or animal welfare improvements with their available budget . . . .. Attitudes alone are often a poor predictor of behavioral intention or marketplace behavior” (Vermeir & Verbeke, 2006, p. 170). This phenomenon is referred to as attitude-behavior gap (Vermeir & Verbeke, 2006). But why does a positive attitude towards sustainable products not translate into purchase intention or behavior? Past studies dealing with consumers’ observed attitude-behavior gap found that ethically concerned consumers often justify their unethical choices through a series of arguments (Antonetti, 2012) in order to reduce or eliminate negative feelings of dissonance and guilt. Chatzidakis et al. (2006) hypothesize that the ability to neutralize guilt feelings will increase the likelihood that a consumer will form moral purchase intentions inconsistent with his/her initial ethical concern and reduce the probability that a consumer will experience feelings of dissonance or guilt. Therefore, there are reasonable grounds to suspects that both consumer guilt and justification strategies are important factors in the attitude-behavior gap of ethical consumption.
2 focuses on consumer’s evaluation of the rights versus wrongs of the behavior, based on a set of established norms representing the consumer’s personal values.
16 At the end of the consumer’s ethical decision making process, the consequences of actual behavior become part of consumer’s learning experiences, which will affect future purchase behavior. For instance, negative feelings of guilt resulting from choosing an unethical product alternative might affect future ethical purchase behavior (Chatzidakis et al., 2006).
2.2 Consumer guilt
Consumer guilt can be defined as a negative “feeling which results from one’s recognition of having failed to achieve or violated [or even imagining doing so] internalized personal or social moral standards . . . and is related specifically to consumption decision situations” (Dedeoğlu & Kazançoğlu, 2010, p. 464). This negative self-conscious emotion rests on a sense of self-awareness and self-evaluation (Dedeoğlu & Kazançoğlu, 2010). In the context of consumer behavior, however, most of the ethical dilemmas consumers face do not involve the violation of universal social norms, as there, for instance, is no absolute norm that one ought to buy non-sweatshop clothes. It is more the so called felt norms that affect pro-ethical consumer activities such as buying fair trade products (Chatzidakis et al., 2006).
Moreover, guilt is perceived only when the individual has some degree of control over his actions. The higher the degree of control the individual has over the outcome, the higher the perceived guilt (Burnett & Lunsford, 1994). Guilt is a multi-dimensional construct, in which regret and remorse attracted researchers’ largest attention. In an ethical and societal context, regret in particular plays an important role, as it is concerned with the rights versus wrongs of an action. Remorse elicits feelings of societal shame, humiliation and anger (Dedeoğlu & Kazançoğlu, 2010).
Consumer guilt is categorized in 3 possible time periods in which it can occur;
17
guilt, which occurs after a transgression, and proceeding guilt, which occurs during a
transgression. In practice, mainly anticipatory and reactive guilt are contrasted, following Rawling’s (1970) original distinction (Elgaaied, 2012).
2.2.1 Anticipatory guilt
As stated, anticipatory guilt occurs before an ethical transgression has actually taken place. Individuals still have the possibility to change their behavior and hence avoid violating their own ethical standards (Rawlings, 1970). As a consequence anticipatory guilt should increase thoughts about existing decision alternatives (Renner et al., 2013) and induce prosocial behavior (Rawlings, 1970). In the light of these propositions, several studies reported that anticipatory guilt indeed positively influences ethical behavior. More specifically, research claims that it reduces criminal behavior such as textbook piracy (Su, Lu, & Lin, 2011), unethical behavior such as not returning surplus change to the cashier (Steenhaut & Van Kenhove, 2006), and increases pro-environmental (Elgaaied, 2012) and prosocial behavior (Lindsey, 2005). Lindsey (2005), for instance, confirmed that anticipatory guilt appeals have a positive effect on individuals’ inclination to donate bone marrow. Lwin & Phau (2010) did not verify a positive relationship between anticipated guilt and ethical purchase intention in a non-durable consumer goods context using unknown brands. The authors themselves gave some possible explanations for their unanticipated findings. Inter alia they point out the possibility that consumers’ brand familiarity is influential to the effectiveness of anticipatory guilt appeals, as shown by Lwin and Phau (2008), and that the self-developed measure for anticipatory guilt was inaccurate.
As most of those studies on anticipated guilt have been conducted in contexts other than ethical consumption, extended research is needed to fill this gap and prove whether the findings in a non-consumption context can be transferred to ethical consumption.
18 In balance with recent findings and the above discussion, I propose:
H1a: Anticipatory guilt has a positive effect on ethical purchase intention: the higher felt anticipatory guilt, the higher consumers’ ethical purchase intention.
2.2.2 Reactive guilt
The term reactive guilt refers to guilt that is perceived after the violation of a value or norm has taken place. “Out of the three guilt appeals, reactive guilt is considered as the most negative because it evokes past transgressions and therefore it evokes more negative emotions“(Lwin & Phau, 2011, p. 304). Hitherto, research on reactive guilt is very scarce and presents mixed results. In the context of racial prejudice, for instance, studies show that guilt feelings which arise from a personal transgression of norms were initially linked with a decrease in approach motivation and that only when participants were given the chance for redress, their guilt feelings predicted participants’ intentions to reparation-behavior (Amodio et al., 2007). Accordingly, Brennan & Binney (2010) advocate that intended behavioral and motivational effects take place only if people feel competent to make a change. Unfortunately, until now all research has failed to explain their findings by the use of underlying theories.
