Anticipated Consumer Guilt

Abstract

This study considers fair-trade as a collaborative strategy of dealing with the wicked problem of apparel sweatshops. The study assumes that consumer guilt increases the market share of fair-trade products which can be regarded as a favorable change in the marketing system’s output. The paper develops and validates a model of guilt-induced fair-trade buying based on this notion. The model comprises negative affect, ethical judgment, and self-efficacy as antecedents of anticipated consumer guilt. The study’s results, based on a sample of American consumers (n = 430) and analyzed in a structural equation model, reveal anticipated guilt as a major driver of fair-trade buying behavior. Furthermore, anticipated consumer guilt mediates the effects of its antecedents on fair-trade buying intention. The paper provides implications for macro-decision making (e.g., guilt-inducing nudges) as well as suggestions for marcromarketing research.

Keywords

fair trade consumer guilt marketing norms and values fast fashion ethics macromarketing

Introduction

The negative externalities of consumption have consistently aroused public interest in recent years (Fraj and Martinez 2007) and the concept of sustainability has concurrently gained significant relevance (Peterson 2013, refer to p. 8 et seq.). Despite urgent appeals from non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and scientists to set limits on unrestricted economic growth and consumption, effective solutions to the complex economic, social, and environmental problems of today’s world are not in sight. Reasons for these troublesome developments can be found in the global marketing system and prevalent global consumer culture. Consumerism-driven environmental pollution, excessive exploitation of non-renewable resources, mistreatment of workers in sweatshops, and income inequalities across and within countries can be regarded as examples of so-called wicked problems (e.g., Reinecke and Ansari 2016).

The term “wicked problem” has its origins in the field of public planning and policy-making. According to Churchman (1967, p. B141) wicked problems represent “social problems which are ill formulated, where the information is confusing, where there are many clients and decision-makers with conflicting values, and where the ramifications in the whole system are thoroughly confusing.” Contrary to wicked problems, tame problems are “simply defined and rooted consensually in a tried and tested methodology” (Wexler 2009, p. 532). Decision-making problems such as optimal pricing or the determination of the level of marketing budgets represent examples of tame problems that can be solved by means of operations research methods. Rittel and Webber (1973, p. 162) name ten attributes that may help to describe wicked problems (e.g., “solutions to wicked problems are not true-or-false, but good-or-bad”). Head (2008, p. 103) provides a simpler way of describing wicked problems and states that they have three essential characteristics: “complexity of elements, subsystems and interdependencies, uncertainty in relation to risks, consequences of action, and changing patterns, divergence and fragmentation in viewpoints, values, strategic intentions”. Global warming or social injustice are instances of wicked problems.

Wicked problems are multifaceted and perpetuated by many stakeholders (Kennedy 2016). These stakeholders have contradictory interests that cannot be easily judged as being good or bad and definite causes or single perpetrators of wicked problems are hard to find (e.g., Head 2008). Marketing systems are not wicked per se. However, they can be part of wicked problems and it is reasonable to assume that multiple interrelated actors within the aggregate marketing system contribute to their emergence. In addition to factors from the political and regulatory sphere (e.g., the race to the bottom in labor standards), businesses that concentrate heavily on short-term profit maximization to meet their shareholders’ expectations may pose a threat to sustainable development (Meng 2015). However, and because companies supply their customers with the products they demand, consumers cannot be absolved from responsibility (Kennedy et al. 2017). A shift in buying behavior towards ethical products may significantly contribute to societal improvements (Albinsson, Wolf, and Kopf 2010). The benefits of buying products that are manufactured with particular attention to, e.g. not harming the environment, animals or people appear to be obvious; yet, many consumers do not opt for ethical alternatives when making purchases. The reasons for this unfavorable behavior may include the higher prices of ethically manufactured products (e.g., Arnot, Boxall, and Cash 2006), incentives to free-ride (e.g., Lusk, Nilsson, and Foster 2007), opposite political attitudes (e.g., Brenton 2013), or low levels of involvement and poor information (e.g., Bezençon and Blili 2010).

The vast majority of research on sustainable or ethical consumption is based on socio-cognitive and attitudinal theories (e.g., Chatzidakis, Kastanakis, and Stathopoulou 2016; Culiberg 2014). Kaiser et al. (1999) note some conceptual shortcomings of these approaches: (1) The normative drivers of behavior are considered only indirectly by the subjective-norm construct, and (2) these theoretical approaches neglect consumer emotions which represent a strong behavioral force. Kaiser et al. (1999) emphasize that the transgression of norms elicits social emotions such as guilt. However, guilt may also develop when consumers contemplate buying products that carry low social approval (Burnett and Lunsford 1994).

To help fill these research gaps, we develop and validate a model of anticipated consumer guilt and investigate the effect of guilt on consumption. We consider negative affect and self-referencing ethical judgment as antecedents of guilt. By including the ethical dimensions of moral equity, contractualism, and relativism we consider a broader range of moral philosophies compared to other related studies (e.g., Lindenmeier, Schleer, and Pricl 2012). With regard to authors such as Steenhaut and Van Kenhove (2006), we reinvestigate whether consumer guilt functions as a mediator between ethical evaluation and ethical consumption. To establish a link to socio-cognitive and attitudinal theories, we include self-efficacy as an antecedent of guilt and buying intentions.

We focus on the wicked problem of apparel sweatshops (Kennedy 2016), which can be regarded as a symptom of unrestricted consumption on the macro level. Based on the notion of an aggregate marketing system (Peterson 2013), we provide insight into how guilt evolves and affects the purchase votes of consumers in the form of fair-trade consumption. Considering the reciprocal flows between consumers and public-policy makers as well as NGOs, deeper insight into the formation of consumer guilt is important for both of these influential actors that may strive to tame wicked problems. To provide this information, our paper is structured as follows: The next section elaborates on the concepts of marketing systems, consumption-induced wicked problems, and fair-trade. On this basis, we develop our model of anticipated consumer guilt and present our hypotheses. Then, we outline the research methodology and present and discuss the findings. Finally, macromarketing implications are presented, along with limitations and avenues for future research.

Marketing Systems and Wicked Problems

Globalized consumer industries involve multiple actors including customers, marketers, retail and trading enterprises, and suppliers. These stakeholders interact within a socioeconomic system, the marketing system, which is defined as “a network of individuals, groups, and/or entities linked directly or indirectly through sequential or shared participation in economic exchange” (Layton 2007, p. 230). In addition, the relationships among these interlinked entities are affected by further protagonists from the political, economic, and social spheres (Kennedy 2016).

The Fast-fashion Marketing System

The fashion industry is a subsystem of the aggregate marketing system, and its stakeholders have experienced major changes over the past century. In particular, customer preferences have evolved towards easily available up-to-date fashion items (Bailey 1993). The resulting demand for a broader range of textures, colors, cuts, and designs contributed to an acceleration of the life cycles of fashion products and gave rise to the fast-fashion industry. To adapt these changes, fashion retailers began to provide their customers with wide assortments of products and began to extend their offerings by introducing additional mid-season collections (Bhardwaj and Fairhurst 2010). As a consequence, suppliers are forced to offer smaller quantities in shorter delivery periods (Tyler, Heeley, and Bhamra 2006). These requirements regarding flexibility and speed of delivery result in high cost pressure and aggressive competition among apparel suppliers. Competition has not only increased at the level of suppliers; fast-fashion retailers and fashion-brand companies fiercely compete in the sales markets, too. Globalization of markets and the advance of free trade agreements result in a pronounced competitive pressure and represent a distinct incentive for companies to benefit from low labor costs in developing countries (Adams 2002). Thus, in order to remain responsive to customer demand at low prices without jeopardizing profit margins, companies have relocated apparel production to developing countries (Bhardwaj and Fairhurst 2010) resulting in the emergence of the fast-fashion industry and its imminent sweatshop issue (Adams 2002).

Output of the Fast-fashion Marketing System

Assortments of “products, tangible and intangible, differentiated by attributes, by location in space and time, or by factors such as cost, price, or quality” (Layton 2007, p. 230) represent the immediate output of a marketing system. Hence, the wide collection of low-priced clothing available can be regarded as the primary output of the fast-fashion industry. Customers may benefit from this large supply of cheap apparel and fast-fashion retailers are able to maximize their profits, which can then be distributed to their shareholders. Consequently, these profitable companies are able to generate well-paid jobs at their outlets in the sales market. However, the fast-fashion industry also causes negative externalities (Layton 2007) that impair distributional justice and sustainable development (Layton 2015). For example, pollution caused by mass production at low environmental standards in developing countries can be regarded as an output of the fast-fashion industry, too (Ertekin and Atik 2015). In addition to these detrimental environmental effects, the exploitatively low wages paid to textile workers and the inhumane working conditions that prevail in the manufacturing plants of countries such as Bangladesh (McRobbie 1997) represent other long-term outputs of the fast-fashion industry.

