The influence of personal moral philosophies on consumer responses to company moral transgressions: the role of moral reasoning strategies and moral intensity

Abstract

Consumers can continue purchasing from or boycott a company in response to unethical conduct. Moral decoupling and moral rationalization are two mechanisms that aim to explain consumer support for the transgressor company. Further, consumers can make moral judgments based on their moral philosophies. This study aims to explore the effect of personal moral philosophies on consumer responses to company moral transgressions and the mediating role of moral reasoning strategies in these relationships. Moreover, it aims to uncover the effects of two elements of moral intensity: magnitude of harm and psychological proximity in adopting moral reasoning strategies. A scenario-based empirical study with a 2x2 between-groups factorial design was conducted. Structural equation modeling (SEM) was adopted to analyze the data. Findings delineate that idealism positively affects boycott intention through moral judgment and negatively affects purchase intention through moral rationalization. This paper also indicates that relativism positively influences purchase intention through moral rationalization and decoupling. Finally, it uncovers the positive direct effect of the magnitude of harm and the moderating role of psychological proximity on adopting moral reasoning strategies.

Appendix

Scenarios

Scenario 1 (low proximity vs high moral transgression): MEGA is a grocery chain with thousands of stores across Turkiye. For many years, it has been known for providing quality products at an affordable price compared to its competitors. In this way, it is a business frequently preferred by low-income families and retirees seeking discounts. Recently, reports have surfaced in both social and national media, claiming that MEGA has been offering all expired food products for sale with small discounts in some of its stores. Most of the people who consumed these expired products applied to hospitals with symptoms of poisoning.

ATTENTION: Consider that the poisoning event have not affected anyone you care about (such as mother, father, sibling, close friend)

Scenario 2: (high proximity vs low moral transgression): MEGA is a grocery chain with thousands of stores across Turkiye. For many years, it has been known for providing quality products at an affordable price compared to its competitors. In this way, it is a business frequently preferred by low-income families and retirees seeking discounts. Recently, reports have surfaced in both social and national media, claiming that MEGA has been offering some expired food products for sale with small discounts in some of its stores. Only a few of the people who consumed these expired products applied to hospitals with symptoms of poisoning.

ATTENTION: Consider that one of the people affected by the poisoning event is someone you care about (mother, father, sibling or close friend).

Scenario 3 (Low proximity vs low moral transgression): MEGA is a grocery chain with thousands of stores across Turkiye. For many years, it has been known for providing quality products at an affordable price compared to its competitors. In this way, it is a business frequently preferred by low-income families and retirees seeking discounts. Recently, reports have surfaced in both social and national media, claiming that MEGA has been offering some expired food products for sale with small discounts in some of its stores. Only a few of the people who consumed these expired products applied to hospitals with symptoms of poisoning.

ATTENTION: Consider that the poisoning event have not affected anyone you care about (such as mother, father, sibling, close friend).

Scenario 4 (high proximity vs high moral transgression): MEGA is a grocery chain with thousands of stores across Turkiye. For many years, it has been known for providing quality products at an affordable price compared to its competitors. In this way, it is a business frequently preferred by low-income families and retirees seeking discounts. Recently, reports have surfaced in both social and national media, claiming that MEGA has been offering all expired food products for sale with small discounts in some of its stores. Most of the people who consumed these expired products applied to hospitals with symptoms of poisoning.

ATTENTION: Consider that one of the people affected by the poisoning event is someone you care about (mother, father, sibling or close friend).