In the context of ethical consumption and specifically the purchase of sweatshop-produced fashion garments, the customer has the chance to engage ethical purchase behavior the next time he shops for garments. He therefore cannot undo his past behavior, but does feel able to change his unethical behavior resulting in negative feelings of guilt into ethical, guilt-free behavior in the future. The feelings of guilt the consumer experienced from, for instance, the purchase of cheap, sweatshop-made clothes may lead to buying ethical fashion items from non-sweatshop companies the next time he goes shopping for fashion.
19 However, past findings suggest that reactive guilt has only limited influence on future behavior. Lwin & Phau (2011) did not find a positive relationship between reactive guilt appeals and purchase intention. Renner et al. (2013), on the other hand, found that reactive guilt appeals induce intentional prosocial responses, but less than anticipatory guilt appeals. These contradicting findings may possibly have been evoked by differences in the research context, namely the hedonistic context of purchasing luxury goods on the one hand (Lwin & Phau, 2011), and the ethical, prosocial context of blood donation (Renner et al., 2013) on the other.
I expect to replicate Renner et al.’s findings in the context of this study since their research, as opposed to Lwin & Phau (2011), was carried out in the context of prosocial behavior. Hence, I hypothesize:
H1b: Reactive guilt has a positive effect on ethical purchase intention: the higher felt reactive guilt, the higher ethical purchase intention.
Due to the fundamentally different characteristics of anticipatory and reactive guilt, they are likely to have differential effects on attitudes, behavior (LaBarge & Godek, 2005) and behavioral intentions. Hitherto only Renner et al. (2013) analyzed the influence of guilt feelings on ethical intention and demonstrated that reactive guilt appeals induce less intentional responses than anticipatory guilt appeals. This finding is in line with the idea that anticipatory guilt relates to the future, therefore enabling the consumer to avoid violating a social standard. That is, anticipated guilt can prevent actions which consumers would regret afterwards, such as purchasing a fashion item at a company known for their unethical working conditions and production standards. Almodio et al. (2007), in balance, state that consumers show greater interest in reducing behavior when the possibilities of guilt-reducing behavior are demonstrated, in comparison to when they are not.
20 Transferring past research findings to ethical purchase decisions, one can propose that consumers are, before a transgression of norms has actually taken place, in control of their behavior. Therefore, they should feel easily capable of changing their purchase intentions and refuse to buy the unethical product or opting for an ethical alternative instead. The consumer can immediately experience the positive effect of the guilt-reducing behavior, in this case opting for the guilt-free product alternative. When the transgression of norms has already taken place, for instance when the customer has bought a sweatshop-produced garment yet, the consumer is not in control of the past purchase behavior anymore, and hence does not feel capable of changing his/her behavior. The possibility of engaging in ethical consumer behavior in the future may still influence his/her future behavior, however to a lesser extent than anticipated guilt.
H1c: Anticipatory guilt leads to higher ethical purchase intention than reactive guilt.
The following table summarizes past research findings on anticipatory and reactive guilt and the (ethical) contexts of the studies. The table shows that most studies analyzed the effect on anticipatory guilt on consumer intentions, and very little research has been done so far on the effect of reactive guilt. Due to the fundamentally different characteristics of both guilt forms it is likely that they have differential effects on consumer behavior (LaBarge & Godek, 2005) and purchase intentions. To the best of my knowledge, however, only Renner et al. (2013) compared the effects of anticipatory and reactive guilt on (ethical) intention. Moreover, until now no research has been done in the field of ethically-produced consumer goods. Hence there is still a lack in understanding whether there is a difference in the effect of both forms of guilt on ethical purchase intention and which guilt type is more effective in positively influencing ethical buying intention. The present study will fill the
21 outlined gaps and thus contribute to a deeper empirical and practical understanding of ethical consumerism.
Table 1: Ethical context of studies on consumer guilt
Author,
year Guilt Type Relevant findings ethical intention QN/ QL (Ethical) context
Lindsey, 2005 AG pos. R b/w AG and intention
Pos. R b/w intention and behavior
QN bone marrow donation
Steenhaut & van Kenhove, 2006
AG pos. R b/w AG and ethical
intention QN cashier miscalculation Yang, 20084 AG pos. R b/w AG and eI;
neg. R b/w NT and AG; AG neg. moderated R b/w NT and ePI
pos. R b/w AG appeal and ethical purchase intention
QN plastic bag usage
Lwin & Phau,
2010 AG no R b/w AG and purchase intention QN non-durable consumer good advertisement Su et al., 2011 AG neg. R b/w AG and
textbook piracy intention. QN textbook piracy Lwin & Phau,
2011 RG no R b/w RG and purchase intention QN durable consumer good advertisement (e.g. luxury watches)
Elgaaied, 2012 AG pos. R b/w AG and behavior;
AG totally mediates R b/w environmental concern and intention
QN recycling behavior
Antonetti, 2012
One-dimensional pos. R b/w guilt and ethical purchase intention QN Social and environmental sustainability in general Renner et al.,
2013 RG & AG AG appeals > RG appeals in generating blood donation QN blood donation R: Relationship; b/w: between; pos.: positive; neg.: negative; eI: ethical intention; ePI: ethical purchase intention; AG: anticipatory guilt; RG: reactive guilt; NT: neutralisation techniques; QN: Quantitative; QL: Qualitative.
