Ethical Decisions and Response Mode Compatibility: Weighting of Ethical Attributes in Consideration Sets Formed by excluding versus Including Product Alternatives
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online April, 2009
Ethical Decisions and Response Mode Compatibility: Weighting of Ethical Attributes in Consideration Sets Formed by excluding versus Including Product Alternatives
Across four studies, including one involving an actual monetary decision, the authors demonstrate that forming a product consideration set by excluding versus including alternatives induces consumers to place more weight on ethical attributes, such as company labor practices and animal testing. This nonnormative difference reflects a compatibility between exclusion and ethics, and it holds regardless of attribute framing or consumer emotion. The authors also find that consumers judge others’ behavior more negatively for excluding ethical products than for including ethical products. These results have implications for the marketing of ethical products, both specifically (e.g., it is important to encourage exclusion modes) and generally (e.g., the failure to consider ethical products may reflect seemingly minor contextual issues guiding the decision process and not consumer disinterest in ethical issues).
BaronJonathan, and SprancaMark, (1997), “Protected Values,”Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 70(April), 1–16.
2.
BatsonDaniel C., ThompsonElizabeth R., SeuferlingGreg, WhitneyHeather, and StrongmanJon A., (1999), “Moral Hypocrisy: Appearing Moral to Oneself Without Being So,”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(September), 525–37.
3.
BeachLee Roy, (1993), “Broadening the Definition of Decision Making: The Role of Prechoice Screening of Options,”Psychological Science, 4(July), 215–20.
4.
BeachLee Roy, and MitchellTerrence R., (1990), “Image Theory: A Behavioral Theory of Decisions in Organizations,” in Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 12, StawBarry M., and CummingsLarry L., eds. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 1–41.
5.
BettmanJames R., and Whan ParkC., (1980), “Effects of Prior Knowledge and Experience and Phase of the Choice Process on Consumer Decision Processes: A Protocol Analysis,”Journal of Consumer Research, 7(December), 234–48.
6.
ChakravartiAmitav, JaniszewskiChris, and ÜlkümenGülden, (2006), “The Neglect of Prescreening Information,”Journal of Marketing Research, 43(November), 642–53.
7.
DesaiKalpesh Kaushik, and HoyerWayne D., (2000), “Descriptive Characteristics of Memory-Based Consideration Sets: Influence of Usage Occasion Frequency and Usage Location Familiarity,”Journal of Consumer Research, 27(December), 309–323.
8.
DiehlKristin, (2005), “When Two Rights Make a Wrong: Searching Too Much in Ordered Environments,”Journal of Marketing Research, 42(August), 313–22.
9.
DiehlKristin, KornishLaura J., and LynchJohn G.Jr., (2003), “Smart Agents: When Lower Search Cost for Quality Information Increases Price Sensitivity,”Journal of Consumer Research, 30(June), 56–71.
10.
EaglyAlice H., and ChaikenShelly, (1993), The Psychology of Attitudes.Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
11.
EhrichKristine R., and IrwinJulie R., (2005), “Willful Ignorance in the Request of Product Attribute Information,”Journal of Marketing Research, 42(August), 266–77.
12.
ErdemTülin, and SwaitJoffre, (2004), “Brand Credibility, Brand Consideration, and Choice,”Journal of Consumer Research, 31(June), 191–98.
13.
FisherGregory W., CarmonZiv, ArielyDan, and ZaubermanGal, (1999), “Goal-Based Construction of Preferences: Task Goals and the Prominence Effect,”Management Science, 45(August), 1057–1075.
14.
FisherGregory W., and HawkinsScott A., (1993), “Strategy Compatibility, Scale Compatibility, and the Prominence Effect,”Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 19(June), 580–97.
15.
GanzachYoav, (1995), “Attribute Scatter and Decision Outcome: Judgment Versus Choice,”Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 62(April), 113–22.
16.
HauserJohn, R., (1978), “Consumer Preference Axioms: Behavioral Postulates for Describing and Predicting Stochastic Choice,”Management Science, 24(September), 1331–41.
17.
HellerDaniel, LevinIrwin P., and GoranssonMartin, (2002), “Selection of Strategies for Narrowing Choice Options: Antecedents and Consequences,”Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 89(November), 1194–1213.
18.
HseeChristopher, K., (1996), “The Evaluability Hypothesis: An Explanation for Preference Reversals Between Joint and Separate Evaluations of Alternatives,”Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67(September), 247–57.
19.
HseeChristopher K., LoewensteinGeorge F., BlountSally, and BazermanMax H., (1999), “Preference Reversals Between Joint and Separate Evaluations of Options: A Review and Theoretical Analysis,”Psychological Bulletin, 125(September), 576–90.
20.
HutchinsonWesley J., RamamKaylan, and MantralaMurali K., (1994), “Finding Choice Alternatives in Memory: Probability Models of Brand Name Recall,”Journal of Marketing Research, 31(November), 441–61.
21.
IrwinJulie, R., (1994), “Buying/Selling Price Preference Reversals: Preference for Environmental Changes in Buying Versus Selling Modes,”Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 60(December), 431–57.
22.
IrwinJulie R., and BaronJonathan, (2001), “Response Mode Effects and Moral Values,”Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 84(March), 177–97.
23.
IrwinJulie R., and McClellandGary H., (2001), “Misleading Heuristics and Moderated Multiple Regression Models,”Journal of Marketing Research, 38(February), 100–109.
24.
IrwinJulie R., SlovicPaul, LichtensteinSarah, and McClellandGary H., (1993), “Preference Reversals and the Measurement of Environmental Values,”Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 6(January), 1–13.
25.