Apparel Sweatshops as a Wicked Problem

Public opinion is divided on whether apparel sweatshops – and the related poor working conditions in the clothing and textile industry – should be condemned. Persons that do not strongly oppose sweatshops state that imposing Western work standards on industries in developing countries would have unintended negative consequences, such as a rise in unemployment (Kennedy 2016) or a decline in economic growth (Dolan et al. 2006). Moreover, many companies in the fast-fashion industry would be unable to change their operations because doing so would deprive them of their business model (Ertekin and Atik 2015). These divergent views of sweatshops and the related variation in strategic intentions represent an essential characteristic of wicked problems (Head 2008). An additional feature of wicked problems can be found in the complexity of elements, subsystems, and interdependencies (Head 2008). As mentioned above, the fast-fashion industry represents a complex intermediate marketing system that comprises multiple interrelated actors, and responsibility for sweatshop conditions cannot be clearly assigned to any one actor (Kelley 2014). Uncertainty with regard to risks, consequences of actions, and changing patterns represents the third characteristic feature of wicked problems (Head 2008). The socioeconomic context in which the sweatshop issue is situated cannot be regarded as free from uncertainty (Meng 2015). Since the behavior of the actors who shape the network of the fashion industry is ever-changing this marketing system is in constant flux. In sum and considering authors such as Kennedy (2016), the sweatshop issue can be classified as a wicked problem.

Fair-trade as a Means to Tame Wicked Problems

The detrimental repercussions of marketing may impede the sustainable development of society (Layton 2015), and macromarketing strives to improve these outcomes on the societal level (Fisk 1981) by taking the environmental, social, and economic externalities of marketing operations into consideration (Cadeaux 2000; Mittelstaedt, Kilbourne, and Shultz 2015). Macromarketing research extends the concept of marketing systems’ outputs beyond assortments of products and includes ethics and social justice (Hunt and Vitell 2006; Laczniak and Murphy 2006) or impacts on social welfare in its analyses (e.g., Lee and Sirgy 2004). Considering the social-welfare perspective, Roberts (2000, p. 3 et seqq.) distinguishes three approaches to address wicked problems, – namely, authoritative, competitive, and collaborative coping strategies. Considering Roberts’ (2000) notion, authoritative strategies do not represent a feasible way of taming the sweatshop problem because power in the fashion industry is dispersed. Contrary to macromarketing philosophy, competitive coping strategies suggest a zero-sum game with at least one party “losing”. Hence, collaborative coping strategies appear to be the most viable macromarketing strategy to address the wicked problem of sweatshops.

The fair-trade movement is one of the most prominent forms of ethical consumerism (Golding 2009; Wooliscroft, Ganglmair-Wooliscroft, and Noone 2014). The fair-trade marketing system involves four core components: fair-trade supply chains, labeling initiatives, fair-trade brands and umbrella associations (Witkowski 2005). Fair-trade is a “trading partnership, based on dialogue, transparency and respect that seeks greater equity in international trade” (World Fair Trade Organization n.d.). It aims to improve economic returns in the producing countries instead of unilaterally maximizing the surpluses of consumers, manufacturers, or distributers (Brown 1993). It may therefore be classified as a collaborative strategy to address the wicked problem of, for instance, sweatshops, because it assumes a win-win situation for all collaborators in the fair-trade marketing system.

Fair-trade’s notion of consuming less at higher prices may contribute to slowing down the fast-moving fashion product life cycle (Joy et al. 2012). Escaping this vicious cycle should improve working conditions and quality of life in offshore production locations (Ertekin and Atik 2015). According to Arnould, Plastina, and Ball (2009), fair-trade positively affects local income levels and educational attainment. Higher and more stable income contributes to self-confidence which may lead to the empowerment of sweatshop workers. In the long run, fair-trade collaborations can even improve health because they make medical attention more accessible. In sum, and as Le Mare’s (2008) literature review shows, fair-trade contributes to social and economic development goals. However, and as Kilbourne, McDonagh, and Prothero (1997) and Kennedy (2016) suggest, changes in consumers’ attitudes towards ethical consumption and subsequent buying behavior are crucial to move the fashion marketing system in the desired direction. In line with this thought and according to Kennedy et al. (2017), ethical consumers challenge the present system’s functioning and structure and thus, are able to contribute to societal betterment.

Consumer Guilt as a Driver of Fair-trade Buying Behavior

The current paper delineates a model that considers fair-trade buying intention as a consequence of anticipated consumer guilt. The delineated model comprises constructs that antecede felt guilt. Figure 1 and this section give an overview of the developed model. Readers who are interested in the theoretical underpinnings of the hypotheses may refer to Table 1.

Figure 1.

Overview of the model’s hypotheses.

Table 1.

Theoretical Underpinnings of the Hypotheses.

Definition of the Explanatory Variables	Theoretical Underpinnings
Guilt is an unpleasant emotional state resulting from the failure to attain a personal, social or moral principle (Lin and Xia 2009). Rawlings (1970) distinguishes anticipatory guilt from reactive guilt (Renner et al. 2013) and existential guilt (Huhmann and Brotherton 1997). Anticipated consumer guilt “arises from contemplating a potential violation of one’s own standards” (Cotte, Coulter, and Moore 2005, p. 362). When consumers think about, for example, purchasing products from companies accused of unethical corporate conduct they may anticipate guilt. Thus, a factual transgression of norms is not a necessary precondition for the arousal of anticipated guilt (Tangney, Stuewig, and Mashek 2007).	H₁: The negative-state relief model is an approach that explains individual motivation to act in a prosocial manner (de Waal 2015). According to the negative-state relief model, people learn during their socialization that they receive a mood boost when they help other people. The model thus states that the likelihood of helping is higher when individuals are in a sad mood. Based on this, anticipated guilt is assumed to serve as an “emotional moral barometer” (Tangney, Stuewig, and Mashek 2007, p. 347), signaling whether to reinforce or turn away from a behavior. In case of a transgression, the negative-state relief model (Cialdini et al. 1987) proposes that people tend to counterbalance guilt with actions that benefit others because they know that helping is instrumental in alleviating this negative emotion. Hence, factual or anticipated violations of moral norms may result in guilt and individuals tend to diminish these feelings through prosocial actions (Estrada-Hollenbeck and Heatherton 1997). Guilt is thus a predictor of helping behavior (e.g., Hoffmann 2014), reparative and constructive behavioral patterns (e.g., Tangney, Stuewig, and Mashek 2007) as well as ethical buying behavior (e.g., Chatzidakis, Kastanakis, and Stathopoulou 2016). These prosocial behavioral patterns are not only aroused within direct transgressor-victim relationships but may also spill over to bystanders or witnesses (Rawlings 1968). Considering the research of Rawlings (1970) and Cialdini, Darby, and Vincent (1973), consumers who observe a moral transgression from “the outside” (e.g., consumers receiving information about the sweatshop issue) may anticipate guilt at the prospect of contributing to wicked problems by purchasing ethically problematic products. In turn, they mitigate felt guilt by purchasing ethical products.
	H₂: In line with the cognitive emotion theory (Ortony, Clore, and Collins 1988), anticipated guilt is based on the results of cognitive processes and in turn influences behavioral intentions. Likewise, the norm activation model (Schwartz 1977) suggests that social norms have an impact on individual behavior through anticipated guilt. Steenhaut and Van Kenhove (2006) thus assume that anticipated guilt functions as a mediator. In addition, these authors state that anticipated guilt must be distinguished from moral judgment and that anticipated guilt is influenced by moral judgment. Correspondingly and consistent with previous research (e.g., Babin and Babin 1996), anticipated guilt is considered as an intermediating construct between ethical judgment and behavioral intentions.
Negative affect is an undifferentiated and negatively valanced state of emotional arousal. It results from specific events and is merely based on the events’ desirability. Negative affect formation takes place quickly and requires minimal cognitive elaboration (Ortony, Clore, and Collins 1988). Moral norms form the basis of cognitive processes, which result in a judgment of the moral blameworthiness of specific actions (Ortony, Clore, and Collins 1988). The resulting ethical judgment is a multidimensional construct (Reidenbach and Robin 1990) that is based on contractualism, relativism, and moral-equity norms.	H₃: Emotions are valanced reactions to the consequences of events (i.e., states and changes without the explicit consideration of an existing initiator), the actions of agents (i.e., events that are caused by a responsible initiator) and/or aspects of objects (i.e., characteristics of people, animals, or things). Moreover, so-called compound emotions represent a mixture of two or three components (Ortony, Clore, and Collins 1988). Anticipated guilt is assumed to be an event- and action-induced compound emotion that is based on two components: H_3a: Negative affect aroused by an unfavorable event (e.g., information about sweatshops) is assumed as the first guilt component. Guilt is a cognitive and culturally evolved secondary emotion and must be distinguished from primary emotions (Ekman 1972). Guilt requires negative affect as a primary emotion to occur. Hence, negative affect has a positive effect on consumer guilt (Sonnemans and Frijda 1995). This is in line with Lindsey, Yun, and Hill (2007, p. 469), who state that a precondition for guilt is an individual’s capability to “feel or anticipate the suffering and distress of others”. H_3b: Self-referencing ethical judgment (e.g., buying products of low social approval) is assumed as the second guilt component. The degree of perceived moral transgression of one’s own behavior is essential for the level and valance of ethical judgment (Ortony, Clore, and Collins 1988) and moral equity (Hypothesis H_3b1), contractualistic (Hypothesis H_3b2), and relativistic judgment (Hypothesis H_3b3) subsequently predict the level of anticipated consumer guilt.
Self-efficacy is the belief regarding the degree to which individuals hold themselves capable of exercising tasks successfully or dealing with specific problems (Wood and Bandura 1989). Self-efficacy formation is based on cognitive processing and social learning (Bandura 1977).	H_4a : Burnett and Lunsford (1994) and Dahl, Honea, and Manchanda (2003) reveal the acceptance of responsibility for norm violation or perceptions of high control over situations as important factors in the guilt-formation process. Individuals with high self-efficacy beliefs should regard themselves as being more responsible for the well-being of others (Lindenmeier 2008). Thus, perceptions of responsibility can be associated with an inclination toward prosocial behavior (Caprara, Alessandri, and Eisenberg 2012) and, in turn, as predictors of guilt (McGraw 1987).
	H_4b: Individuals with higher self-efficacy beliefs are supposed to be more willing to perform challenging actions (Bandura 1977). Eden and Kinnar (1991) describe this phenomenon as the Galatea effect, which is based on the idea of self-fulfilling prophecies. Ethical buying behavior may be regarded as a challenging or burdensome task because it is often associated with higher prices or search and information costs (Bray, Johns, and Kilburn 2011). Accordingly, de Vries, Dijkstra, and Kuhlman (1988) assume a positive effect of self-efficacy on behavior.

