Ethical Products = Less Strong: How Explicit and Implicit Reliance on the Lay Theory Affects Consumption Behaviors

Abstract

Many consumers implicitly associate sustainability with lower product strength. This so-called ethical = less strong intuition (ELSI) poses a major threat for the success of sustainable products. This article explores this pervasive lay theory and examines whether it is a key barrier for sustainable consumption patterns. Even more importantly, little is known about the underlying mechanisms that might operate differently at the implicit and explicit levels of the consumer’s decision-making. To fill this gap, three studies examine how the implicit judgments that consumers activate automatically shape their consumption behaviors, in concert with their more controlled explicit beliefs about sustainable products. The Main Study investigates the ELSI’s imprint on actual shopping patterns and disentangles the implicit and explicit mechanisms of the lay theory. This paper also asks how this negative influence can be attenuated by examining whether the consumer’s interest in sustainable consumption reduces reliance on the ELSI. Two follow-up studies confirm the robustness from different methodological and practical perspectives. Implications for companies and policy makers are derived.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Notes

  1. 1.

    Luchs et al. (2010, p. 19) use the term “ethical” to refer to sustainable attributes with environmental or social benefits. For reasons of consistency with prior research, we use the term “ethical = less strong” intuition (ELSI) with a particular emphasis on sustainable products.

  2. 2.

    Note that we also verified the results using ordinary least squares (OLS) estimation. The influence of the implicit ELSI on the share of sustainable categories in the shopping cart (β = −.306, t = −2.875, p < .01) and on the amount of money spent on the more sustainable options (β = −.317, t = −2.985, p < .01) is robust.

  3. 3.

    To elaborate on this conclusion, we split the sample into two groups according to their level of explicit belief. One group has a mean explicit ELSI that is located significantly below the midpoint of the metric (M = 2.87, SD = .61, t(48) = −12.944, p < .001), whereas the other group’s reliance on the explicit ELSI is significantly above the midpoint (M = 4.27, SD = .46, t(32) = 3.349, p < .01). Both groups do not differ in their implicit reliance on the ELSI (t(80) = −.211, p > .05), and they implicitly subscribe to the intuition, irrespective of explicit belief in the ELSI (weak MD-score = .58, SD = .43, t(48) = 9.344; strong MD-score = .60, SD = .30, t(32) = 11.549, both ps < .001).

  4. 4.

    Beyond the Tobit coefficients, we estimated the marginal effects for all models. The patterns are the same and the conclusions do not change; e.g., marginal effects for the interplay between implicit and explicit ELSI on the share of sustainable products (2.20, SE = 1.01, p < .05) and money spent on sustainable options (2.24, SE = 1.12, p < .05).

  5. 5.

    As another robustness test for the interplay between the explicit and the implicit ELSI, we estimated trend interaction contrasts, which are significant for both dependent criteria (share of products: F(1, 76) = 4.72, p < .05; amount of money: F(1, 76) = 5.45, p < .05). The decreasing linear trend over the levels of implicit ELSI differs between the groups with low and high explicit ELSI.