22 2.3 Neutralisation techniques
The five original neutralisation techniques which individuals apply to their norm-violation behavior were first introduced by Sykes and Matzda (1957) in their examination of juvenile delinquency. They found that individuals use different neutralisation strategies in order to reduce internal and external demands for conformity to societal norms and behaviors. Each of these five neutralisation techniques therefore can insulate feelings of self- and societal blame an individual might experience for his non-conformity (Gruber & Schlegelmilch, 2013). In the following, each of the five neutralisation strategies is outlined.
The five neutralisation techniques
Denial of Responsibility implies individuals’ perception of feeling helpless in a
particular, harm causing situation. Individuals believe that their life circumstances predisposed them to engage in a violation of societal norms. As a consequence they believe they are personally inculpable (McGregor, 2008). Possible arguments in the light of the purchase of unethical products are, for instance, lack of disposable income, lack of information, and lack of active promotion in shops (Chatzidakis et al., 2007).
Appeal to Higher Loyalties reflects individuals’ legitimization of their behavior by
arguing that they attempt to achieve some ideal of higher order or value (Brunner, 2014). Common arguments are convenience, proximity, taste, and range of assortment (Chatzidakis et al., 2007).
Denial of Injury does not mean that consumers deny their own behavior but that they do not perceive it as wrong. It deals with the individuals’ argument that their action did not harm anybody which makes their behavior tolerable (Gruber & Schlegelmilch, 2013). Putting it differently, in the context of ethical consumption consumers might argue that purchasing ethical products does not really cause benefits for anyone (Brunner, 2014).
23
Condemning the Condemners is used by individuals who argue that those who
condemn their actions engage in similar unethical actions themselves. By blaming others for the misconducts the individuals shift the attention from themselves to others (Gruber & Schlegelmilch, 2013). Consumers for instance might argue that the ethical responsibility lies in companies, not consumers (Chatzidakis et al., 2007).
Denial of Victim applies to individuals who either neglect the injuries caused by their
behavior (e.g. state that the victims could be worse off), or argue for the rightfulness of the injury considering the circumstances and that the victims deserved the harm as a form of punishment (Brunner, 2014).
Brunner (2014) found out that neutralisation strategies can be divided into internal and external neutralisation techniques. Internal neutralisation techniques focus on the consumers themselves. The techniques Denial of Responsibility, Denial of Injury/Benefit5 and
Appeal to higher Loyalties/Personal Principle6 account for this category. Denial of
Victim/Need7 and Condemning of Condemners/Accusation8, on the other hand, are counted
among external neutralisation strategies, dealing with external sources, for instance the farmers or workers in the countries in which the unethical products are manufactured (Brunner, 2014).
Guilt and neutralisation techniques
Festinger’s (1957) cognitive dissonance theory is one of the most plausible theoretical explanations for guilt-induced consumer behavior (Burnett & Lunsford, 1994). It suggests that individuals have the basic need to maintain cognitive consistency, this means they want
24 their norms and values to be consistent with their actual behavior. When facing inconsistencies individuals feel psychological discomfort, also known as cognitive dissonance. In order to maintain cognitive consistency individuals attempt to avoid situations (i.e. by choosing an alternative ethical product) and/or information that might increase the dissonance or, in order to regain consistency, seek to reduce these inconsistencies. Customers experiencing guilt try to regulate or eliminate their consumption-based guilt via coping strategies (Dedeoğlu & Kazançoğlu, 2010). Coping strategies are cognitive and behavioral responses to arousing events with the aim to (re)gain a desirable emotional status (Duhachek, 2005). In the light of self-conscious negative emotions the literature of coping responses has studied both adaptive and maladaptive coping strategies. When adaptive coping the individual makes use of rational problem solving mechanisms and exerts the recommended coping behavior. When applying maladaptive coping, individuals rather (un-)consciously exploit “defense mechanisms such as avoidance (suppressing or den-ying regret), psychological repair work [(try to overcome experience that cause negative feelings of guilt by e.g. trying to forget about it or talk about it to friends and family)] or justification“ (Dedeoğlu & Kazançoğlu, 2012, p. 12) in order to reduce the guilt-induced negative state of mind. It was found that justification, in the group of individuals with a high guilt score, is the most employed coping response (Dedeoğlu & Kazançoğlu, 2010). Among all coping and justification strategies, neutralisation technique is the most popular and frequently cited theory in the sociology of deviance (Chatzidakis et al., 2007).