When consumers think about purchasing blood, conflict, and sweatshop products that are ethically problematic, or products that are merely socially undesirable, they may feel the negative self-conscious emotion of anticipated consumer guilt. This paper assumes that guilt is a significant driver of fair-trade consumption based on research on prosocial behavior (e.g., Cialdini et al. 1987). Hypothesis H₁ is as follows:

H₁: Anticipated consumer guilt has a direct and positive effect on fair-trade buying intentions.

It has long been debated whether emotions have a primarily biological or cognitive basis (Izard 1992), and psychological research distinguishes among several theories of emotion formation (refer to Gerrig (2013) for an overview). Cognitive emotion theories postulate that emotions are formed in two steps: (1) A stimulus causes an undifferentiated state of arousal and (2) the resulting arousal is cognitively assessed by the individual. The emotion experienced then builds upon these two components. Based on Ortony, Clore, and Collins (1988), this paper conceptualizes anticipated consumer guilt as a compound emotion that is elicited based on negative affect and ethical judgment (see subsequent Hypotheses H_3a and H_3b). Because anticipated consumer guilt represents a result of cognitive processing, a mediational effect of guilt on the relationship between its antecedents and behavioral intention is assumed, and hypothesis H₂ reads as follows:

H₂: Anticipated consumer guilt mediates the effects of negative affect and ethical judgment on fair-trade buying intention.

This paper focuses on consumer guilt that is triggered by a consumption-induced wicked problem (i.e., apparel sweatshops). Hence, the main elicitor of felt consumer guilt is located outside the individual on the macro level. Negative affect represents an immediate emotional response in individual consumers to information about these wicked problems. Negative affect then serves as a basis for felt guilt, and hypothesis H_3a is as follows:

H_3a: Negative affect has a direct and positive effect on anticipated consumer guilt.

Consumers may attribute the responsibility for wicked problems to companies that engage in ethically reprehensible conduct and thus, may feel negative emotions, such as anger, which are directed toward entities other than themselves. However, and according to the notion of the aggregate marketing system (Peterson 2013), companies and consumers are closely connected by physical and persuasive flows (i.e., products as well as promotion, PR, and customer relationship management) as well as information and monetary flows (i.e., payments and purchase votes), and companies supply consumers with the products and services that they demand. Therefore, attributional processes that result in self-referential ethical judgment and associate consumers with wicked problems may affect the formation of feelings of guilt.

The present study considers ethical judgment as a multi-faceted construct, which is characterized by its moral-equity, contractualistic, and relativistic dimensions (Reidenbach and Robin 1990). The underlying moral norms are components of the cultural system to which participants of the marketing system refer when interacting with each other (Kennedy 2016), and ethical judgment is a representation of this system. Moral-equity judgment is based on deontological norms that support the duty of not harming other persons (Reidenbach and Robin 1990). Hence and as an example, moral-equity judgments establish a direct link between consumers and sweatshop workers in poor countries. Contractualistic norms are based on the notion of a societal contract between all members of society, a contract that should not be violated (ibid). Hence, contractualism interlinks all stakeholders in the marketing system. This is consistent with the notion that the evolution of marketing systems is driven by cooperation among all its participants, which generates so-called shared understandings or a social contract among all parties involved (Layton 2015). Relativism does not rely on a universal moral norm, such as Kant’s categorical imperative (Reidenbach and Robin 1990). Relativistic judgment is situational and culture-specific and can be regarded as a result of a discourse among the members of society. Relativism therefore captures the fragmentation of views of wicked problems. The belief that viewpoints on the sweatshop issue vary among the members of society is associated with a strong relativistic ethical judgment. Hypothesis H_3b reads as follows:

H_3b: Anticipated consumer guilt is higher the more unfavorable the moral-equity judgment (H_3b1) and contractualistic judgment are (H_3b2). The less relativistic the ethical judgment, the higher the level of anticipated consumer guilt (H_3b3).

The model of consumer guilt includes self-efficacy beliefs as an additional determinant that stems from socio-cognitive models of behavior (e.g., Wood and Bandura 1989). Self-efficacy as the individual faith in oneself to achieve desired outcomes is a decisive driver of human behavior (Bandura 1982). Individuals with high self-efficacy perceptions are more willing to tackle problems and more likely to succeed than people with low perceived self-efficacy (Benight and Bandura 2004). Perceived behavioral control is a synonym for perceived self-efficacy. In line with the theory of planned behavior, perceived behavioral control is an important predictor of future behavior (Ajzen 1991). Therefore, the present paper assumes an impact of self-efficacy on fair-trade buying intention. Moreover, this study assumes an effect of self-efficacy on felt guilt, too. Basil, Ridgway, and Basil (2008) identify self-efficacy as a driver of donation behavior. The authors also show that guilt partially mediates the effect of perceived self-efficacy. This mediation effect indicates a self-serving defensive reaction that results in higher levels of guilt if one fails to help. Hypotheses H_4a and H_4b are as follows:

H_4a: Self-efficacy has a direct and positive effect on anticipated consumer guilt.

H_4b: Self-efficacy has a direct and positive effect on fair-trade buying intention.

Empirical Analysis

Sample and Procedure

This study considers the inhumane working conditions in the Bangladeshi apparel industry as an instance of a wicked problem and respondents’ own fashion consumption is the object of ethical evaluation. In addition, the study focuses on fair-trade consumption. This study considers American consumers as the population of interest. The authors conducted an online survey together with an online survey company. The survey took place in late 2014/early 2015 and yielded 430 responses. The average age of the respondents was 40.41 years. Table 2 depicts the sample’s demographic characteristics.

Table 2.

Sample Characteristics.

		Frequencies	Percent	Percent (Cumulated)
Gender	Male	215	50.00%	50.00%
	Female	215	50.00%	100.00%
	Total	430	100.00%
Marital Status	Single	167	38.84%	38.84%
	In a Relationship	83	19.30%	58.14%
	De Facto Relationship	2	.47%	58.60%
	Married	178	41.40%	100.00%
	Total	430	100.00%
Citizenship	US	423	98.37%	98.37%
	Other	7	1.63%	100.00%
	Total	430	100.00%
Post-secondary Education	Certificate	100	23.26%	23.26%
	Bachelor Degree	119	27.67%	50.93%
	Advanced Diploma or Diploma	33	7.67%	58.60%
	Graduate Diploma or Graduate Certificate	74	17.21%	75.81%
	Postgraduate Degree	27	6.28%	82.09%
	Other	77	17.91%	100.00%
	Total	430	100.00%
Annual Income	Under $14.999	74	17.21%	17.21%
	$15.000 - $29.999	96	22.33%	39.53%
	$30.000 - $49.999	95	22.09%	61.63%
	$50.000 - $74.999	88	20.47%	82.09%
	$75.000 - $99.999	40	9.30%	91.40%
	$100.000 - $149.999	30	6.98%	98.37%
	$150.000 - $199.999	1	.23%	98.60%
	$200.000 and above	6	1.40%	100.00%
	Total	430	100.00%

The questionnaire informed the participants about our interest in their opinions regarding the sweatshop issue as well as the operations of the fast-fashion industry. It asked them to disregard what other people might think of their opinions. This procedure lowered the motivation to engage in impression management and decreased social desirability bias. After presenting information on the sweatshop issue (Appendix A), we posed questions on the constructs included in the model.

