Literature on consumers’ ethical decision making is rooted in a rationalist perspective that emphasizes the role of moral reasoning. However, the view of ethical consumption as a thorough rational and conscious process fails to capture important elements of human cognition, such as emotions and intuitions. Based on moral psychology and microsociology, this paper proposes a holistic and integrated framework showing how emotive and intuitive information processing may foster ethical consumption at individual and social levels. The model builds on social intuitionism to show how consumers’ a priori affect-laden intuitive moral judgments impact their post hoc reflective moral reasoning. Symbolic interactionism is used to interpret consumers as interdependent and socially embedded agents that self-construct their social identity through interactions with other consumers. The proposed social intuitionist framework of consumers’ ethical decision making shows that other-oriented moral emotions—such as elevation, gratitude, and empathy—interact with persuasion and social influence in ethical consumption. Consequently, moral emotions and intuition drive interpersonal persuasion among ethical consumers. Theoretical propositions and implications for consumer ethics theory and practice are discussed.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Buy single article
Instant unlimited access to the full article PDF.
Price includes VAT for USA
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
This is the net price. Taxes to be calculated in checkout.
Business ethics and management scholars provide unclear and scattered definitions of emotion and intuition. Gaudine and Thorne (2001, p. 176) state that the boundaries among emotions, moods, and affective personality traits are “unsharp,” but emotions are more intense, shorter-lasting, and related to the environment. However, the Oxford English Dictionary provides one of the most acknowledged definitions of emotion as a “strong feeling deriving from one’s circumstances, mood, or relationships with others” and an “instinctive or intuitive feeling as distinguished from reasoning or knowledge” (https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/emotion). Hence, the “social” relationship and the non-rational intuitive components clearly emerge. Dane and Pratt (2007, p. 34) argue that intuition has many associated terms, including “gut feelings…hunches…and mystical insights.” For our purposes, the most significant definition is “thoughts and preferences that come to mind quickly and without much reflection” (Kahneman 2003, p. 697) and “a cognitive conclusion based on . . . previous experiences and emotional inputs” (Burke and Miller 1999, p. 92). Thus intuition is quick, effortless, non-rational, and directly related to emotions (Haidt 2001, 2003).
Robert B. Cialdini, one of the most influential psychologists on the topic, has widely studied persuasive mechanisms in social interactions (Cialdini 2001). Among the main principles explaining persuasion and the resulting social influence, reciprocity (Zollo et al. 2017b), liking (Cialdini 2001), and social consensus (Jones 1991) are most relevant to our work.
Ethical consumers are interpreted as a specific group (Shaw and Clark 1999), a social movement with group consciousness (Cherrier 2007) valuing environmental, wildlife, and ethical issues and disdaining oppressive, warring regimes (Shaw et al. 2006). Accordingly, scholars used self-construal theory to define ethical consumers as strongly interdependent and defined through their relationship with a social group (He et al. 2019; Kim and Johnson 2013). Social identity theorists conceptualized a social group as “a number of individuals who have internalized the same social category membership as a component of their self concept” (Turner 1982, p. 36). Indeed, individuals with highly interdependent self-construal deeply value interconnectedness and are more motivated to fulfill obligations to their most primary interpersonal group relationships.
Moral intuition differs from heuristics, which are subconscious shortcuts that rely on past experiences for solving similar problems (Haidt 2001, 2005). Affect heuristics indicate automatic gut feelings that can be misleading for solving moral dilemmas because they often result from cultural prejudice rather than moral principle (Zajonc 1980). For example, when thinking about “abortion, euthanasia, cloning, or any other difficult issue” (Haidt 2005, p. 553), reliance on past experience or previous moral deliberations might deviate intuitive moral judgment. “The moral domain is a weird and treacherous world in which objects change their weights and rivers flow uphill. Or at very least, minds that worked in one way on non-moral problems suddenly start working differently when moral concerns are introduced” (Haidt 2005, p. 552). Hence, heuristics based on previous experiences might impact on moral intuition and affect-laden intuitive moral judgment, but moral intuition is primary for ethical decision making (Haidt 2001).