In the past years, neutralisation has been applied to broader criminology, societal areas, as well as to consumption contexts. More recently, Chatzidakis et al. (2004) illustrated the theory’s applicability in a wide array of consumer ethical choices. They qualitatively studied the role of neutralisation on consumer ethics and ethical consumerism fields, such as
25 the purchase of fair trade and other ethical products, the purchase of stolen property, pirating goods, recycling, etc. (Chatzidakis et al., 2004; Chatzidakis et al., 2007). The studies provide “preliminary evidence regarding the capacity of those techniques to soften or eliminate the negative impact that disengagement from ethical concerns can have on a consumer’s self-image“ (Chatzidakis et al., 2004, p. 527). Quantitative research on this subject, particularly in the context of ethical consumption, however, is very rare.
Moreover, the timing of coping strategies such as neutralisation techniques has been widely neglected so far in the research on the cognitive processes of rationalization. Whereas the original conceptualization by Sykes and Matza (1957) implies that the neutralisation of moral commandment is taking place before the actual behavior, other research (Hamlin, 1988; Hirschi, 1969) argues that justification only follows the unmoral act. As Hirschi (1969) reasons, both sides can be right: “Neutralisations might start life as afterthe-fact (sic) rationalizations but become the rationale or moral release mechanisms facilitating future offending“ (Maruna & Copes, 2005, p. 51). Although this discussion has taken place in the context of criminology, the issue can be transferred into the context of ethical consumption. In the light of anticipatory and reactive guilt one can suppose that consumers try to neutralize their behavior both a priori and posteriori to their purchase of unethical products. Further it can be hypothesized that there is a difference between the types of neutralisation technique employed, depending on whether the consumer wants to buy the particular unethical product, or whether the unethical product is already in his/her possession and he/she needs to justify the purchase.
In order to suggest hypotheses on the different effects of anticipatory and reactive guilt on the choice of neutralisation techniques, both the Theory of Locus of Control and the
26 In the traditional meaning, Locus of Control (LOC) describes a personality treat and refers to the extent to which individuals believe they can control events affecting them. Individuals with a strong internal LOC believe events in their life derive primarily from their own actions, whereas people with a strong external LOC tend to praise or blame external factors (Rotter, 1990). However, it is important to note that LOC is a continuous variable and most people lie somewhere between the two extremes, possessing both internal and external trails. This implies that an individual’s LOC may change depending on the situations they find themselves in(Zawawi & Hamaideh, 2009).Depending on the situation, consumers will feel more or less powerful to act in a right, or in terms of this research context, moral fashion and will thus accordingly internalize (accept) their share of responsibility or externalize it (pass on the responsibility to someone/something else instead), respectively (Cleveland, Kalamas, & Laroche, 2005). Transferred to consumer’s ethical decision making process one can hypothesize that people who plan or are to buy an unethical product are in control of their behavior. They still have the power to change their intention of buying an unethical product by either not buying the good at all or opting for an ethical alternative instead, as opposed to consumers who have yet bought the product in the past. Consequently anticipatory guilt will more likely lead to internal neutralisation techniques such as Denial of Responsibility or Appeal to Higher Loyalties/Personal Principles which will allow consumers to reduce or completely eliminate their negative feelings of guilt associated with their unethical purchase intention. Following the above discussion I propose:
H2a: In anticipatory guilt situations, internal neutralisation techniques are more heavily used than in reactive guilt situations.
However, individuals cannot undo past behavior. If a person committed an unethical purchase in the past by, for instance, buying a piece of clothing that has been produced in a
27 sweatshop, he cannot revoke the purchase anymore. However, individuals always seek to explain the causes of behavior and events they observe. When an individual’s act or motive for an act is questioned, he needs to explain the reasons for his own action. In social psychology, this quest is referred to as attribution. The attribution approach begins with an event that has been completed. This means the individual has no opportunity to change the outcome of his/her actions anymore (Weiner, 2001), the causation is beyond their control factors (Hunter & Barker, 1987). Since the attribution of failure to an internal locus results in shame and guilt, people tend to blame the mistakes they already made on external factors (Hunter & Barker, 1987). This allows people to shift responsibility for personal blame to others, consequently reducing negative emotions (Pearn, Mulrooney, & Payne, 1998). Individual’s tendency to take personal responsibility for their desirable outcomes yet externalize responsibility for their undesirable outcomes is referred to as self-serving bias. The self-serving bias occurs for a variety of events and in a multitude of settings. Amongst other research the self-serving bias is, for instance, evident in drivers who attribute accidents they committed to external factors such as the weather, the condition of their car, or other drivers, yet attribute the avoidance of an accident to their attentiveness and excellent driving skills (e.g. Stewart, 2005). Transferred to the context of the present study, customers who failed to buy ethically produced products in the past and feel guilty about it might attribute their failure to external sources, and hence for instance blame the developing countries for allowing sweatshops within their borders or accuse the sweatshop workers for not making an effort to get a better job.