Measures

All of the considered latent constructs are measured by reflective measurement scales (Appendix B). The current study uses three 7-point Likert-type items to measure fair-trade purchasing intentions. Negative affect is measured with three 7-point items. Self-referencing ethical judgment is measured based on Reidenbach and Robin’s (1990) MES scale. Due to high double loadings between items of the moral-equity and contractualism dimensions of the MES scale that appeared during a preceding exploratory factor analysis, the study considers three instead of four moral-equity items. Based on Lwin and Phau (2009), the anticipated consumer guilt instrument consists of five 7-point Likert-type items. Self-efficacy is measured with three 7-point items.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis

The measurement model is assessed by confirmatory factor analysis and shows an acceptable-to-good overall model fit: The chi-square statistic (χ² = 358.33, df = 168) is significant (p < .01). The χ² /df-statistic is slightly above the threshold of 2.0 (χ² /df = 2.13). The fit indices are within good standards (GFI = .93, AGFI = .90; NFI = .97; TLI = .98; CFI = .98; RMSEA = .05; PCLOSE = .37; SRMR = .03). All factor loadings are above .70, apart from one item of the negative-affect scale, which is slightly below .70 (Appendix B). Additionally, with regard to all constructs, composite reliability (CR) is above the threshold of .70. All average-variance-extracted (AVE) statistics are above the threshold of .50. The average shared variance and the maximum shared variance are below the average variance extracted, and the Fornell-Larcker criterion is satisfied. Table 3 shows that the measurement exhibits internal consistency, convergent validity and discriminant validity.

Table 3.

Internal-consistency, Convergent-validity, and Discriminant-validity Statistics.

	M	SD	CR	AVE	MSV	ASV	(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)	(5)	(6)	(7)
(1) Fair-trade buying behavior	5.35	1.43	.93	.81	.70	.37	.90
(2) Negative affect	5.38	1.44	.84	.64	.28	.17	.53	.80
(3) Moral equity	4.83	1.55	.95	.87	.41	.23	.53	.34	.93
(4) Relativism	4.30	1.59	.89	.80	.10	.02	-.01	.00	.15	.89
(5) Contractualism	4.96	1.56	.96	.91	.41	.25	.55	.40	.64	.32	.96
(6) Guilt	5.50	1.53	.96	.84	.70	.36	.84	.53	.55	-.05	.54	.92
(7) Self-efficacy	5.59	1.27	.95	.88	.65	.31	.81	.44	.48	-.01	.46	.76	.94

Notes. CR = Composite reliability, AVE = Average variance extracted, MSV = Maximum shared variance,

ASV = Average shared variance. Figures printed in bold face represent the square roots of average variance extracted.

Structural Equation Modeling and Mediation Analysis

Structural equation modeling is considered to validate the proposed model, and Figure 2 depicts the results. The overall model fit is good-to-satisfactory: The chi-square statistic is significant (p < .01), the χ²/df-statistic is slightly above 2.0, and the fit indices are within acceptable-to-good standards. Next, we validate the delineated hypotheses (see Figure 2 for direct effects). The assumed path between negative affect and guilt (H_3a) is significant (p < .01). Negative affect has a positive effect on guilt. With regard to the three paths between moral judgment and anticipated guilt, the estimation shows that every path is significant (p < .01). Moral-equity (H_3b1) and contractualism judgments (H_3b2) have a positive effect on guilt. Relativism judgments have a negative effect on guilt (H_3b3).

Figure 2.

Results of structural equation modeling.

Anticipated guilt has a significant positive effect on buying intention (H₁). The direct paths of contractualism and negative affect on behavioral intention are significant, respectively. The direct effects of moral-equity judgment on behavioral intention and relativism judgment on behavioral intention are not significant. Self-efficacy belief has a significant direct and positive effect on guilt (H_4a) and fair-trade buying intentions (H_4b).

Indirect effects of ethical judgment and negative affect on behavioral intention are estimated to validate the mediational hypothesis H₂. The results of this mediation analysis are depicted in Table 4. All indirect effects on buying intention are significant (p < .01). Relativism has a negative indirect effect (r = -.05). Negative affect (r = .08), self-efficacy (r = .23) as well as contractualism (r = .08) and moral-equity (r = .06) judgments have positive indirect effects on buying intentions.

Table 4.

Mediation Analysis.

	Negative affect	Self-efficacy	Contractualism	Relativism	Moral-equity
Indirect effect on fair-trade buying behavior	.08	.23	.08	−.05	.06
LLCI 99%	.02	.14	.02	−.12	.01
ULCI 99%	.14	.38	.17	−.01	.13
p-Value	.002	.001	.001	.001	.001

Notes. The estimation of the indirect effects are based on 1.000 bootstrap runs (Biased-corrected confidence intervals).

Moderation Analyses

To obtain further insights, we performed an additional moderation analysis. We find two moderation effects of gender: The effect of negative affect on guilt is more pronounced for men (r = .58, p < .01) than for women (r = .40, p < .01). The effect of moral-equity judgment is stronger within the male subsample (r = .64, p < .01) than within the female subsample (r = .44, p < .01). Further empirical analysis reveals a significant mean difference in anticipated guilt (M_Men = 5.30, M_Women = 5.69, p < .01).

We also find a significant “age x negative affect” interaction on anticipated guilt, and the effect of negative affect increases with respondents’ age (-SD: r = .23, p < .01; +/-SD: r = .30, p < .01; + SD: r = .36, p < .01). The “age x contractualism” interaction on behavioral intention is significant, and the effect of contractualistic judgment diminishes with age (-SD: r = .14, p < .01; +/- SD: r = .09, p < .05; +SD: r = .04, p > .10). Based on a median split, no significant mean difference in anticipated guilt between younger and older consumers was found (M_Young = 5.46, M_Old = 5.54).

Discussion

Anticipated consumer guilt is composed of two components: negative affect and self-directed ethical judgment. Considering the impact of negative affect, our findings are consistent with Hanks and Mattila’s (2014) study, which reveals an effect of mood on felt guilt. Regarding self-directed ethical judgment, the study findings support the reasoning of Tangney, Stuewig, and Mashek (2007) that guilt arises within the process of self-evaluation. The results are also consistent with Tangney (1999), who considers moral judgment as a precondition for guilt. Self-efficacy has direct positive effects on anticipated consumer guilt and fair-trade buying behavior. This confirms McGraw (1987) and Caprara, Alessandri, and Eisenberg (2012) in the sense that perceptions of responsibility are an antecedent of guilt and push fair-trade buying behavior.

The study results reveal that guilt directly influences fair-trade buying intentions. This result is consistent with the negative-state relief model (Cialdini et al. 1987). The empirical findings show that guilt totally mediates the effects of relativism and moral-equity judgment. In line with Elgaaied’s (2012) work, consumer guilt is formed based on ethical judgments, and these antecedents of consumer guilt then impact purchasing intentions indirectly through the anticipated emotion itself. The negative indirect effect of relativism on fair-trade buying can be regarded as a reflection of the disparate views of the underlying sweatshop issue, and such disparate views are an essential feature of wicked problems. The more relativistic the individual ethical judgment, the lower is the inclination of consumers to contribute to the taming of the wicked problem. Moreover, and because moral-equity judgments are based on universal ethical rules (e.g., the categorical imperative), consumers who compare their quality of life with that of sweatshop workers recognize a huge gap; this cognitive process translates into guilt and subsequent behavior. In sum, the results of this study correspond with Tangney, Stuewig, and Mashek’s (2007) study, which reveals an effect of moral emotions on the relationship between moral principles and moral intention.

The effect of contractualism on behavioral intent is only partially mediated by felt guilt, in accordance with Steenhaut and Van Kenhove’s (2006) study. This partial mediation may be explained by the considered ethical issue. Following Burnett and Lunsford’s (1994, p. 39) classification, our study focuses on social responsibility guilt, which “occurs when one violates one’s perceived social obligations as a result of a purchase decision”. Thus, the direct effect of contractualism may be due to consumers’ strong perception that they are violating or will violate a shared understanding or a social contract when they purchase fashion items produced in sweatshops. The direct effect of contractualism judgment might be less pronounced when more self-centered types of consumer guilt, such as financial guilt or health guilt, are considered. The significant (non-significant) direct effect of contractualism (moral-equity) on ethical purchase intentions can also be interpreted in light of the social contract theory. Donaldson and Dunfee (1994) argue that moral philosophies such as deontology and utilitarianism offer moral guidelines but cannot provide practical advice for consumers caught in an ethical dilemma. In contrast, a social contract or shared understanding of right or wrong can be regarded as prerequisites for interaction and exchange processes between the stakeholders of a marketing system (Layton 2015). According to this idea consumers make use of these prerequisites when forming their purchase intentions, and contractualism is a decisive behavioral driver.

Negative affect is a psychological state that may occur when consumers are confronted with an ethical dilemma or wicked problem that has to be resolved (Gaudine and Thorne 2001). The significant direct effect of negative affect on purchasing intention is in line with Carrigan and Attalla (2001), who state that if consumers themselves feel negatively affected by a company’s behavior, they show greater interest in the case or the respective company and are more inclined to act.

Regarding the moderation effect of gender, male respondents’ guilt formation is apparently more contingent on negative affect and moral-equity judgment. Male consumers experience stronger feelings of guilt only after they perceive a significant violation of moral-equity norms. This finding illustrates the importance of deontological universal rules for male consumers’ behavior. Regarding the more pronounced effect of negative affect, this study is consistent with Lindenmeier’s (2008) research, which reveals that men are inclined to engage in prosocial behavior only after they are emotionally aroused. Women appear to be more prone to guilt per se, and according to Efthim, Kenny, and Mahalik (2001), women’s proneness to guilt may be due to adherence to traditional feminine role models that stem from the cultural system and are associated with the duty to care for others.

