Perceptions about God and Ethical Consumption
Contents
1.
Literature Review
2.
Conceptual Model and Hypothesis
3.
Experimental Design
4.
Results
5.
Discussion
Literature Review
93% of the current population on Earth belong and practise a certain religion (Keysar & Navarro-Rivera, 2013).
Religion shapes and influences consumer behaviour (Saroglou, 2002; Saroglou, Delpierre & Dernelle, 2004).
Religion provides guidance towards a moral and ethical way of life (Copan, 2013; Smith, 2010).
Ethical consumption is consumption that makes a difference in the world (Irving, Harrison & Rayner, 2002). However, choosing the ethical over the unethical product is not always the case (Ehrich & Irwin, 2005).
Literature Review
Religions contributed to the creation of different images of God (i.e. Punishing God); (Tsang, McCullough & Hoyt, 2005).
Fear of punishment induces cooperation (Johnson & Krüger, 2004) and provides people with an incentive to act in a moral way (Robertson, 1889), as they fear that they will caught on act (Conroy & Emerson, 2004).
The image of a wrathful and punishing divine figure results in lower levels of cheating (Shariff & Norenzayan, 2011)
Conceptual Model and Hypothesis
H1: People who perceive God as less than forgiving will devalue an unethical product more than would people who hold forgiving images of God.
Representations of God
Experimental Design
Step 1: Manipulation of representations of God (IV)
1/3 of participants randomly assigned to the unforgiving God condition
1/3 of participants randomly assigned to the forgiving God condition
Experimental Design
Step 2: Manipulation of product type (DV)
Experimental Design
Step 2: Manipulation of product type (DV)
Experimental Design
Step 3: Measurement of product evaluation
1. To what extent do you like the product? (Not at all-Very much)
2. To what extent do you think this product is a good choice? (Not at all-Very much)
3. To what extent do you feel positive towards this product? (Not positive at all-Extremely positive)
Step 4: Measurement of willingness to buy and pay for the product
Experimental Design
Step 5: Demographics and control variables
Age Gender
Results
Evaluation
Participants in the “unforgiving God” condition chose the ethical product over the unethical.
However, after comparing the two God conditions, no significant differences between them could be found.
Thus, the hypothesis could not be supported.
Results
Evaluation
In the control condition, evaluation of the ethical and unethical product did not differ substantially from each other.
Priming the image of God influences evaluation for ethical and unethical products
Results
Willingness to buy
Participants in the “unforgiving God” condition
showed a higher willingness to buy the ethical over the unethical product.
Participants in the “unforgiving God” and in the “forgiving God” condition had almost the same willingness to buy the products.
Hence, the hypothesis is rejected as the difference between the two conditions is not significant.
Results
Willingness to buy
Participants primed with an image of God showed a high willingness to buy the ethical product and low willingness to buy the unethical one.
For participants in the control condition,
willingness to buy did not differ much for the two products.
Results
Willingness to pay
The hypothesis could not be supported.
Participants in the two God conditions appear to punish the unethical product by setting a higher price.
Insignificant effect of the variables
Discussion
Limitations and Future Research
Perceptions about God & Ethical consumption=Complex relationship The size and characteristics of the sample
References
Conroy, S. J. and T. L. N. Emerson: 2004, ‘Business Ethics and Religion: Religiosity as a Predictor of Ethical Awareness Among Students’, Journal of Business Ethics 50(April I), 383–396.
Copan, P. (2013). Ethics needs god. Debating Christian theism. New York: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar.
Irving, S., Harrison, R., & Rayner, M. (2002). Ethical consumerism–democracy through the wallet. Journal of Research for Consumers, 3(3), 63-83.
Johnson, D., &Krüger, O. (2004). The good of wrath: Supernatural punishment and the evolution of cooperation. Political theology, 5(2), 159-176.
Keysar, A., & Navarro- Rivera, J.(2013-11-21). A world of Atheism: Global Demographics. In The Oxford Handbook of Atheism.: Oxford University Press. Retrieved 12 Mar. 2018, from http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199644650.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199644650-e-011
Kristine R. Ehrich, Julie R. Irwin (2005) Willful Ignorance in the Request for Product Attribute Information. Journal of Marketing Research: August 2005, Vol. 42, No. 3, pp. 266-277.
Laroche, M., Bergeron, J., & Barbaro-Forleo, G. (2001). Targeting consumers who are willing to pay more for environmentally friendly products. Journal of consumer marketing, 18(6), 503-520.
Saroglou, V. (2002). Religion and the five factors of personality: A meta analytic review. Personality and Individual Differences, 32, 15–25.
Saroglou, V., Delpierre, V., &Dernelle, R. (2004). Values and religiosity: A meta-analysis of studies using Schwartz's model. Personality and Individual Differences, 37, 721–734.
Shariff, A. F., &Norenzayan, A. (2011). Mean gods make good people: Different views of God predict cheating behavior. The International Journal for the
Psychology of Religion, 21(2), 85-96.
Smith, A. (2010). The theory of moral sentiments. Penguin.
Smith, W. Robetson. 1889. The religion of the Semites: Fundamental institutions. Edinburgh: Adam and Charles Black.
Tsang, J., McCullough, M. E., &Hoyt,W. T. (2005). Psychometric and rationalization accounts for the religion–forgiveness discrepancy. Journal of Social Issues,
61(4).