Once again I want to highlight that the attribution approach and thus the self-serving bias begins only with the completion of an event, that is the individual has no chance to
28 change his behavior in order to undo his responsibility (Weiner, 2001). In accordance to the theory of locus of control and the self-serving bias I hypothesize:
H2b: In reactive guilt situations, external neutralisation techniques are more heavily used than in anticipatory guilt situations.
Neutralisation techniques and ethical purchase intentions
As previously stated, research on neutralisation techniques in the context of ethical consumption is very scarce. To the best of my knowledge, Brunner’s (2014) paper is the only quantitative academic research on neutralisation in the context of ethical consumerism published in an academic journal so far. However, working papers and university dissertations found evidence for the influence of the use of neutralisation techniques on consumers’ ethical intention. Fukukawa’s (2013) working paper shows that neutralisation techniques have a significant direct effect on behavioral intention and hence serve as an appropriate and applicable explanation for less deviant ethical consumer behavior. In her university dissertation, Yang (2008) proves that neutralisation is a significant predictor of ethical intention in the context of plastic bag usage in supermarkets. In other words, her study indicates that the more likely customers are to employ neutralisation techniques to justify their behavior, the less likely they will refuse to use plastic carrier bags in supermarkets and hence to save the environment from additional waste.
However, Brunner (2014) in his research on fair trade purchase behavior reported that only internal neutralisation techniques turned out to be a significant predictor of fair trade buying behavior: the more respondents agreed with internal neutralisation technique items, the less fair trade products they bought. External neutralisation items, on the other hand, did not significantly predict fair trade purchase behavior. As the research was of explorative
29 character, Brunner (2014) did not state any expectations about the relationship between neutralisation techniques and fair trade buying behavior. Yet, he gives a possible explanation for his finding: He claims that participants may have answered according to social desirability and questions whether participants honestly reported the neutralisation techniques they employed. It is left unclear, though, why external neutralisation techniques should be less socially desirable than internal neutralisation strategies. Moreover, Brunner’s (2014) research and the panel used might not be transferable to consumers in other European countries, as the research was carried out in Switzerland, the country with the highest market penetration of fair trade products in the world. The fair trade consumption per capita in Switzerland was worth more than 21 Euro in 2007, almost double the value of the runner up, the UK. The mean across European countries reaches only 5.70 Euro (Brunner, 2014). With these great differences in fair trade market penetration and consumption per capita between residents of Switzerland and the rest of Europe the transferability of Brunner’s findings is questionable. Past research highlights that the way in which neutralisation techniques are applied varies across ethical contexts; some neutralisation strategies and interactions among them are more frequently encountered in some issues than others (Chatzidakis et al., 2004; Grove, Vitell, & Strutton, 1989). Therefore, there is reasonable ground to suspect that in ethical consumer contexts other than fair trade the predictive power of internal and external neutralisation techniques can turn out differently.
To sum up, past findings do not lend sufficient support regarding the relationship between internal and external neutralisation techniques and ethical purchase intention. In fact, based on the line of reasoning of locus of control, there is reasonable ground to argue that the effect size of internal and external neutralisation strategies on ethical purchase intent is actually the other way around: The negative effect of neutralisation techniques on
30 consumers’ ethical purchase intention should be higher for external than for internal neutralisation strategies. According to the line of reasoning in hypotheses 2a and 2b, in which I applied the theory of locus of control to consumers’ choice of neutralisation techniques, respondents who apply external neutralisation strategies externalize their responsibility to third parties, for instance to the third world countries which allow sweatshops within their borders. Neutralizing feelings of guilt in this way can make consumers think they are not in control of the situation, for instance the poor working conditions in sweatshops, and hence they might not experience the need to change their purchase behavior. Respondents who apply internal neutralisation techniques, on the other hand, accept their share of responsibility (Cleveland et al., 2005) for the destiny of the sweatshop workers. Consequently they know that they, as consumers, are in control of the situation and that they could make a change if they altered their personal purchase behavior. In this line of reasoning external neutralisation strategies will more strongly reduce consumers’ intention to purchase ethically produced goods than internal techniques:
H3: The negative effect of neutralisation techniques on ethical purchase intention is higher for external neutralisation techniques than for internal neutralisation techniques.
If the hypotheses proposed in the present paper hold true, suggesting that anticipatory guilt has a more positive effect on ethical purchase intention than reactive guilt (H1c); in anticipatory guilt situations, internal neutralisation is more heavily used than in reactive guilt situations (H2a), whereas in reactive guilt situations external neutralisation is more heavily used than in anticipatory guilt situations (H2b); and the negative effect of neutralisation techniques on ethical purchase intention is more negative for external neutralisation than
31 for internal (H3), it seems as if the difference between anticipatory and reactive guilt on ethical purchase intention can be explained by the difference in the extent consumers make use of internal and external neutralisation strategies, depending on the type of guilt they experience. Internal and external neutralisation techniques seem to serve as a mediator between the type of guilt and ethical purchase intention. Therefore, I propose the following hypothesis:
H4: The type of guilt participants experience (either anticipatory or reactive guilt) influences their ethical purchase intention through their use of internal and external neutralisation techniques.