References

  1. Arkes, H. R., & Tetlock, P. E. (2004). Attributions of implicit prejudice, or “would Jesse Jackson ‘fail’ the implicit association test?”. Psychological Inquiry, 15(4), 257–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 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), 281–304.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Auger, P., Devinney, T. M., Louviere, J. J., & Burke, P. F. (2008). Do social product features have value to consumers? International Journal of Research in Marketing, 25(3), 183–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Bagwell, K., & Riordan, M. H. (1991). High and declining prices signal product quality. The American Economic Review, 81(1), 224–239.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Blanken, I., van de Ven, N., & Zeelenberg, M. (2015). A meta-analytic review of moral licensing. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41(4), 540–558.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Blanton, H., & Jaccard, J. (2006). Arbitrary metrics in psychology. American Psychologist, 61(1), 27–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Bluemke, M., & Friese, M. (2008). Reliability and validity of the Single-Target IAT (ST-IAT): Assessing automatic affect towards multiple attitude objects. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38(6), 977–997.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Bray, J., Johns, N., & Kilburn, D. (2011). An exploratory study into the factors impeding ethical consumption. Journal of Business Ethics, 98(4), 597–608.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Chaiken, S., & Trope, Y. (1999). Dual-process theories in social psychology. New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Chernev, A. (2007). Jack of all trades or master of one? Product differentiation and compensatory reasoning in consumer choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 33(4), 430–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Chernev, A., & Carpenter, G. S. (2001). The role of market efficiency intuitions in consumer choice: A case of compensatory inferences. Journal of Marketing Research, 38(3), 349–361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Cronley, M. L., Posavac, S. S., Meyer, T., Kardes, F. R., & Kellaris, J. J. (2005). A selective hypothesis testing perspective on price-quality inference and inference-based choice. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 15(2), 159–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. De Neys, W. (2006). Dual processing in reasoning. Two systems but one reasoner. Psychological Science, 17(5), 428–433.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Deval, H., Mantel, S. P., Kardes, F. R., & Posavac, S. S. (2013). How naïve theories drive opposing inferences from the same information. Journal of Consumer Research, 39(6), 1185–1201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Devinney, T. M. (2009). Is the socially responsible corporation a myth? The good, the bad, and the ugly of corporate social responsibility. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 23(2), 44–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Eckhardt, G. M., Belk, R., & Devinney, T. M. (2010). Why don’t consumers consume ethically? Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 9(6), 426–436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Fielding, K. S., McDonald, R., & Louis, W. R. (2008). Theory of planned behaviour, identity and intentions to engage in environmental activism. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 28(4), 318–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Gilbert, D. (1991). How mental systems believe. American Psychologist, 46(2), 107–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Greenwald, A. G., McGhee, D. E., & Schwartz, J. L. K. (1998). Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The Implicit Association Test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(6), 1464–1480.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Greenwald, A. G., Nosek, B. A., & Banaji, M. R. (2003). Understanding and using the implicit association test: I. An improved scoring algorithm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(2), 197–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Griskevicius, V., Tybur, J. M., & Van den Bergh, B. (2010). Going green to be seen: Status, reputation, and conspicuous conservation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(3), 392–404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Harrison, R., Newholm, T., & Shaw, D. (2005). The ethical consumer. Beverley Hills: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Howard-Grenville, J., Buckle, S. J., Hoskins, B. J., & George, G. (2014). Climate change and management. Academy of Management Journal, 57(3), 615–623.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Johnson, K. R. (2010). “Is the socially responsible corporation a myth? The good, the bad, and the ugly of corporate social responsibility” by Timothy M. Devinney in Academy of Management Perspectives, May 2009. Organization Management Journal, 7(1), 82–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Kahneman, D. (2003). A perspective on judgment and choice: Mapping bounded rationality. American Psychologist, 58(9), 697–720.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Karpinski, A., & Hilton, J. L. (2001). Attitudes and the implicit association test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(5), 774–788.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Karpinski, A., & Steinman, R. B. (2006). The single category implicit association test as a measure of implicit social cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(1), 16–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Khan, U., & Dhar, R. (2006). Licensing effect in consumer choice. Journal of Marketing Research, 43(2), 259–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Kollmuss, A., & Agyeman, J. (2002). Mind the gap: Why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environmental Education Research, 8(3), 239–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Kremers, S. P., Dijkman, M. A., de Meij, J. S., Jurg, M. E., & Brug, J. (2008). Awareness and habit: Important factors in physical activity in children. Health Education, 108(6), 475–488.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Lin, Y.