Building on social impact theory, Argo et al. (2005, p. 207) empirically demonstrated that both interactive and non-interactive social presence (i.e., “a mere presence”) can influence consumption behavior. Beyond physical presences or live interactions, individuals still have opportunities to mimic others’ behavior, such when they observe another customer shopping nearby (Tanner et al. 2008, p. 755), with impacts on their moral decisions. As a result, ethical consumers might seek belongingness and collective participation (Cherrier 2007) without being engaged with other consumers.
I am not who you think I am; I am not who I think I am; I am who I think you think I am” (Cooley 1902).
Attitude alignment theory indicates that “the perceived associations among a perceiver (p), another person (o), and an attitude object (x) tend to be consistent (or balanced), such that (a) if p likes o, p feels comfortable when p and o hold similar attitudes about x and (b) if p dislikes o, p feels comfortable when p and o hold different attitudes about x” (Davis and Rusbult, 2001, p. 66).
Although A’s moral reasoning is “produced and sent forth verbally” to express moral justifications (Haidt 2001, p.819), A might persuade B as a non-interactive social presence in the consumption setting (Argo et al., 2005, p.211). Hence, B might read, watch, or learn about A’s moral discussion and arguments with no direct interaction and still be affectively persuaded.
Link 8b is consistent with the notion of emotional intelligence, “the subset of social intelligence that involves the ability to monitor one’s own and others’ feelings and emotions, to discriminate among them and to use this information to guide one’s thinking and actions” (Salovey and Mayer 1989, p. 189) Hence, as shown in link 8b, A’s emotional processing will be “rationalized” by B’s moral awareness, leading to moral intent and ethical action (Chowdhury 2017a).
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,50(2), 179–211.
Albert, L. S., Reynolds, S. J., & Turan, B. (2015). Turning inward or focusing out? Navigating theories of interpersonal and ethical cognitions to understand ethical decision-making. Journal of Business Ethics,130(2), 467–484.
Argo, J. J., Dahl, D. W., & Manchanda, R. V. (2005). The influence of a mere social presence in a retail context. Journal of Consumer Research,32(2), 207–212.
Belk, R. W. (1988). Possessions and the extended self. Journal of Consumer Research,15(2), 139–168.
Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method. Prentice-Hall, NJ: Englewood Cliffs.
Burke, L. A., & Miller, M. K. (1999). Taking the mystery out of intuitive decision making. Academy of Management Executive,13(4), 91–99.
Carlson, D. S., Kacmar, K. M., & Wadsworth, L. L. (2009). The impact of moral intensity dimensions on ethical decision-making: Assessing the relevance of orientation. Journal of Managerial Issues,21(4), 534–551.
Carrington, M. J., Zwick, D., & Neville, B. (2016). The ideology of the ethical consumption gap. Marketing Theory,16(1), 21–38.
Caruana, R., Carrington, M. J., & Chatzidakis, A. (2016). “Beyond the attitude-behaviour gap: Novel perspectives in consumer ethics”: Introduction to the thematic symposium. Journal of Business Ethics,136(2), 215–218.
Chartrand, T. L., & Bargh, J. A. (1999). The chameleon effect: The perception–behavior link and social interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,76(6), 893.
Chatzidakis, A., Shaw, D., & Allen, M. (2018). A psycho-social approach to consumer ethics. Journal of Consumer Culture. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469540518773815.
Cherrier, H. (2007). Ethical consumption practices: Co-production of self-expression and social recognition. Journal of Consumer Behaviour: An International Research Review,6(5), 321–335.
Cherrier, H., & Murray, J. B. (2007). Reflexive dispossession and the self: Constructing a processual theory of identity. Consumption Markets & Culture,10(1), 1–29.