Table 2 provides a short overview of relevant findings of past research on neutralisation techniques in the broad context of ethical behavior and the ethical context the research was carried out in, namely sweatshop labor. It shows that the negative relationship between the use of neutralisation techniques and ethical intentions are yet proved in a number of ethical contexts. However, neutralisation techniques have been treated as a one-dimensional construct in all but one study. As Brunner (2014) found that neutralisation techniques can be divided into internal and external strategies and that there is a difference in their effects in consumers’ intention to buy fair trade products, the present study will contribute to this new string of research on neutralisation techniques. Moreover, only Yang (2008) in her university dissertation investigated the relationship between anticipatory (but not reactive) guilt and neutralisation. Lastly, no research so far investigated the influence of the two different types of guilt, namely anticipatory and reactive guilt, on consumers’ choice of neutralisation techniques, either internal or external. By analyzing this relationship, the present study will offer a whole new insight into cognitive consumer processes.
32
Table 2: Ethical context of studies on neutralisation techniques
Author,
year Relevant findings ethical intention Ethical context
Chatzidakis et
al., 2004 NT soften/eliminate neg. impact of norm-violating behavior on consumer’s self-image
QL General
Chatzidakis et
al., 2006 NT soften/eliminate impact that norm-violating behavior has upon self-concept and social relationships
TF General
Chatzidakis et
al., 2007 role of NT in explaining the ethical attitude-behavior gap TF Fair trade products Chatzidakis
20089 neg. R b/w NT and ethical purchase intention; neg. R b/w NT and behavior; neg. R b/w NT and intention and behavior
QL,
QN Fair trade products
Yang, 200810 neg. R b/w NT and AG;
AG neg. moderated R b/w NT and ethical intention;
pos. R b/w AG appeal and ethical intention
QN Plastic bag usage
Harris &
Dumas, 2009 peer-to-peer file-sharers employ (often multiple) NTs in order to pre- or post-justify their activities
QL Digital piracy
Videa et al.,
2012 neg. R b/w NT for past behavior and future piracy intent. QN Digital piracy Siponen et al.,
2012 Appeal to Higher Loyalties and Condemning of Condemners as well as informal deterrents such as shame and moral beliefs strongly predict software piracy intentions.
QN Digital piracy
Fukukawa et al.,
201311 NT moderates influence of attitudes on intention; QN fair trade, organic, recycled/re-used, produced locally, cruelty free, sweatshop-free, and/or environmentally friendly Gruber &
Schlegelmilch, 2013
NT legitimize inconsistencies b/w
ethical attitudes and behavior. QL range of consumer behavior Brunner, 2014 neg. R b/w iNT and ePI
no rel. R b/w eNT and ePI QN Fair trade products
R: Relationship; b/w: between; pos.: positive; neg.: negative; NT: neutralisation techniques; iNT: internal neutralisation techniques; eNT: external neutralisation techniques; QN: Quantitative; QL: Qualitative
9 PhD thesis 10 Master thesis 11 Working paper
33 2.4 Conceptual framework
Seven hypotheses were established in the prior sections. The proposed relationships between anticipatory and reactive guilt, internal and external neutralisation techniques and ethical purchase intention are represented in the conceptual framework. Strong relationships are indicated with bold arrows, weak ones with thin arrows.
AG: anticipatory guilt; RG: reactive guilt; iNT: internal neutralisation techniques; eNT: external neutralisation technique; ePI: ethical purchase intention
34
3. Method
The present study used a deductive approach, hypothesizing human intentions based on past theories. Hypotheses have been tested using a between-subject experimental approach, in which each individual was randomly assigned and exposed to one of the two experimental groups, namely to either the anticipatory or reactive guilt treatment, by the survey software.Hence, causal estimates can be obtained by comparing the ethical purchase intention of participants in the anticipatory guilt condition with the intention of those in the reactive guilt condition (Charness, Gneezy & Kuhn, 2012). As the participants completed the online-survey in their natural environments, the experiment is considered a field experiment, with the advantage of a higher external validity than laboratory experiments. However, field experiments often lack internal validity because other external factors, such as time or environment in which the participant took part in the survey, can possibly contaminate and influence the outcomes (Sönke, Klapper, Konradt, Walter, Wolf, 2009).
3.1 Measurement of variables
Translation, back-translation procedure: All items used in the questionnaire were
derived from English studies. Since all respondents speak German as their first language, the original items were translated into German. In order to assure that the content of the items remains unchanged - despite of the intentional adaptions made to transfer the items into the context of sweatshop-garments - the translated German items were translated back into English by a third person. A small number of discrepancies between the back-translated and the original items were corrected in the final German version of the questionnaire. Please find the questionnaire in appendix 4.