Considering the reinforcing effect of age on the relationship between negative affect and anticipated guilt, young consumers may be more used to disturbing imagery (e.g., Shade, Porter, and Sanchez 2006). This can be attributed to a generation gap in media usage (e.g., Clark 2009), and younger consumers seem to be more resistant to drastic media coverage of the consequences of the sweatshops. With regard to the attenuating effect of age on the relationship between contractualism and behavioral intention, older consumers seemingly need to be less motivated to engage in fair-trade buying by moral impulses. This finding is consistent with Hines and Ames’ (2000) study, which shows that older consumers are more ethically sensitive than younger consumers are. However, the shared understanding of the need for fair working conditions in the fashion industry appears to be more binding among younger consumers.

Conclusions

Macromarketing Relevance

In addition to assortments of products as the immediate output of marketing systems, companies that aim at generating high profit margins and consumers who excessively buy cheap mass-produced products may bring about negative externalities. Both companies and consumers overexploit the fashion marketing system to their own advantage at the expense of workers’ health, poverty wages and suffering from inhumane sweatshop working conditions (Pines and Meyer 2005). Consumer guilt can serve as a means of internalizing such externalities and can contribute to the taming of the wicked problem of sweatshops.

The potential influence of guilt first unfolds on the individual level (Burnett and Lunsford 1994). In addition to affective reactions to unsettling sweatshop conditions, the formation of consumer guilt includes influences from the cultural system in the form of self-referencing ethical judgment. Beyond that, consumer guilt stimulates ethical buying behavior, which then affects the immediate and long-term output of marketing systems via the transactional relationships among retailers, consumer goods manufacturers, suppliers, and consumers. More precisely, when the share of fair-trade products increases due to consumer guilt, and ceteris paribus, the output of the marketing system has changed in a favorable manner, marketing then extends beyond its sole economic function and serves to “achieve macro equilibrium by performing certain societal functions with respect to long-term welfare” (Meng 2015, p. 86).

A guilt-induced boost in ethical product consumption can spill over to a larger socio-economic context: (1) Guilt formation may have positive effects at the place of production. For example, a higher market penetration of fair-trade may result in better working conditions in developing countries’ industries (Valkila and Nygren 2010). (2) Guilt-induced ethical consumerism might have a positive effect on the economic development of poor countries (Bacon 2005). The call for ethically produced products may positively impact local wage levels and subsequently, the local economy. (3) Consumer guilt may help to spread a new consciousness within the general public and this change in attitudes may motivate companies to compete based on ethical product attributes. Elevating the assortment of products to a more ethical level could then become a trend throughout the industry, which would subsequently affect price structures and market shares. Finally, the choice between guilt-free and guilt-laden products can be interpreted as a reward or penalty mechanism (c.f. Fisk 1981) in the sense that consumers are emotionally sanctioned when thinking about purchasing garments produced in sweatshops. The purchase of socially desirable products may address consumers’ need to do good, which may contribute to their personal happiness (Lyubomirsky, Sheldon, and Schkade 2005).

Implications for Macro-Decision Making

Consumer guilt should be considered in macro-decision making, and public-policy makers could consider using guilt-inducing nudges (Eyal 2014) as an alternative or a complement to more paternalistic measures, such as taxation or product regulation. With regard to the design of emotion-inducing nudges (i.e., guilt appeals), consumer policy could try to boost negative affect and unfavorable contractualism judgment due to their direct effects on guilt and behavioral intentions. For instance, pictorial representations of people working in inhumane conditions could be used to arouse negative affect. Public organizations could activate the belief of the existence of an unwritten social contract, for example, not to exploit apparel workers in developing countries. Campaign managers could try to mitigate the adverse effect of social referents’ relativistic views by considering celebrity endorsers who emphasize that trivializing the societal consequences of unrestricted consumption is not justifiable. Campaigns could strive to strengthen consumers’ self-efficacy beliefs. The observation of other people who successfully perform the considered behavior may result in increased self-efficacy perceptions (Schunk 1991). In line with this notion of observational learning, communication could depict peer consumers that have already managed to buy more fair-trade products. Finally, the results of this paper’s moderation analyses provide starting points for communication tailored to consumer segments. In particular, males’ guilt could be increased by making moral-equity norms salient and by triggering negative affect. The elicitation of negative affect (contractualistic norms) should have a distinct effect on older (younger) consumers’ felt guilt.

These guilt-inducing nudges may be discussed controversially and their use could be considered unethical itself. This holds true particularly if vulnerable consumers are exposed to disturbing messages (Hastings and Stead 2004). Unless there is significant aggregation, guilt-driven individual consumption has only an infinitesimal impact, and free-riding incentives might be strong in the absence of more robust social control mechanisms. NGOs represent a catalyst through which the necessary aggregation of individual consumer behavior can be achieved in the aggregate marketing system. These organizations often have a large member base, where individuals are connected with each other through mutual values. Thus, guilt-inducing appeals sent by an NGO might have a stronger effect due to less pronounced free-riding incentives among the organization’s members.

Businesses should consider this study’s insights in their marketing strategy to increase their triple bottom line (Peterson 2013). Marketing managers, in particular, must decide how to weigh guilt-free product attributes over functional or utilitarian product attributes. In particular, businesses could consider eliminating guilt-arousing product attributes. However, consumers’ willingness to pay price premiums for ethical product attributes, the size of the segment of ethical consumers, or the supply of fairly produced primary products all set limits on these decisions. Moreover, manufacturers and retailers could stress the ethical attributes of their fair-trade products. For instance, they could inform consumers about their efforts to promote work safety at overseas supply companies. Individual producer stories are instrumental in helping consumers see that they can make a difference on a macro level with their daily purchasing choices (Nicholls 2002).

Study Limitations

The study considers a specific instance of wicked problems, and the extent to which the study exhibits external validity is not certain. Consumers’ budget constraints are not explicitly incorporated in the model. However, self-efficacy may partially serve as a proxy for budget constraints. Consumers tend to overestimate their intentions to act according to moral norms (e.g., Randall and Fernandes 1991). Hence, a closer examination of the social desirability bias is crucial here. Chung and Monroe (2003) found that the higher the social desirability bias, the more unfavorable the ethical evaluation. The mean values of the ethical judgment constructs vary around a moderate value of 4.50 on 7-point scales (see Table 3). A pronounced social desirability bias, which would have resulted in an extremely unfavorable ethical evaluation, is rather unlikely. Chen et al. (1997) found that individuals with a high inclination to give socially desirable answers tend to underreport their felt negative emotions (Spector 2006). The mean values of negative affect and consumer guilt exceed 5.0 on a 7-point scale (see Table 3), and these comparatively high values indicate that the social desirability bias is not pronounced. Our study considers one information source and measures the model components by means of one instrument; thus, common method bias could represent a problem. We tried to address this problem by means of reducing the social desirability bias (see “Sample and Procedure” section) and using different measurement scales and scale anchors (Appendix B). Finally, intentions are considered as the dependent variable and these are not perfectly correlated with actual behavior (Bray, Johns, and Kilburn 2011).

Research Opportunities

First, with regard to the measurement and formation of guilt, future studies could consider multi-dimensional conceptualizations of consumer guilt (cf. Lin and Xia’s (2009) conceptualization). In doing this, future research could analyze the extent to which anticipatory guilt is a reflection of past experiences. For example, anticipated guilt could be driven by the regret that consumers felt after purchasing a socially undesirable product in the past. Future research could add further micro-level determinants to the model as well. For example, concurring with Lindsey, Yun, and Hill (2007), other affective constructs, such as empathy, could be added as determinants of anticipated consumer guilt.

Second, future studies could take additional constructs into account. For example, Yuksel (2013) suggests that consumers’ emotional detachment from a boycott cause due to geographical distance is a hurdle for participation. Future research could analyze whether guilt serves as a means to reduce the perceived spatial distance to the factual outcomes of a wicked problem. This is supported by Reinecke and Ansari (2016), who state that connecting Western consumers with workers suffering in producing countries by means of emotions can mobilize the public. Our study reveals moderating effects of gender and age. Future studies could consider the effects of other demographic variables (e.g., income class) to complement these findings. In particular, a combinatorial analysis could explore how the effects of demographic variables are weighted. In addition, future research could analyze how influences from reference groups affect guilt formation. For example, lifestyle-related reference groups (e.g., hedonistic vs. environmentally-conscious consumers) could exert an influence on felt guilt and resulting buying intentions. Moreover, the level of felt guilt possibly varies across product categories (e.g., fast-moving vs. luxury goods). Considering these variations in product categories, and based on Burnett and Lunsford (1994), other types of anticipated consumer guilt, such as financial guilt, could be considered. With regard to “conflict products” (e.g., gas-guzzling sport utility vehicles) with social referents that both favor and object to their purchase and/or use, future research could investigate whether guilt is in these cases more strongly driven by the conflicting referent opinions or more objective measures. Future research could also consider the evolution of societal norms over time. Environmental concerns have gained greater attention in recent years. A change in norms in the cultural system would affect the evaluation of ethical issues as well as subsequent consumer guilt.