Cherry, J., & Caldwell, J. (2013). Searching for the origins of consumer ethics: Bridging the gap between intuitive values and consumer ethical judgments. Marketing Management Journal,23(2), 117–133.
Childers, T. L., & Rao, A. R. (1992). The influence of familial and peer-based reference groups on consumer decisions. Journal of Consumer Research,19(2), 198–211.
Chowdhury, R. M. (2017a). Emotional intelligence and consumer ethics: The mediating role of personal moral philosophies. Journal of Business Ethics,142(3), 527–548.
Chowdhury, R. M. (2017b). The moral foundations of consumer ethics. Journal of Business Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3676-2.
Chowdhury, R. M., & Fernando, M. (2014). The relationships of empathy, moral identity and cynicism with consumers’ ethical beliefs: The mediating role of moral disengagement. Journal of Business Ethics,124(4), 677–694.
Cialdini, R. B. (2001). The science of persuasion. Scientific American,284(2), 76–81.
Connolly, J., & Prothero, A. (2008). Green consumption: Life-politics, risk and contradictions. Journal of Consumer Culture,8(1), 117–145.
Cooley, C. H. (1902). Human nature and the social order. New York: Charles Scribner's.
Dahl, D. (2013). Social influence and consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer Research,40(2), 3–5.
Dane, E., & Pratt, M. G. (2007). Exploring intuition and its role in managerial decision making. Academy of Management Review,32(1), 33–54.
Davis, J. L., & Rusbult, C. E. (2001). Attitude alignment in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,81(1), 65–84.
Dedeke, A. (2015). A cognitive–intuitionist model of moral judgment. Journal of Business Ethics,126(3), 437–457.
Eisenberg, N., Shea, C. L., Carlo, G., & Knight, G. P. (2014). Empathy-related responding and cognition: A “chicken and the egg” dilemma. Handbook of Moral Behavior and Development,2, 63–88.
Evans, J. S. B. (2008). Dual-processing accounts of reasoning, judgment, and social cognition. Annual Review of Psychology,59, 255–278.
Ferrell, O., & Gresham, L. G. (1985). A contingency framework for understanding ethical decision making in marketing. Journal of Marketing,49, 87–96.
Forbes. (2017). Millennials driving brands to practice socially responsible marketing. Retrieved November 11, 2017, from https://www.forbes.com/sites/sarahlandrum/2017/03/17/millennials-driving-brands-to-practice-socially-responsible-marketing/#4e6e8a5a4990.
Gaudine, A., & Thorne, L. (2001). Emotion and ethical decision-making in organizations. Journal of Business Ethics,31(2), 175–187.
Goenka, S., & van Osselaer, S. M. (2019). Charities can increase the effectiveness of donation appeals by using a morally congruent positive emotion. Journal of Consumer Research. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucz012.
Greene, J. D., Sommerville, R. B., Nystrom, L. E., Darley, J. M., & Cohen, J. D. (2001). An fMRI investigation of emotional engagement in moral judgment. Science,293(5537), 2105–2108.
Haidt, J. (2000). The positive emotion of elevation. Prev. Treat. 3. Article 3. Retrieved February 7, 2018, from https://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume3/pre0030003c.html.
Haidt, J. (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review,108(4), 814–834.
Haidt, J. (2003). The moral emotions. In R. J. Davidson, K. R. Scherer, & H. H. Goldsmith (Eds.), Handbook of affective sciences (pp. 852–870). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Haidt, J. (2005). Invisible fences of the moral domain. Behavioral and Brain Sciences,28(4), 552–552.
Harrison, R., Newholm, T., & Shaw, D. (2005). The ethical consumer. London: Sage.
He, Y., Zhang, J., Zhou, Y., & Yang, Z. (2019). “Monkey see, monkey do?”: The effect of construal level on consumers’ reactions to others’ unethical behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 156(2), 455–472.