35 Independent variables: Anticipatory and reactive guilt
Each of the participants was randomly assigned to one of the two experimental groups, namely either to the anticipatory or reactive guilt condition. In the beginning of the questionnaire, both experimental groups received a message which they were asked to read carefully. Both messages dealt with the hard working conditions in Cambodian sweatshops producing garments for fashion retailers. Information about working conditions in sweatshops was derived from a newspaper article to increase external validity (see Dhariwal, 2009). The messages differentiated in one essential point only: the chronological order of buying a sweatshop-made garment at fictitious fashion retailer XY-Fashion and reading the newspaper article containing information about the working conditions in Cambodian sweatshops producing for that company XY-Fashion – and thus the type of guilt feeling the respondent should experience.
The self-developed manipulation messages have been designed based on past conceptualisations of anticipated and reactive guilt, respectively. As anticipatory guilt is defined to occur before a transgression of a value or norm has taken place and explains the anticipation of the negative feeling of guilt an individual might experience when considering the violation, in situations of anticipated guilt the individual still has the opportunity to avoid the unpleasant guilt-feeling connected to the transgression (Elgaaied, 2012). In detail, participants who have been assigned to the anticipatory guilt condition were told to imagine that they have seen a nice T-Shirt from fashion-company XY-Fashion in an advertisement, which they plan to buy in the following days. Reactive guilt, in contrast, is conceptualized as being perceived after the transgression of personal norms and values occurred, and hence the action cannot be made undone (Elgaaied, 2012). In the reactive guilt manipulation message, therefore, participants were told to imagine they have already bought a T-Shirt
36 from fashion-company XY-Fashion a couple of weeks ago. For a more detailed explanation of the development of the manipulation messages please refer to chapter 4.1. Please find all manipulation messages and manipulation check items for pretest 1 and 2 as well as the main survey in appendices 1 to 3.
After reading the messages, all participants completed the questionnaire, consisting of the following variable measurement scales. Please find the complete questionnaire in appendix 4.
Manipulation check: The first step in this research was to test whether the
self-developed manipulation messages in both experimental conditions elicit the intended feelings of anticipatory guilt (AG) or reactive guilt (RG), respectively, in respondents. Therefore, the questionnaire contained manipulation check items, which I derived from Renner et al. (2013) (α =.71). The manipulation check consisted of a set of four items (two for each, AG and RG), using a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The transformation of the original 5-point Likert scale used by Renner et al. (2013) to a 7-point Likert scale was pretested before the main study took place and considered an adequate tool to check manipulation.
Table 3: Manipulation check (adapted from Renner et al., 2013)
Please indicate whether and to what extent the following statements apply to the presented situation:
I can still decide whether or not I purchase the T-Shirt from XY-Fashion.* I can still change my decision to buy the T-Shirt to avoid guilt feelings.*
I cannot change my behavior (purchase of the T-Shirt from XY-Fashion), as it lies in the past.**
I feel guilty because I bought the T-Shirt.**
Measured on a 7-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (not applicable at all) to 7 (fully
37
Overall consumer guilt: The participant’s feeling of guilt after reading about the
sweatshop labor conditions, resulting from either planning to buy (AG condition) or having bought (RG condition) the sweatshop-made T-Shirt, was sampled by using a three 7-point bipolar scale items adopted from Dahl, Honea, & Manchanda (2003) (α =.815). This additional scale was used because guilt is a multi-dimensional construct associated with feelings of remorse, regret, and empathic concern (Dahl et al., 2003). The manipulation check items, aiming at controlling whether the manipulation message elicit the intended feelings of guilt therefore are not able to cover the guilt construct in its entire complexity.
Table 4: Guilt feelings (adapted from Dahl, et al., 2003)
Guilt condition Items
AG*: If I bought the T-Shirt, from XY-Fashion, I
would feel: no guilt at all – a lot of guilt no remorse at all - a lot of remorse not bad at all - very bad
RG**: Because I bought the T-Shirt from XY-Fashion, I feel:
Measured on a 7-point bipolar scale
Mediator variable: Neutralisation techniques
To measure the participant’s employment of neutralisation techniques the scale of Brunner (2014) (Cronbach’s α = .81 for external neutralisation techniques; α = .78 for internal neutralisation techniques) was adapted. The measure consists of 10 items, two for each of the five neutralisation techniques denial of responsibility, denial of benefit (or denial of injury), denial of need (or denial of victim), accusation (or condemning the condemners), and personal principles (or appeal to higher loyalties). All items were measured on a 6-point Likert-scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree). Due to the fact that Brunner (2014) did his research in the context of fair trade products small adaptions were made to fit the items in the context of sweatshop-labor produced fashion.
38
Table 5: Neutralisation technique items (adapted from Brunner, 2014)
Please indicate your honest and personal opinion:
Neutralisation
technique Items Original items (Brunner, 2014)
iNT Denial of
Responsibility Ethically produced garments are too expensive – I can’t afford them.
It seems like every fashion company produces in sweatshops – I therefore have no other choice than buying these garments.
Fair trade products are too expensive – I can’t afford them. I don’t know enough about fair trade – that’s why I don’t buy these products.
Denial of
Benefit/DoI The problem is too big for consumers to solve. The reasons for ‘unethical‘ working conditions are market-based. Boycotting shops that sell sweatshop garments can’t help much.
The problem is too big for consumers to solve.