Third, future research could focus on the outcomes of anticipated consumer guilt. Given the validity challenges associated with survey research, alternative methodologies such as laboratory experiments or scanner-panel studies could be considered to more rigidly validate the effects on actual behavior. Fair-trade consumption represents only one of several strategies that consumers may utilize to cope with anticipated guilt (Gregory-Smith, Smith, and Winklhofer 2013). Hence, the validated model could be used to explain further behavioral consequences of anticipated guilt that are significant from the perspective of macromarketing, too, such as anticonsumption (Chatzidakis and Lee 2013).

Finally, research could strive to develop recommendations for macro-decision making. Because macro-decision making is characterized by uncertainty and imperfect information, there is a call for “error-prone decision heuristics” (Rethans and Taylor 1982). Hence, studies could investigate whether the measurement of consumer guilt can serve as such a decision heuristic. For example, targeting decisions could be based on guilt variations across consumer segments because they might respond differently to, e.g. public awareness campaigns. In addition, issue identification and agenda setting could consider consumer guilt. Future research could analyze how fast-fashion overconsumption can be changed towards sustainable consumption; both consumption patterns of macromarketing concern (Haase and Kleinaltenkamp 2016). Further, researchers could investigate the salience of guilt appeals when they are considered in comparison with other tools of public policy (e.g., tax credits or grants). Consumers represent the “largest public” (Fisk 1981), and because individual consumers can trigger systemic change by their purchase behavior (Hastings and Domegan 2014; Kennedy 2016), future research could strive to identify other catalysts of behavioral change in addition to consumer guilt. Considering Cialdini’s negative-state relief mechanism, the arousal of negative emotions can serve as a means to mobilize the consumer masses, which is vital in approaching wicked problems (Kennedy 2016). On this basis, future studies could analyze whether guilt appeals are more salient than other types of emotional appeals (e.g., fear appeals) in motivating ethical consumer behavior.

Footnotes

Appendix A. The Sweatshop Issue

Reports on the working conditions in sweatshops in developing countries appear in the media on a daily basis. The working conditions prevailing in so-called sweatshops do not conform to Western standards at all. Collective agreements, protection against dismissal, health and safety standards, and regulation of working hours are completely unknown in these circumstances. Moreover, garment manufacturers in developing countries often engage in exploitative child labor. Bangladesh is one of the largest apparel exporters worldwide. Within the last few months, several negative incidents have taken place in Bangladeshi sweatshops. For example, there were several fires in Bangladeshi garment factory facilities. The collapse of an eight-story building, which housed several textile mills, led to worldwide consternation in April 2013. More than 1,000 people were killed. Several well-known fashion companies distribute products that were manufactured in these illegally constructed buildings. The clothing company __ was among those fashion companies. In addition to the life-threatening working conditions in the factories, the incident has brought the workers’ low pay back into focus. After violent protests, wages in the Bangladeshi garment industry were raised from US$38 per month in 2010. However, according to consumer protection groups, most garments cannot be produced under fair conditions at the prices for which they are sold in clothing stores. The term “fair” would mean the following here: fair pay, reasonable working hours and existence of health and safety standards. Spokesmen of NGOs hold the opinion that t-shirts priced at approximately US$6.50 cannot be regarded as being manufactured under fair conditions. Fair-trade t-shirts should have a price of at least US$19.50.

Appendix B. Measurement Scales and Estimated Factor Loadings

Question items		Factor loadings
FT1	I am willing to pay significantly more for clothing items if, in return, the manufacture confirms fair trade manufacturing (e.g., by a fair trade label).	.84
FT2	I am inclined to consider fair trade clothing that is produced in compliance with international social and labor standards the next time I need to buy apparel.	.92
FT3	I will advise my friends and acquaintance to buy fair trade clothing products that have been produced in compliance with international labor standards.	.94
NA1	Not upset – Upset	.82
NA2	Not ashamed – Ashamed	.88
NA3	Not hostile – Hostile	.68
SE1	I am capable of buying more fair-trade clothing in the future.	.93
SE2	I am confident that I will be able to buy more fair-trade clothing in the future.	.96
SE3	If it were entirely up to me, I am confident I would be able to buy more fair-trade clothing in the future.	.91
ME1	My behavior as a consumer of clothing articles that may have been produced in sweatshops is not unfair / is unfair.	.96
ME2	…is not unjust / is unjust.	.98
ME3	…is acceptable to my family / is unacceptable to my family.	.85
REL1	The fact that I have purchased clothing that may have been produced in sweatshops is not a commonly accepted tradition / is a commonly accepted tradition.	.95
REL2	…is not commonly accepted in our culture / is commonly accepted in our culture.	.84
CON1	The fact that I have bought clothes that may have been produced in sweatshops is a behavior that does not violate unspoken promise / that violates unspoken promise.	.96
CON2	…that does not violate an unwritten contract / that violates an unwritten contract.	.95
GUI1	I would feel guilty for spending money on __ products.	.94
GUI2	I would blame myself for spending money on __ products.	.93
GUI3	I would feel guilty for lying about spending money on __ products.	.83
GUI4	I would feel ashamed for spending money on __ products.	.94
GUI5	I would feel irresponsible for spending money on __ products.	.93

Notes. FT = Fair-trade buying behavior, NA = Negative affect, SE = Self-efficacy, ME = Moral-equity, REL = Relativism, CON = Contractualism, GUI = Anticipated consumer guilt.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Adams

Ronald J.

(2002), “Retail Profitability and Sweatshops: A Global Dilemma,” Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 9 (3), 147–53.

Ajzen

Icek

(1991), “The Theory of Planned Behavior,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50 (2), 179–211.

Albinsson

Pia A.

Wolf

Marco

Kopf

Dennis A.

(2010), “Anti-Consumption in East Germany: Consumer Resistance to Hyperconsumption,” Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 9 (6), 412–25.

Arnot

Chris

Boxall

Peter C.

Cash

Sean B.

(2006), “Do Ethical Consumers Care About Price? A Revealed Preference Analysis of Fair trade Coffee Purchases,” Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 54 (4), 555–65.

Arnould

Eric J.

Plastina

Alejandro

Ball

Dwayne

(2009), “Does Fair Trade Deliver on its Core Value Proposition? Effects on Income, Educational Attainment, and Health in Three Countries,” Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 28 (2), 186–201.

Babin

Barry J.

Babin

Laurie A.

(1996), “Effects of Moral Cognitions and Consumer Emotions on Shoplifting Intentions,” Psychology & Marketing, 13 (8), 785–802.

Bacon

Christopher

(2005), “Confronting the Coffee Crisis: Can Fair Trade, Organic, and Specialty Coffees Reduce Small-scale Farmer Vulnerability in Northern Nicaragua?,” World Development, 33 (3), 497–511.

Bailey

Thomas

(1993), “Organizational Innovation in the Apparel Industry,” Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society, 32 (1), 30–48.

Bandura

Albert

(1977), “Self-Efficacy: Toward a Unifying Theory of Behavioral Change,” Psychological Review, 84 (2), 191–215.

10.

Bandura

Albert

(1982), “Self-efficacy Mechanism in Human Agency,” American Psychologist, 37 (2), 122–47.

11.

Basil

Debra Z.

Ridgway

Nancy M.

Basil

Michael D.

(2008), “Guilt and Giving: A Process Model of Empathy and Efficacy,” Psychology and Marketing, 25 (1), 1–23.

12.

Benight

Charles C.

Bandura

Albert

(2004), “Social Cognitive Theory of Posttraumatic Recovery: The Role of Perceived Self-Efficacy,” Behaviour Research and Therapy, 42 (10), 1129–48.

13.

Bezençon

Valéry

Blili

Sam

(2010), “Ethical Products and Consumer Involvement: What’s New?,” European Journal of Marketing, 44 (9), 1305–21.

14.

Bhardwaj

Vertica

Fairhurst

Ann

(2010), “Fast-fashion: Response to Changes in the Fashion Industry,” The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, 20 (1), 165–73.

15.

Bray

Jeffery

Johns

Nick

Kilburn

David

(2011), “An Exploratory Study into the Factors Impeding Ethical Consumption,” Journal of Business Ethics, 98 (4), 597–608.

16.

Brenton

Scott

(2013), “The Political Motivations of Ethical Consumers,” International Journal of Consumer Studies, 37 (5), 490–97.

17.

Brown

Michael B.

(1993), Fair Trade: Reform and Realities in the International Trading System. London, UK: Zed Books.

18.

Burnett

Melissa S.

Lunsford

Dale A.

(1994), “Conceptualizing Guilt in the Consumer Decision-making Process,” Journal of Consumer Marketing, 11 (3), 33–43.

19.

Cadeaux

Jack

(2000), “Market Mechanisms and the External Benefits of Consumption,” Journal of Macromarketing, 20 (1), 11–22.

20.

Caprara

Gian V.

Alessandri

Guido

Eisenberg

Nancy

(2012), “Prosociality: The Contribution of Traits, Values, and Self-Efficacy Beliefs,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102 (6), 1289–303.

21.

Carrigan

Marylyn

Attalla

Ahmad

(2001), “The Myth of the Ethical Consumer – Do Ethics Matter in Purchase Behaviour?,” Journal of Consumer Marketing, 18 (7), 560–77.

22.