Hunt, S. D., & Vitell, S. (1986). A general theory of marketing ethics. Journal of Macromarketing,6(1), 5–16.
Iacoboni, M. (2009). Imitation, empathy, and mirror neurons. Annual Review of Psychology,60, 653–670.
Islam, G. (2019). Psychology and business ethics: A multi-level research agenda. Journal of Business Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04107-w.
Jones, T. M. (1991). Ethical decision making by individuals in organizations: An issue-contingent model. Academy of Management Review,16(2), 366–395.
Kahneman, D. (2003). A perspective on judgment and choice: Mapping bounded rationality. American Psychologist,58(9), 697–720.
Kim, J. E., & Johnson, K. K. (2013). The impact of moral emotions on cause-related marketing campaigns: A cross-cultural examination. Journal of Business Ethics,112(1), 79–90.
Kulesza, W., Szypowska, Z., Jarman, M. S., & Dolinski, D. (2014). Attractive chameleons sell: The mimicry-attractiveness link. Psychology & Marketing,31(7), 549–561.
Langer, E. J. (1978). Rethinking the role of thought in social interaction. New Directions in Attribution Research,2(1), 35–58.
Lee, L., Amir, O., & Ariely, D. (2009). In search of homo economicus: Cognitive noise and the role of emotion in preference consistency. Journal of Consumer Research,36(2), 173–187.
McFerran, B., Dahl, D. W., Fitzsimons, G. J., & Morales, A. C. (2009). I’ll have what she’s having: Effects of social influence and body type on the food choices of others. Journal of Consumer Research,36(6), 915–929.
Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self, and society. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Metcalfe, J., & Mischel, W. (1999). A hot/cool-system analysis of delay of gratification: Dynamics of willpower. Psychological Review, 106(1), 3–19.
Miller, F. M., & Laczniak, G. R. (2011). The ethics of celebrity–athlete endorsement: What happens when a star steps out of bounds? Journal of Advertising Research,51(3), 499–510.
Muncy, J. A., & Vitell, S. J. (1992). Consumer ethics: An investigation of the ethical beliefs of the final consumer. Journal of Business Research,24(4), 297–311.
Nielsen. (2015). The sustainability imperative: New insights on consumer expectations. Retrieved November 10, 2017, from https://www.nielsen.com/content/dam/nielsenglobal/dk/docs/global-sustainability-report-oct-2015.pdf.
Palazzo, G., Krings, F., & Hoffrage, U. (2012). Ethical blindness. Journal of Business Ethics,109(3), 323–338.
Rest, J. R. (1986). Moral development: Advances in research and theory. New York: Praeger Publishers.
Salazar, H. A., Oerlemans, L., & van Stroe-Biezen, S. (2013). Social influence on sustainable consumption: Evidence from a behavioural experiment. International Journal of Consumer Studies,37(2), 172–180.
Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. D. (1989). Emotional intelligence. Imagination, Cognition and Personality,9(3), 185–211.
Schwartz, M. S. (2016). Ethical decision-making theory: An integrated approach. Journal of Business Ethics,139(4), 755–776.
Sekerka, L. E., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2007). Moral courage in the workplace: Moving to and from the desire and decision to act. Business Ethics: A European Review,16(2), 132–149.
Shamay-Tsoory, S. G., Aharon-Peretz, J., & Perry, D. (2009). Two systems for empathy: A double dissociation between emotional and cognitive empathy in inferior frontal gyrus versus ventromedial prefrontal lesions. Brain,132(3), 617–627.
Shaw, D., & Clarke, I. (1999). Belief formation in ethical consumer groups: An exploratory study. Marketing Intelligence & Planning,17(2), 109–120.
Shaw, D., Newholm, T., & Dickinson, R. (2006). Consumption as voting: An exploration of consumer empowerment. European Journal of Marketing,40(9/10), 1049–1067.