IrwinJulie R., and SpiraJoan Scattone, (1997), “Anomalies in the Values for Consumer Goods with Environmental Attributes,”Journal of Consumer Psychology, 6(4), 339–63.
26.
KardesFrank R., KalyanaramGurumurthy, ChandrashekaranMurali, and DornoffRonald J., (1993), “Brand Retrieval, Consideration Set Composition, Consumer Choice, and the Pioneering Advantage,”Journal of Consumer Research, 20(June), 62–75.
27.
KleinJill Gabrielle, SmithCraig N., and JohnAndrew, (2004), “Why We Boycott: Consumer Motivations for Boycott Participation,”Journal of Marketing, 68(July), 92–109.
28.
LevinIrwin P., and GaethGary J., (1988), “How Consumers Are Affected by the Framing of Attribute Information Before and After Consuming the Product,”Journal of Consumer Research, 15(December), 374–78.
29.
LevinIrwin P., HunekeMary, and JasperJ.D., (2000), “Information Processing at Successive Stages of Decision Making: Need for Cognition and Inclusion-Exclusion Effects,”Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82(July), 171–93.
30.
LevinIrwin P., JasperJ.D., and ForbesWendy S., (1998), “Choosing Versus Rejecting Options at Different Stages of Decision Making,”Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 11(September), 193–210.
31.
LevinIrwin P., ProsanskyCaryun M., HellerDaniel, and BrunickBrad M., (2001), “Prescreening of Choice Options in ‘Positive’ and ‘Negative’ Decision-Making Tasks,”Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 14(October), 279–93.
32.
LichtensteinSarah, GregoryRobin, and IrwinJulie, (2007), “What's Bad Is Easy: Taboo Values, Affect, and Cognition,”Judgment and Decision Making, 2(June), 169–88.
33.
LichtensteinSarah, and SlovicPaul, (1971), “Reversals of Preference Between Bids and Choices in Gambling Decisions,”Journal of Experimental Psychology, 89(July), 46–55.
34.
LuceMary Frances, (1998), “Choosing to Avoid: Coping with Negatively Emotion-Laden Consumer Decisions,”Journal of Consumer Research, 24(March), 409–433.
35.
LuceMary Frances, PayneJohn W., and BettmanJames R., (2000), “Coping with Unfavorable Attribute Values in Choice,”Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 81(March), 274–99.
36.
MeloyMargaret G., and Edward RussoJ., (2004), “Binary Choice Under Instructions to Select Versus Reject,”Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,”93 (March), 114–28.
37.
MitraAnusree, (1995), “Advertising and the Stability of Consideration Sets over Multiple Purchase Occasions,”International Journal of Research in Marketing, 12(May), 81–94.
38.
MitraAnusree, and LynchJohn, (1995), “Toward a Reconciliation of Market Power and Information Theories of Advertising Effects on Price Elasticity,”Journal of Consumer Research, 21(March), 644–59.
39.
NedungadiPrakash, (1990), “Recall and Consumer Consideration Sets: Influencing Choice Without Altering Brand Evaluations,”Journal of Consumer Research, 17(December), 263–76.
40.
OrdóñezLisa D., BensonLehmanIII, and BeachLee Roy, (1999), “Testing the Compatibility Test: How Instructions, Accountability, and Anticipated Regret Affect Prechoice Screening of Options,”Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 78(April), 63–80.
41.
PayneJohn W., BettmanJames, and JohnsonEric J., (1993), The Adaptive Decision Maker.Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
42.
PETA (2007), “CaringConsumer.com: A Guide to Kind Living,” (accessed May 3, 2007), [available at http://www.caringconsumer.com].
43.
SenSankar, Gürhan-CanliZeynep, and MorwitzVicki, (2001), “Withholding Consumption: A Social Dilemma Perspective on Consumer Boycotts,”Journal of Consumer Research, 28(December), 399–417.
44.
ShafirEldar, (1993), “Choosing Versus Rejecting: Why Some Options Are Both Better and Worse Than Others,”Memory and Cognition, 21(July), 546–56.
45.
SunsteinCass R., KahnemanDaniel, SchkadeDavid A., and RitovIlana, (2002), “Predictably Incoherent Judgments,”Stanford Law Review, 54(6), 1153–1215.
46.
TenbrunselAnn E., Wade-BenzoniKimberly A., MessickDavid M., and BazermanMax H., (2000), “Understanding the Influence of Environmental Standards on Judgments and Choices,”Academy of Management Journal, 43(October), 854–66.
47.
TetlockPhilip E., KristelOrie V., and ElsonBeth S., (2000), “The Psychology of the Unthinkable: Taboo Trade-Offs, Forbidden Base Rates, and Heretical Counterfactuals,”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(May), 853–70.
48.
TverskyAmos, SattathShmuel, and SlovicPaul, (1988), “Contingent Weighting in Judgment and Choice,”Psychological Review, 95(July), 371–84.
49.
Van ZeeEmily H., PaluchowskiThaddeus F., and BeachLee Roy, (1992), “The Effects of Screening and Task Partitioning upon Evaluations of Decision Options,”Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 5(January–March), 1–23.
50.
WedellDouglas, (1997), “Another Look at Reasons for Choosing and Rejecting,”Memory and Cognition, 25(November), 873–87.
51.
YanivIlan, and SchulYaacov, (2000), “Acceptance and Elimination Procedures in Choice: Noncomplementarity and the Role of Implied Status Quo,”Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82(July), 293–313.
52.
YanivIlan Yaacov Schul, Raphaelli-HirschRonna, and MaozIfat, (2002), “Inclusive and Exclusive Modes of Thinking: Studies of Prediction, Preference, and Social Perception During Parliamentary Elections,”Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38(July), 352–67.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