Questionnaire items

Turkish Version	English Version
Zararın Büyüklüğü (maddeler ters kodlanmıştır)	Magnitude of Harm (reversed items)
1. MEGA’nn satış politikasının topluma herhangi bir zararı yoktur.	1. MEGA’s sales strategy does not cause any harm to society
2. MEGA’nın satış uygulamalarının topluma herhangi bir zarar verme ihtimali düşüktür.	2. There is a very small likelihood that MEGA’s sales practices will cause any harm to society
Ahlaki Ayrıştırma	Moral Decoupling
3. MEGA hakkındaki olumsuz medya haberleri, bu işletmenin hizmet kalitesi hakkındaki görüşlerimizi etkilememelidir.	3. Reports of wrongdoing regarding MEGA’s sales practices should not affect our view of the firm’s service quality
4. Bir işletmenin performansı ile ahlaki uygulamaları birbirinden farklı değerlendirilmelidir.	4. Judgments of a company’s quality should be evaulated seperately from judgments of performance.
5. Bu işletmenin ahlaka uymayan satış uygulamalarının olması, kaliteli hizmet verdiği gerçeğini değiştirmez.	5. This company’s sales strategy does not change my assessment of its quality.
Ahlaki Meşrulaştırma	Moral Rationalization
6. Tarihi geçmiş ürün satmakla ilgili bir sorun yoktur.	6. It is okay to sell expired products.
7. Tarihi geçmiş ürünleri çöpe atmaktansa, uygun fiyatla satmak kötü değildir.	7. It is not a bad thing to sell expired products with little discounts instead of discarding them.
8. Tarihi geçmiş ürün satmak, diğer işletmelerinin yaptığı korkunç şeyler kadar kötü değildir.	8. Selling expired products is not as bad as horrible things that other firms do.
9. Tüm ürünlerin takibi zor olduğu için, işletmeler tarihi geçmiş ürün satmaktan ötürü cezalandırılmamalıdır.	9. Companies should not be punished for selling expired products, since tracking all products is complicated.
10. Bir sürü başka işletme de bunu yaptığından, tarihi geçmiş ürün sattığı için işletmeleri cezalandırmak yersizdir.	10. Comapnies should not be punished for selling expired products, since many other companies do it.
11 Kimseye fazla zarar vermediği için, tarihi geçmiş ürün satmakta sorun yoktur.	11. It’s okay for companies to sell expired products because it does not cause much harm.
Satın Alma Niyeti	Purchase Intention
12. MEGA gibi bir marketten gelecekte alışveriş yapacağım.	12. I will buy from a market like MEGA in the future.
13. İhtiyaç duyduğumda, MEGA’dan indirimli gıda ürünü satın alırım.	13. I would buy discounted food products from MEGA if i needed.
14. MEGA’nın sattığı ürünlerden gelecekte satın almak isterim.	14. I want to buy from MEGA in the future.
Ahlaki Yargı	Moral Judgment
15. MEGA’dan alışveriş yapmayı ahlaki olarak doğru bulmam.	15. I find buyign from MEGA to be morally reprehensible.
16. MEGA’nın satış politikası ahlaki olarak yanlıştır.	16. MEGA’s sales strategy is morally wrong.
Boykot Niyeti	Boycott Intention
17. MEGA’nın ürünlerini boykot ederdim.	17. I would boycott MEGA.
18. MEGA’yı boykot etmek isterdim. Ama eder miydim bilmiyorum.	18. I am tempted to boycott MEGA, but I don’t know if I will.
19. MEGA’nın ürünlerini boykot etmezdim.	19. I would not boycott MEGA.
20. MEGA boykot edilmelidir.	20. One should boycott MEGA.
İdealizm	Idealism
1. Bir insan, davranışlarının bir başkasına az da olsa bilerek zarar vermediğinden emin olmalıdır.	1. A person should make certain that their actions never intentionally harm another even to a small degree
2. Kişisel fayda elde ettiğimiz bir iş için, ne kadar küçük olursa olsun, başkalarının riske sokulmaları hoş görülemez.	2. Risks to another should never be tolerated, irrespective of how small the risks might be.
3. Kişisel getirisi ne olursa olsun, başkalarına zararı dokunabilecek davranışlardan kaçınmak gerekir.	3. The existence of potential harm to others is always wrong, irrespective of the benefits to be gained.