Chatzidakis

Andreas

Kastanakis

Minas

Stathopoulou

Anastasia

(2016), “Socio-cognitive Determinants of Consumers’ Support for the Fair Trade Movement,” Journal of Business Ethics, 133 (1), 95–109.

23.

Chatzidakis

Andreas

Lee

Michael S. W.

(2013), “Anti-Consumption as the Study of Reasons Against,” Journal of Macromarketing, 33 (3), 190–203.

24.

Chen

Peter Y.

Dai

Tina

Spector

Paul E.

Jex

Steve M.

(1997), “Relationship between Negative Affectivity and Positive Affectivity: Effects of Judged Desirability of Scale Items and Respondent’s Social Desirability,” Journal of Personality Assessment, 69 (1), 183–98.

25.

Chung

Janne

Monroe

Gary S.

(2003), “Exploring Social Desirability Bias,” Journal of Business Ethics, 44 (4), 291–302.

26.

Churchman

C. West

(1967), “Wicked Problems,” Management Science, 14 (4), B141–42.

27.

Cialdini

Robert B.

Darby

Betty L.

Vincent

Joyce E.

(1973), “Transgression and Altruism: A Case for Hedonism,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 9 (6), 502–16.

28.

Cialdini

Robert B.

Schaller

Mark

Houlihan

Donald

Arps

Kevin

Fultz

Jim

Beaman

Arthur L.

(1987), “Empathy-based Helping: Is it Selflessly or Selfishly Motivated?,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52 (4), 749–58.

29.

Clark

Lynn S.

(2009), “Digital Media and the Generation Gap: Qualitative Research on US Teens and their Parents,” Communication & Society, 12 (3), 388–407.

30.

Cotte

June

Coulter

Robin A.

Moore

Melissa

(2005), “Enhancing or Disrupting Guilt: The Role of Ad Credibility and Perceived Manipulative Intent,” Journal of Business Research, 58 (3), 361–68.

31.

Culiberg

Barbara

(2014), “Towards an Understanding of Consumer Recycling from an Ethical Perspective,” International Journal of Consumer Studies, 38 (1), 90–97.

32.

Dahl

Darren W.

Honea

Heather

Manchanda

Rajesh V.

(2003), “The Nature of Self-Reported Guilt in Consumption Contexts,” Marketing Letters, 14 (3), 159–71.

33.

Vries

Hein

Margo Dijkstra

Kuhlman

Piet

(1988), “Self-Efficacy: The Third Factor besides Attitude and subjective Norm as a Predictor of Behavioural Intentions,” Health Education Research, 3 (3), 273–82.

34.

Waal

Frans

(2015), “Prosocial Primates,” in The Oxford Handbook of Prosocial Behavior, Schroeder

David A.

Graziano

William G.

, eds. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 61–85.

35.

Dolan

Paul

Peasgood

Tessa

Dixon

Andy

Knight

Melanie

Phillips

David

Tsuchiya

Aki

White

Mat

(2006), “Research On The Relationship Between Well-Being And Sustainable Development,” Final Report For Defra.

36.

Donaldson

Thomas

Dunfee

Thomas W.

(1994), “Toward a Unified Conception of Business Ethics: Integrative Social Contracts Theory,” The Academy of Management Review, 19 (2), 252–84.

37.

Eden

Dov

Kinnar

Joseph

(1991), “Modeling Galatea: Boosting Self-Efficacy to Increase Volunteering,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 75 (6), 770–80.

38.

Efthim

Paul W.

Kenny

Maureen E.

Mahalik

James R.

(2001), “Gender Role Stress in Relation to Shame, Guilt, and Externalization,” Journal of Counseling & Development, 79 (4), 430–38.

39.

Ekman

Paul

(1972), Emotions in the Human Face. New York, NY: Pergamon.

40.

Elgaaied

Leila

(2012), “Exploring the Role of Anticipated Guilt on Pro-environmental Behavior – A suggested Typology of Residents in France based on Their Recycling Patterns,” Journal of Consumer Marketing, 29 (5), 369–77.

41.

Ertekin

Zeynep O.

Atik

Deniz

(2015), “Sustainable Markets Motivating Factors, Barriers, and Remedies for Mobilization of Slow Fashion,” Journal of Macromarketing, 35 (1), 53–69.

42.

Estrada-Hollenbeck

Mica

Heatherton

Todd F.

(1997), “Avoiding and Alleviating Guilt through Prosocial Behavior,” in Guilt and Children, Bybee

Jane

, ed. Waltham, MA: Academic Press, 215–31.

43.

Eyal

Nir

(2014), “Nudging by Shaming, Shaming by Nudging,” International Journal of Health Policy and Management, 3 (2), 53–56.

44.

Fisk

George

(1981), “An Invitation to Participate in Affairs of the Journal of Macromarketing,” Journal of Macromarketing, 1 (1), 3–6.

45.

Fraj

Elena

Martinez

Eva

(2007), “Ecological Consumer Behaviour: An Empirical Analysis,” International Journal of Consumer Studies, 31 (1), 26–33.

46.

Gaudine

Alice

Thorne

Linda

(2001), “Emotion and Ethical Decision-Making in Organizations,” Journal of Business Ethics, 31 (2), 175–87.

47.

Gerrig

Richard J.

(2013), Psychology and Life. London, UK: Pearson Higher.

48.

Golding

Kirsty M.

(2009), “Fair Trade’s Dual Aspect: The Communications Challenge of Fair Trade Marketing,” Journal of Macromarketing, 29 (2), 160–71.

49.

Gregory-Smith

Diana

Smith

Andrew

Winklhofer

Heidi

(2013), “Emotions and Dissonance in ‘Ethical’ Consumption Choices,” Journal of Marketing Management, 29 (11-12), 1201–23.

50.

Haase

Michaela

Kleinaltenkamp

Michael

(2016), “Introduction on the Commentaries on Roger A. Layton’s ‘There could be more to Marketing than you might have thought!’ (Layton, 2016),” Australasian Marketing Journal, 24 (3), 238–40.

51.

Hanks

Lydia

Mattila

Anna S.

(2014), “The Impact of Gender and Prepurchase Mood on Consumer Guilt after a Travel Purchase,” Journal of Travel Research, 53 (5), 625–37.

52.

Hastings

Gerard

Domegan

Christine

(2014), Social Marketing: From Tunes to Symphonies. New York, NY: Routledge.

53.

Hastings

Gerard

Stead

Martine

(2004), “Fear Appeals in Social Marketing: Strategic and Ethical Reasons for Concern,” Psychology and Marketing, 21 (11), 961–86.

54.

Head

Brian W.

(2008), “Wicked Problems in Public Policy,” Public Policy, 3 (2), 101–18.

55.

Hines

Charlotte

Ames

Ashley

(2000), Ethical Consumerism – A Research Study Conducted for the Co-operative Bank. London, UK: MORI.

56.

Hoffmann

Stefan

(2014), “Does National Culture Impact Consumer Boycott Prevalence? A Multi-country Study,” European Journal of International Management, 8 (2), 141–59.

57.

Huhmann

Bruce A.

Brotherton

Timothy P.

(1997), “A Content Analysis of Guilt Appeals in Popular Magazine Advertisements,” Journal of Advertising, 26 (2), 35–45.

58.

Hunt

Shelby D.

Vitell

Scott J.

(2006), “The General Theory of Marketing Ethics: A Revision and Three Questions,” Journal of Macromarketing, 26 (2), 143–53.

59.

Izard

Carroll E.

(1992), “Basic Emotions, Relations among Emotions, and Emotion-Cognition Relations,” Psychological Review, 99 (3), 561–65.

60.

Joy

Annamma

Sherry

John F.

Jr Venkatesh

Alladi

Wang

Jeff

Chan

Ricky

(2012), “Fast-fashion, Sustainability, and the Ethical Appeal of Luxury Brands,” Fashion Theory, 16 (3), 273–95.

61.

Kaiser

Florian G.

Ranney

Michael

Hartig

Terry

Bowler

Peter A.

(1999), “Ecological Behavior, Environmental Attitude, and Feelings of Responsibility for the Environment,” European Psychologist, 4 (2), 59–74.

62.

Kelley

Scott

(2014), “Moving Beyond Boycotts: Strategies for Shared Responsibility in the Collegiate Apparel Industry,” Journal of Catholic Higher Education, 33 (2), 167–85.

63.

Kennedy

Ann-Marie

(2016), “Macro-social Marketing,” Journal of Macromarketing, 36 (3), 354–65.

64.

Kennedy

Ann-Marie

Kapitan

Sommer

Bajaj

Neha

Bakonyi

Angelina

Sands

Sean

(2017), “Uncovering Wicked Problem’s System Structure: Seeing the Forest for the Trees,” Journal of Social Marketing, 7 (1), 51–73.

65.

Kilbourne

William

McDonagh

Pierre

Prothero

Andrea

(1997), “Sustainable Consumption and The Quality of Life: A Macromarketing Challenge to the Dominant Social Paradigm,” Journal of Macromarketing, 17 (1), 4–24.

66.

Laczniak

Gene R.

Murphy

Patrick E.

(2006), “Normative Perspectives for Ethical and Socially Responsible Marketing,” Journal of Macromarketing, 26 (2), 154–77.

67.

