Journal of Business Ethics

, Volume 70, Issue 3, pp 299–326 | Cite as

Using Best–Worst Scaling Methodology to Investigate Consumer Ethical Beliefs Across Countries

  • Pat Auger
  • Timothy M. Devinney
  • Jordan J. Louviere
Article

Abstract

This study uses best–worst scaling experiments to examine differences across six countries in the attitudes of consumers towards social and ethical issues that included both product related issues (such as recycled packaging) and general social factors (such as human rights). The experiments were conducted using over 600 respondents from Germany, Spain, Turkey, USA, India, and Korea. The results show that there is indeed some variation in the attitudes towards social and ethical issues across these six countries. However, what is more telling are the similarities seen and the extent to which individual variation dominates observable demographics and country-based variables.

Keywords

social issues best–worst experiments cross-country study 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was supported financially by the Australian Research Council through its Discovery Grant program. Additional financial support was forthcoming from the Centre for Corporate Change at the Australian Graduate School of Management and the Centre for the Study of Choice at the University of Technology, Sydney. We are very appreciative of the comments and suggestions of participants at the 2004 Marketing Science Conference (Rotterdam), the 2004 Academy of International Business Conference (Stockholm), and the 2004 European Marketing Academy Conference (Murcia), and numerous universities worldwide. Various individuals and organizations were involved in this work including AC Nielsen, Research International and Heakin Quicktest, as well as Seoul National University, Copenhagen Business School, and EISE (Barcelona). Their support and cooperation is gratefully appreciated. The comments and suggestions of various reviewers, conference attendees, and colleagues has gone a long way to improving this work and we thank them without individual attribution.