Shaw, D., Carrington, M., & Chatzidakis, A. (2016a). Ethics and morality in consumption: Interdisciplinary perspectives (Vol. 8). New York: Routledge.
Shaw, D., McMaster, R., & Newholm, T. (2016b). Care and commitment in ethical consumption: An exploration of the ‘attitude–behaviour gap’. Journal of Business Ethics,136(2), 251–265.
Smith, A. (2006). Cognitive empathy and emotional empathy in human behavior and evolution. The Psychological Record,56(1), 3–21.
Solomon, M. R. (1983). The role of products as social stimuli: A symbolic interactionism perspective. Journal of Consumer Research,10(3), 319–329.
Sonenshein, S. (2007). The role of construction, intuition, and justification in responding to ethical issues at work: The sensemaking-intuition model. Academy of Management Review,32(4), 1022–1040.
Tangney, J. P., Stuewig, J., & Mashek, D. J. (2007a). Moral emotions and moral behavior. Annual Review of Psychology,58, 345–372.
Tangney, J. P., Stuewig, J., & Mashek, D. J. (2007b). What’s moral about the self-conscious emotions. In J. Tracey, R. W. Robins, & J. P. Tangney (Eds.), The self-conscious emotions: Theory and research (pp. 21–37). New York: Guilford Press.
Tanner, R. J., Ferraro, R., Chartrand, T. L., Bettman, J. R., & Baaren, R. V. (2008). Of chameleons and consumption: The impact of mimicry on choice and preferences. Journal of Consumer Research,34(6), 754–766.
Turner, J. C. (1982). Towards a cognitive redefinition of the social group. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Social identity and intergroup relations (pp. 15–40). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
van Baaren, R. B., Holland, R. W., Kawakami, K., & van Knippenberg, A. (2004). Mimicry and Prosocial Behavior. Psychological Science,15(1), 71–74.
Vitell, S. J. (2003). Consumer ethics research: Review, synthesis and suggestions for the future. Journal of Business Ethics,43(1–2), 33–47.
Vitell, S. J., Lumpkin, J. R., & Rawwas, M. Y. (1991). Consumer ethics: An investigation of the ethical beliefs of elderly consumers. Journal of Business Ethics,10(5), 365–375.
Vitell, S. J., King, R. A., & Singh, J. J. (2013). A special emphasis and look at the emotional side of ethical decision-making. AMS Review,3(2), 74–85.
Woiceshyn, J. (2011). A model for ethical decision making in business: Reasoning, intuition, and rational moral principles. Journal of Business Ethics, 104(3), 311–323.
Yacout, O. M., & Vitell, S. (2018). Ethical consumer decision-making: The role of need for cognition and affective responses. Business Ethics: A European Review,27(2), 178–194.
Zajonc, R. B. (1980). Feeling and thinking: Preferences need no inferences. American Psychologist,35(2), 151–175.
Zollo, L., Faldetta, G., Pellegrini, M. M., & Ciappei, C. (2017a). Reciprocity and gift-giving logic in NPOs. Journal of Managerial Psychology,32(7), 513–526.
Zollo, L., Pellegrini, M. M., & Ciappei, C. (2017b). What sparks ethical decision making? The interplay between moral intuition and moral reasoning: Lessons from the scholastic doctrine. Journal of Business Ethics,145(4), 681–700.
Zollo, L., Yoon, S., Rialti, R., & Ciappei, C. (2018). Ethical consumption and consumers’ decision making: The role of moral intuition. Management Decision,56(3), 692–710.
Conflict of interest
The author declares that he has no conflict of interest.
This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by the author.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
About this article
Cite this article
Zollo, L. The Consumers’ Emotional Dog Learns to Persuade Its Rational Tail: Toward a Social Intuitionist Framework of Ethical Consumption. J Bus Ethics (2020) doi:10.1007/s10551-019-04420-4
- Consumer ethical decision making
- Ethical consumption
- Social influence