Layton

Roger A.

(2007), “Marketing Systems – A Core Macromarketing Concept,” Journal of Macromarketing, 27 (3), 227–42.

68.

Layton

Roger A.

(2015), “Formation, Growth, and Adaptive Change in Marketing Systems,” Journal of Macromarketing, 35 (3), 302–19.

69.

Lee

Dong-Jin

Joseph Sirgy

(2004), “Quality-of-Life (QOL) Marketing: Proposed Antecedents and Consequences,” Journal of Macromarketing, 24 (1), 44–58.

70.

Le Mare

Ann

(2008), “The Impact of Fair Trade on Social and Economic Development: A Review of the Literature,” Geography Compass, 2 (6), 1922–42.

71.

Lin

Yu-Tse

Kang-Ning

Xia

(2009), “The Relationship between Consumer Guilt and Product Categories,” in Asia-Pacific Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 8, Samu

Sridhar

Vaidyanathan

Rajiv

Chakravarti

Dipankar

, eds. Duluth, MN: Association for Consumer Research, 332–33.

72.

Lindenmeier

Jörg

(2008), “Promoting Volunteerism: Effects of Self-efficacy, Advertisement-induced Emotional Arousal, Perceived Costs of Volunteering, and Message Framing,” Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 19 (1), 43–65.

73.

Lindenmeier

Jörg

Schleer

Christoph

Pricl

Denise

(2012), “Consumer Outrage: Emotional Reactions to Unethical Corporate Behavior,” Journal of Business Research, 65 (9), 1364–73.

74.

Lindsey

Lisa L. M.

Yun

Kimo A.

Hill

Jennifer B.

(2007), “Anticipated Guilt as Motivation to Help Unknown Others: An Examination of Empathy as a Moderator,” Communication Research, 34 (4), 468–80.

75.

Lusk

Jayson L.

Nilsson

Tomas

Foster

Ken

(2007), “Public Preferences and Private Choices: Effect of Altruism and Free Riding on Demand for Environmentally Certified Pork,” Environmental and Resource Economics, 36 (4), 499–521.

76.

Lwin

Michael

Phau

Ian

(2009), “Measuring Existential Guilt Appeals on Donation Intention,” in Proceedings of the Australian and New Zealand Marketing Academy Conference, Tojib

Dewi

, ed. Melbourne, Australia: Australian and New Zealand Marketing Academy.

77.

Lyubomirsky

Sonja

Sheldon

Kennon M.

Schkade

David

(2005), “Pursuing Happiness: The Architecture of Sustainable Change,” Review of General Psychology, 9 (2), 111–31.

78.

McGraw

Kathleen M.

(1987), “Guilt Following Transgression: An Attribution of Responsibility Approach,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53 (2), 247–56.

79.

McRobbie

Angela

(1997), “A New Kind of Rag Trade? The Politics of British Fashion Design,” in No Sweat: Fashion, Free Trade and the Rights of Workers: Fashion, Free Trade and the Rights of Garment Workers, Ross

Andrew

, ed. New York, NY: Verso, 275–90.

80.

Meng

Jie

(2015), “Sustainability: A Framework of Typology Based on Efficiency and Effectiveness,” Journal of Macromarketing, 35 (1), 84–98.

81.

Mittelstaedt

John D.

Kilbourne

William E.

Schultz

Clifford J.

II (2015), “Macromarketing Approaches to Thought Development in Positive Marketing: Two Perspectives on a Research Agenda for Positive Marketing Scholars,” Journal of Business Research, 68 (12), 2513–16.

82.

Nicholls

Alexander J.

(2002), “Strategic Options in Fair trade Retailing,” International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 30 (1), 6–17.

83.

Ortony

Andrew

Clore

Gerald L.

Collins

Allan

(1988), The Cognitive Structure of Emotions. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

84.

Peterson

Mark

(2013), Sustainable Enterprise – A Macromarketing Approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

85.

Pines

Gina L. S.

Meyer

David G.

(2005), “Stopping the Exploitation of Workers: An Analysis of the Effective Application of Consumer or Socio-political Pressure,” Journal of Business Ethics, 59 (1), 155–62.

86.

Randall

Donna M.

Fernandes

Maria F.

(1991), “The Social Desirability Response Bias in Ethics Research,” Journal of Business Ethics, 10 (11), 805–17.

87.

Rawlings

Edna I.

(1968), “Witnessing Harm to Other: A Reassessment of the Role of Guilt in Altruistic Behavior,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 10 (4), 377–80.

88.

Rawlings

Edna I.

(1970), “Reactive Guilt and Anticipatory Guilt in Altruistic Behavior,” in Altruism and Helping Behavior, Macaulay

Jacqueline

Berkowitz

Leonard

, eds. New York, NY: Academic Press, 163–77.

89.

Reidenbach

R. Eric

Robin

Donald P.

(1990), “Toward the Development of a Multidimensional Scale for Improving Evaluations of Business Ethics,” Journal of Business Ethics, 9 (8), 639–53.

90.

Reinecke

Juliane

Ansari

Shaz

(2016), “Taming Wicked Problems: The Role of Framing in the Construction of Corporate Social Responsibility,” Journal of Management Studies, 53 (3), 299–329.

91.

Renner

Simone

Lindenmeier

Jörg

Tscheulin

Dieter K.

Drevs

Florian

(2013), “Guilt Appeals and Prosocial Behavior: An Experimental Analysis of the Effects of Anticipatory versus Reactive Guilt Appeals on the Effectiveness of Blood Donor Appeals,” Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 25 (3), 237–55.

92.

Rethans

Arno J.

Taylor

Jack L.

Jr . (1982), “Generic Problems Confronting Macromarketing Decisionmakers,” in Marketing Theory: Philosophy of Science Perspectives, Bush

Ronald F.

Hunt

Shelby D.

, eds. Chicago, IL: American Marketing Association, 286–87.

93.

Rittel

Horst W.

Webber

Melvin M.

(1973), “Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning,” Policy Sciences, 4 (2), 155–69.

94.

Roberts

Nancy

(2000), “Wicked Problems and Network Approaches to Resolution,” International Public Management Review, 1 (1), 1–19.

95.

Schwartz

Shalom H.

(1977), “Normative Influences on Altruism,” in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Leonard

Berkowitz

, ed. New York, NY: Academic Press, 10, 221–79.

96.

Schunk

Dale H.

(1991), “Self-efficacy and Academic Motivation,” Educational Psychologist, 26 (3-4), 207–31.

97.

Shade

Leslie R.

Porter

Nikki

Sanchez

Wendy

(2006), “You Can See Anything on the Internet, You Can Do Anything on the Internet!,” Canadian Journal of Communication, 30 (4), 503–26.

98.

Sonnemans

Joep

Frijda

Nico H.

(1995), “The Determinants of Subjective Emotional Intensity,” Cognition & Emotion, 9 (5), 483–506.

99.

Spector

Paul E.

(2006), “Method Variance in Organizational Research – Truth or Urban Legend?,” Organizational Research Methods, 9 (2), 221–32.

100.

Steenhaut

Sarah

Kenhove

Patrick Van

(2006), “The Mediating Role of Anticipated Guilt in Consumers’ Ethical Decision-making,” Journal of Business Ethics, 69 (3), 269–88.

101.

Tangney

June P.

(1999), “The Self-Conscious Emotions: Shame, Guilt, Embarrassment, and Pride,” in Handbook of Cognition and Emotion, Dalgleish

Tim

Power

Mick J.

, eds. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 541–68.

102.

Tangney

June P.

Stuewig

Jeff

Mashek

Debra J.

(2007), “Moral Emotions and Moral Behavior,” Annual Review of Psychology, 58 (1), 345–72.

103.

Tyler

David

Heeley

Bhamra

Tracy

(2006), “Supply Chain Influences on new Product Development in Fashion Clothing,” Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal, 10 (3), 316–28.

104.

Valkila

Joni

Nygren

Anjy

(2010), “Impacts of Fair Trade Certification on Coffee Farmers, Cooperatives, and Laborers in Nicaragua,” Agriculture and Human Values, 27 (3), 321–33.

105.

Wexler

Mark N.

(2009), “Exploring the Moral Dimension of Wicked Problems,” International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 29 (9/10), 531–42.

106.

Witkowski

Terrence H.

(2005), “Fair Trade Marketing: An Alternative System for Globalization and Development,” Journal of Marketing Theory & Practice, 13 (4), 22–33.

107.

Wood

Robert

Bandura

Albert

(1989), “Impact of Conceptions of Ability on Self-Regulatory Mechanisms and Complex Decision Making,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56 (3), 407–15.

108.

Wooliscroft

Ben

Ganglmair-Wooliscroft

Alexandra

Noone

Abigayle

(2014), “The Hierarchy of Ethical Consumption Behavior: The Case of New Zealand,” Journal of Macromarketing, 34 (1), 57–72.

109.

World Fair Trade Organization (n.d.), “Definition of Fair Trade,” (accessed March 21, 2017), [available at http://wfto.com/fair trade/definition-fair trade.]

110.

Yuksel

Ulku

(2013), “Non-participation in Anti-consumption: Consumer Reluctance to Boycott,” Journal of Macromarketing, 33 (3), 204–16.