-C., & Chang, C. A. (2012). Double standard: The role of environmental consciousness in green product usage. Journal of Marketing, 76(5), 125–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Luchs, M. G., Brower, J., & Chitturi, R. (2012). Product choice and the importance of aesthetic design given the emotion-laden trade-off between sustainability and functional performance. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 29(6), 903–916.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Luchs, M. G., Naylor, R. W., Irwin, J. R., & Raghunathan, R. (2010). The sustainability liability: Potential negative effects of ethicality on product preference. Journal of Marketing, 74(5), 18–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Mai, R., & Hoffmann, S. (2015). How to combat the unhealthy = tasty intuition: The influencing role of health consciousness. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 34(1), 63–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Mai, R., Hoffmann, S., Hoppert, K., Schwarz, P., & Rohm, H. (2015). The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak: The moderating effect of implicit associations on healthy eating behaviors. Food Quality and Preference, 39, 62–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Mai, R., Symmank, C., & Seeberg-Elverfeldt, B. (2016). Light and pale colors in food packaging: When does this package cue signal superior healthiness or inferior tastiness? Journal of Retailing, 92(4), 426–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Messner, C., & Vosgerau, J. (2010). Cognitive inertia and the implicit association test. Journal of Marketing Research, 47(2), 374–386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Moraes, C., Carrigan, M., & Szmigin, I. (2012). The coherence of inconsistencies: Attitude-behaviour gaps and new consumption communities. Journal of Marketing Management, 28(1–2), 103–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Newman, G. E., Gorlin, M., & Dhar, R. (2014). When going green backfires: How firm intentions shape the evaluation of socially beneficial product enhancements. Journal of Consumer Research, 41(3), 823–839.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Peloza, J., White, K., & Shang, J. (2013). Good and guilt-free: The role of self-accountability in influencing preferences for products with ethical attributes. Journal of Marketing, 77(1), 104–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Prothero, A., Dobscha, S., Freund, J., Kilbourne, W. E., Luchs, M. G., Ozanne, L. K., et al. (2011). Sustainable consumption: Opportunities for consumer research and public policy. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 30(1), 31–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Raghunathan, R., Naylor, R. W., & Hoyer, W. D. (2006). The unhealthy = tasty intuition and its effects on taste inferences, enjoyment, and choice of food products. Journal of Marketing, 70(4), 170–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Ratliff, K. A., Swinkels, B. A., Klerx, K., & Nosek, B. A. (2012). Does one bad apple (juice) spoil the bunch? Implicit attitudes toward one product transfer to other products by the same brand. Psychology & Marketing, 29(8), 531–540.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Sachdeva, S., Iliev, R., & Medin, D. L. (2009). Sinning saints and saintly sinners the paradox of moral self-regulation. Psychological Science, 20(4), 523–528.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. 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(2), 225–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Shaw, D., & Riach, K. (2011). Embracing ethical fields: Constructing consumption in the margins. European Journal of Marketing, 45(7/8), 1051–1067.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Sloman, S. A. (1996). The empirical case for two systems of reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 3–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Smith, E. R., & DeCoster, J. (2000). Dual process models in social and cognitive psychology: Conceptual integration and links to underlying memory systems. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4(2), 108–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Spiller, S. A., Fitzsimons, G. J., Lynch, J. G., Jr., & McClelland, G. H. (2013). Spotlights, floodlights, and the magic number zero: Simple effects tests in moderated regression. Journal of Marketing Research, 50(2), 277–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (2000). Individual differences in reasoning: Implications for the rationality debate? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23(5), 645–665.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Strack, F., & Deutsch, R. (2004). Reflective and impulsive determinants of social behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8(3), 220–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Thaler, R., & Sunstein, C. (2008). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. New Haven: Yale.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Van der Werff, E., Steg, L., & Keizer, K. (2013). It is a moral issue: The relationship between environmental self-identity, obligation-based intrinsic motivation and pro-environmental behaviour. Global Environmental Change, 23(5), 1258–1265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Webb, T. L., & Sheeran, P. (2006). Does changing behavioral intentions engender behavior change? A meta-analysis of the experimental evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 132(2), 249–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Wilcox, K., Vallen, B., Block, L., & Fitzsimons, G. J. (2009). Vicarious goal fulfillment: When the mere presence of a healthy option leads to an ironically indulgent decision. Journal of Consumer Research, 36(3), 380–393.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Robert Mai.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Appendices

Appendix 1

See Table 5.

Table 5 Procedure of the ELSI-IAT (Luchs et al. 2010, p. 21)

Appendix 2

See Fig. 5.

Fig. 5
figure5

Study setting and stimuli (Follow-up Study 2)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mai, R., Hoffmann, S., Lasarov, W. et al. Ethical Products = Less Strong: How Explicit and Implicit Reliance on the Lay Theory Affects Consumption Behaviors. J Bus Ethics 158, 659–677 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3669-1

Download citation

Keywords

  • Ethical products
  • Consumption decision-making
  • Sustainability
  • Implicit Association Test
  • Shopping patterns
  • Intuition
  • Consumption data
  • Field experiment