4. Kişi ne sebeple olursa olsun bir başkasına psikolojik ya da fiziksel zarar vermemelidir.	4. One should never psychologically or physically harm another person.
5. Bir kişi, asla başka birinin refahını ya da saygınlığını tehdit edecek bir davranışta bulunmamalıdır.	5. One should not perform an action which might in any way threaten the dignity and walfare of another individual.
6. Bir fiil ya da eylem, suçsuz birine zarar verecekse hiç yapılmamalıdır.	6. If an action could harm an innocent other, then it should not be done.
7. Bir eylemi yapıp yapmamaya, o eylemin olumlu sonuçları ile olumsuz sonuçlarını karşılaştırarak karar vermek ahlaki değildir.	7. Deciding whether or not to perform an act by balancing the positive consequences of the act against the negative consequences of the act is immoral. (d)
8. İnsanların onur ve refahı toplumun en önemli kaygısı olmalıdır.	8. The dignity and walfere of people should be the most “perfect” action. (d)
9. Başkalarının refahını feda etmenin gerekçesi olamaz.	9. It is never necessary to sacrifice the welfare of others. (d)
10. “İdeal” davranışlar bellidir ve bununla örtüşen eylemler, ahlaki eylemlerdir.	10. Moral actions are those which closely match ideals of the most 1percet” action. (d)
Görecelilik	Relativism
11. Bütün ahlaki anlayışlarda geçerli olacak kadar önemli bir ahlak ilkesi yoktur.	11. There are no ethical principles that are so important that they should be part of any code of ethics. (d)
12. Bir davranışın etik olup olmadığı, durumdan duruma ve toplumdan topluma değişir.	12. What is ethical varies from one situation and society to another.
13. Ahlak standartları kişisel olarak değerlendirilmelidir; bir insanın ahlaki olarak gördüğü bir şey, bir başkası tarafından ahlak dışı olarak değerlendirilebilir.	13. Moral standards should be seen as being indivualistic; what one person considers to be moral may be judged to be immoral by another person.
14. Bir ahlaki anlayışa göre “doğru” olan davranış, bir başka anlayışa göre “doğru” olmayabilir.	14. Different types of moralities can not be compared as to “rightness”.
15. Herkes için geçerli bir etik ilke yoktur, çünkü neyin ahlaki, neyin ahlak dışı olduğu kişiden kişiye değişir.	15. Questions of what is ethical for everyone can never be resolved since what is moral or immoral is up tp the individual.
16. Ahlaki ölçütler sadece bir kişinin nasıl davranması gerektiğini belirten kişisel kurallardır; başkalarının davranışlarının ahlaki olup olmadığını değerlendirmede kullanılamazlar. (Senin ahlaki ilkelerin seni bağlar, başkalarını onunla değerlendiremezsin.)	16. Moral standards are simply personal rules which indicate how a person should behave, are not to be applied in making judgments of others. (Your moral principles bind you, you cannot judge others by it).
17. İnsanın içinde yer aldığı ilişkilerdeki ahlaki değerlendirmeler öylesine karmaşıktır ki, kişilere kendi bireysel kurallarını geliştirme izni verilmelidir.	17. Ethical considerations in interpersonal relations are so complex that individuals should be allowed to formulate their own indivual codes.
18. Belirli türdeki eylemleri engelleyen katı bir etik kural koymak, daha iyi insan ilişkilerine ve uyumuna engel olabilir.	18. Rigidly codifying an ethical position that prevents certain types of actions could stand in the way of better human relations and adjustment.
19. Yalan söylemekle ilgili hiçbir kural konulamaz; yalanın caiz olup olmadığı tamamen duruma bağlıdır.	19. Rigidly codifying an ethical position that prevents certain types of actions could stand in the way of better human erlations and adjustment. (d)
20. Bir yalanın ahlaki veya ahlak dışı olarak değerlendirilmesi, eylemin içinde bulunduğu şartlara bağlıdır.	20. Whether a lie is judged to be moral and immoral depends upon the circumstances surrounding the action. (d)

1. (d): dropped item