The reasons for ‘unfair’ trade are market-based –fair trade can’t help much.
Personal
Principles/AthL I’m not the kind of person who buys ethically produced products. In principal, I buy the cheapest product.
I’m not the kind of person who buys fair trade products. In principal, I buy the cheapest product.
eNT Denial of Need/DoV The workers in the sweatshops
are not that badly off.
The workers in sweatshops would be worse off without these jobs.
The workers in developing countries are not that badly off. The workers in developing
countries are not victims who need to be helped.
Accusation/CoC It’s the developing countries own fault for having sweatshops. If the sweatshop laborers worked harder, they could have a better job and be better off.
It’s the developing countries own fault for being in such a situation. If the workers in developing countries worked harder, they would be better off.
Measured on a 6-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree).
Dependent variable: Ethical purchase intention
Participant’s intention to buy ethically-produced products was assessed using Diallo’s (2012) four item, seven-point-Likert scale on purchase intention, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) (α = .87). All items were slightly modified to match the sweatshop context of the survey.
39
Table 6: Ethical purchase intention
Please indicate your honest and personal opinion:
The probability that I would consider buying ethically-produced garments is high I would purchase ethically-produced garments next time
I would consider buying ethically-produced garments
There is a strong likelihood that I will buy ethically-produced garments
Measured on a 7-point-Likert scale, ranging from 1 ‘‘strongly disagree’’ to 7 ‘‘strongly agree.
Control variables
Prosocial attitudes: The five item, 5-point point Likert scale anchored by not at all
important (1) and very important (5) adopted from Nilsson (2008) was used to measure participants’ general prosocial attitudes (α = .847). To better fit the items to the context at issue, I deleted the examples added to the statements in the original study (such as the example ‘by reducing environmental effects of products and production’ given in the statement ‘work actively with environmental issues‘). Prosocial attitudes were assessed because previous studies found that these attitudes have an influence on ethical purchase intention. Brunner (2014) for instance claims that attitudes (fitting to the context of his study he analyzed attitude towards fair trade) significantly predicted fair trade purchasing behavior.
Table 7: Prosocial attitudes
When you make these purchasing decisions, how important is it for you that the companies you buy from:
Respect workplace rights
Work actively with environmental issues Respect human rights
Do not produce goods that could harm people Do not use unethical business practices
40
Demographics: Several studies have tried to identify the socially responsible consumer
in terms of demographic characteristics. Unti now, however, research presents very mixed results. Past authors demonstrate significant influences of age (De Pelsmacker, Janssens, Sterck, Mielants, 2006; Anderson & Cunningham, 1972), gender (De Pelsmacker et al., 2006; Dickson, 2001), level of education and income (Carrigan & Attalla, 2001; Maignan & Ferrell, 2001; Roberts, 1996). Others claim the opposite, stating that age (Dickson, 2001), gender (MORI, 2000; Sikula & Costa, 1994; Tsalikis & Ortiz-Buonafina, 1990), and income (Anderson & Cunningham, 1972; Dickson, 2001) do not influence ethical purchase behavior. Despite the mixed results, I included the demographic variables age, gender, income and level of education in the last section of the questionnaire.
Additional variable: Message credibility and scenario’s closeness to reality
In order to detect how credible and realistic respondents evaluate the pictured scenario, the questionnaire consists of the two items “the presented scenario is credible“ and “the presented scenario is realistic”. Both items were measured on a 7-point Likert-scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).
3.3 Procedure
The survey took place in Germany, using a convenience sample. The convenience sample, a procedure of recruiting those people who are most easily available, enables to achieve the sample size and gathering useful data and information in a relatively fast and inexpensive, economical way. It is best used for exploratory research when additional studies on this topic will be implemented using a probability sample subsequently (Hair, Celsi, Money, Samouel, & Page, 2011).
41 Data was collected by means of an online survey using the Online Survey Website
Qualtrics.com. The survey was distributed virally to family and friends via private email and
private messages, posts in groups and invitations to the survey via social networks such as Facebook, Xing and Kleiderkreisel.de. The messages provided participants with information about the survey and the link to the questionnaire. I used the snowball technique to further distribute the survey by asking participants to distribute the survey via their own social networks. Despite being aware that distributing surveys via email and social networks can have a negative effect on response rate, the two main advantages, namely fast and low-cost delivery, outweigh the disadvantages (Fun & Yan, 2010).
The main survey administration started on October 14th 2014 and was closed 17 days later on October 30th 2014. A reminder was sent two days after the initial invitation as Crawford, Couper, & Lamias (2001) found that forwarding the first reminder 2 days after the initial invitation has a more positive effect on response rate than after 5 days. A second reminder was sent 10 days after the start of the survey.
3.4 Sample
From the 406 initially started surveys, 250 questionnaires were completed and taken into consideration for hypotheses testing. The high abandonment rate is, at least partly, due to technical problems on the part of the Qualtrics website on which the survey took place. A number of respondents contacted me claiming the webpage opened but they could not proceed with the questionnaire. After several trials, however, they were able to participate in the survey in the end.