References

  1. Aldrich J. H., Nelson F. D. (1984). Linear Probability, Logit, and Probit Models. Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CAGoogle Scholar
  2. 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):750–767CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Auger, P. and T. M. Devinney: 2005, `Do What Consumers Say Matter?: The Misalignment of Preferences with Unconstrained Ethical Intentions', Unpublished Working Paper, AGSM. Available at:http//www2.agsm.edu.au/agsm/web.nsf/Attachments ByTitle/JBE2005Mori$FILE/jbe+2005+mori.pdf. Last accessed, 28, August 2005Google Scholar
  4. Auger P., Burke P., Devinney T. M., Louviere J. J. (2003). What Will Consumers Pay for Social Product Features?. Journal of Business Ethics 42(3):281–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Balabanis G., Mueller R., Melawar T. C. (2002a). The Human Values’ Lenses of Country of Origin Images. International Marketing Review 19(6):582–610CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Balabanis G., Mueller R., Melawar T. C. (2002b). The Relationship Between Consumer Ethnocentrism and Human Values. Journal of Global Marketing 15(3/4):7–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Baumgartner H., Steenkamp J.-B. E. M. (2001). Response Styles in Marketing Research: A Cross-National Investigation. Journal of Marketing Research 38(2):143–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Belk R. W., Devinney T. M., Eckhardt G. (2005). Consumer Ethics Across Cultures. Consumption, Markets, and Culture 8(3):275–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ben-Akiva M. E., Lerman S. (1985). Discrete Choice Analysis. Theory and Application to Travel Demand. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  10. Bjerklie D. (2004). This Whole Outsourcing Thing Is Getting Tricky. Time 163(16):100Google Scholar
  11. Carrigan M., Attala A. (2001). The Myth of the Ethical Consumer – Do Ethics Matter Ill Purchase Behaviour? Journal of Consumer Marketing 18(7):560–577CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chen C., Lee S.-y., Stevenson H. W. (1995). Response Styles and Cross-Cultural Comparisons of Rating Scales Among East Asian and North American Students. Psychological Science 6(3):170–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cohen S. H. (2003). Maximum Difference Scaling: Improved Measures of Importance and Preference for Segmentation. Sequim, WA.Google Scholar
  14. Cohen, S. H. and P. Markowitz: 2002, ‚Renewing Market Segmentation: Some New Tools to Correct Old Problems’, Paper presented at the ESOMAR 2002 Congress, Barcelona, SpainGoogle Scholar
  15. Cohen, S. H. and L. Neira: 2003, ‚Measuring Preference for Product Benefits Across Countries: Overcoming Scale Usage Bias with Maximum Difference Scaling’, Paper presented at the ESOMAR 2003 Latin America Conference, Punta del Este, UruguayGoogle Scholar
  16. Dibley A., Baker S. (2001). Uncovering the Links Between Brand Choice and Personal Values among Young British and Spanish Girls. Journal of Consumer Behaviour 1(1):77–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Economist: 1990, ‚Boycotting Corporate America’, The Economist 26 May, 69–70Google Scholar
  18. Elliott, K. A. and R. B. Freeman: 2001, White Hats or Don Quixotes? Human Rights Vigilantes in the Global Economy (National Bureau of Economic Research (8102), Cambridge, MA)Google Scholar
  19. Finn A., Louviere J. J. (1992). Determining the Appropriate Response to Evidence of Public Concern: The Case of Food Safety. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing 11(1):12–25Google Scholar
  20. Harrison R. (2003). Corporate Social Responsibility and the Consumer Movement. Consumer Policy Review 13(4):127–131Google Scholar
  21. Hill R. P., Stephens D., Smith I. (2003). Corporate Social Responsibility: An Examination of Individual Firm Behavior. Business and Society Review 108(3):339–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hofstede G. (1980). Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values. Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, CA.Google Scholar
  23. Hofstede G. (1983). The Cultural Relativity of Organizational Practices and Theories. Journal of International Business Studies 14(2):80–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jagger, S.: 2004, ‚Reporting the Impact on Society and Nature’, The Times 30 November (1AC ed.) London, 59Google Scholar
  25. Kamakura W. A., Novak T. P. (1992). Value-System Segmentation: Exploring the Meaning of LOV. Journal of Consumer Research 19(1):119–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kim J.-O., Forsythe S., Gu Q., Moon S. J. (2002). Cross-Cultural Consumer Values, Needs and Purchase Behavior. The Journal of Consumer Marketing 19(6):481–502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Klein J. G., Smith N. C., John A. (2002). Exploring Motivations for Participation in a Consumer Boycott. Advances in Consumer Research 29(1):363–369Google Scholar
  28. Konar S., Cohen M. (2001). Does the Market Value Environmental Performance?. The Review of Economics and Statistics 83(2):281–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Louviere J. J., Hensher D.A., Swait J.D. (2000). Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  30. Louviere J. J., Woodworth G. (1983). Design and Analysis of Simulated Consumer Choice or Allocation Experiments: An Approach Based on Aggregate Data. Journal of Marketing Research 20(4):350–367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Maignan I., Ralston D. A. (2002). Corporate Social Responsibility in Europe and the U.S.: Insights from Businesses’ Self-presentations. Journal of International Business Studies 33(3):497–514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Manyiwa S., Crawford I. (2002). Determining Linkages Between Consumer Choices in a Social Context and the Consumer’s Values: A Means-End Approach. Journal of Consumer Behaviour 2(1):54–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Marley, A. A. J. and Louviere, J. J.: 2005, ‚Some Probabilistic Models of Best, and Best-Worst Choices’, Journal of Mathematical Psychology 49(6), 464--480Google Scholar
  34. Marymount-University: 1999, The Consumers and Sweatshops, Vol. 1999 (Marymount University Center for Ethical Concerns)Google Scholar
  35. Muncy J. A., Vitell S. J. (1992). Consumer ethics: An investigation of the ethical beliefs of the final consumer. Journal of Business Research 24:297–311 (June)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Paulhus D. L. (1991). Measurement and Control of Response Bias. In: Robinson J.P., Shaver P.R., Wright L.S. (eds), Measures of Personality and Social Psychological Attitudes. Academic Press, San Diego, CA, pp. 17–59Google Scholar
  37. Polonsky M. J., Brito P. Q., Pinto J., Higgs-Kleyn N. (2001). Consumer Ethics in the European Union: A Comparison of Northern and Southern Views. Journal of Business Ethics 31(2):117–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rawwas M. Y. A. (2001). Culture, Personality and Morality: A Typology of International Consumers’ Ethical Beliefs. International Marketing Review 18(2):188–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Rawwas M. Y. A., Patzer G. L., Vitell J. T. (1998). A Cross-Cultural Investigation of the Ethical Values of Consumers: The Potential Effect of War and Civil Disruption. Journal of Business Ethics 17(4):435-448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rawwas M. Y. A. Strutton D., Johnson l. W. (1996). An Exploratory Investigation of the Ethical Values of American and Australian Consumers. Journal of Direct Marketing 10:52–63 (Autumn)Google Scholar
  41. Rokeach M. (1973). The Nature of Human Values. Free Press, New York.Google Scholar
  42. Schwartz S. H. (1992). Universal in the Content and Structure of Values: Theoretical Advances and Empirical Tests in 20 Countries. In: Zanna M. P. (eds), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. Academic Press, New York, pp. 1–65Google Scholar
  43. Schwartz S.H. (1999). A Theory of Cultural Values and Some Implications for Work. Applied Psychology: An International Review 48(1):23–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sen S., Bhattacharya C.B. (2001). Does Doing Good Always Lead to Doing Better? Consumer Reactions to Corporate Social Responsibility. Journal of Marketing Research 38:225–243 (May)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Smith N. C. (2003). Corporate Social Responsibility: Whether or How?. California Management Review 45(4):52–76Google Scholar
  46. Spar D. L., La Mure L. T. (2003). The Power of Activism: Assessing the Impact of NGOs on Global Business. California Management Review 45(3):78-101Google Scholar
  47. Steenkamp J.-B. E. M., Baumgartner H. (1998). Assessing Measurement Invariance in Cross-National Consumer Research. Journal of Consumer Research 25(1):78–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Steenkamp J.-B. E. M., Ter Hofstede F. (2002). International Market Segmentation: Issues and Outlook. International Journal of Research in Marketing 19(3):185–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Swanson D. L. (1995). Addressing a Theoretical Problem by Reorienting the Corporate Social Performance Model. Academy of Management Review 20(1):43–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Thurstone L. (1927). A Law of Comparative Judgment. Psychological Review 34:273–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Ulrich P., Sarasin C. (1995). Facing Public Interest: The Ethical Challenge to Business Policy and Corporate Communications. Kluwer Academic Publishers, BostonGoogle Scholar
  52. Uusitalo O., Oksanen R. (2004). Ethical Consumerism: A View from Finland. International Journal of Consumer Studies 28(3):214–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Vitell S. J. (2003). Consumer Ethics Research: Review, Synthesis and Suggestions for the Future. Journal of Business Ethics 43(1/2):33–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Williams R. M. (1970). American Society: A Sociological Interpretation. Knopf, New York.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pat Auger
    • 1
  • Timothy M. Devinney
    • 2
  • Jordan J. Louviere
    • 3
  1. 1.Melbourne Business SchoolCarltonAustralia
  2. 2.Australian Graduate School of ManagementUniversity of New South WalesSydneyAustralia
  3. 3.University of TechnologySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations