Consideration of ethical attributes along the consumer decision-making journey

  • Christina SchampEmail author
  • Mark Heitmann
  • Robin Katzenstein
Original Empirical Research


Information about ethical strengths and weaknesses of individual products (e.g., cause-related marketing, corporate social responsibility records) is increasingly available in the marketplace. However, market shares of ethical brands are still low, even though prior research indicates that ethical attributes influence brand choice. This research broadens the perspective of prior research by investigating the role of ethical attributes during earlier stages of the decision funnel, namely, consideration set formation. Four empirical studies demonstrate that brands’ ethical strengths exert less impact on the consideration than on the choice stage. Specifically, brands that are not otherwise part of consideration sets benefit less from ethical strengths in larger assortments where consideration set formation plays a more important role. By investigating the screening rules that consumers apply, this study determines that while ethical strengths are subordinate, ethical weaknesses evoke asymmetric effects, such that misconduct exerts a stronger effect during screening processes than benefits do. To increase effects of ethical strengths on screening, firms can enhance the emotional intensity of ethical attributes and make them more salient and subjectively important.


Corporate social responsibility Cause-related marketing Ethical values Consideration set formation Decision funnel Non-compensatory decision heuristics 


Supplementary material

11747_2019_629_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (1.3 mb)
ESM 1 (PDF 1.33 MB)


  1. Andreoni, J. (1990). Impure altruism and donations to public goods: a theory of warm-glow giving. The Economic Journal, 100(401), 464–477.Google Scholar
  2. Andrews, M., Luo, X., Fang, Z., & Aspara, J. (2014). Cause marketing effectiveness and the moderating role of price discounts. Journal of Marketing, 78(6), 120–142.Google Scholar
  3. Arora, N., & Henderson, T. (2007). Embedded premium promotion: why it works and how to make it more effective. Marketing Science, 26(4), 514–531.Google Scholar
  4. Auger, P., Devinney, T. M., Louviere, J. J., & Burke, P. F. (2008). Do social product features have value to consumers? International Journal of Research in Marketing, 25(3), 183–191.Google Scholar
  5. Auger, P., Devinney, T. M., Louviere, J. J., & Burke, P. F. (2010). The importance of social product attributes in consumer purchasing decisions: A multi-country comparative study. International Business Review, 19(2), 140–159.Google Scholar
  6. Balachander, S., & Ghose, S. (2003). Reciprocal spillover effects: a strategic benefit of brand extensions. Journal of Marketing, 67(1), 4–13.Google Scholar
  7. Baron, J., & Spranca, M. (1997). Protected values. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 70(1), 1–16.Google Scholar
  8. Barone, M. J., Miyazaki, A. D., & Taylor, K. A. (2000). The influence of cause-related marketing on consumer choice: does one good turn deserve another? Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28(2), 248–262.Google Scholar
  9. Basil, D. Z., & Herr, P. M. (2006). Attitudinal balance and cause-related marketing: an empirical application of balance theory. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 16(4), 391–403.Google Scholar
  10. Batson, C. D., Thompson, E. R., Seuferling, G., Whitney, H., & Strongman, J. A. (1999). Moral hypocrisy: appearing moral to oneself without being so. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(3), 525–537.Google Scholar
  11. Batson, C. D., Thompson, E. R., & Chen, H. (2002). Moral hypocrisy: addressing some alternatives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(2), 330–339.Google Scholar
  12. Bettman, J. R., & Park, C. W. (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(3), 234–248.Google Scholar
  13. Bettman, J. R., Luce, M. F., & Payne, J. W. (1998). Constructive consumer choice processes. Journal of Consumer Research, 25(3), 187–217.Google Scholar
  14. Bremer, L., Heitmann, M., & Schreiner, T. F. (2017). When and how to infer heuristic consideration set rules of consumers. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 34(2), 516–535.Google Scholar
  15. Campbell, M. C., & Keller, K. L. (2003). Brand familiarity and advertising repetition effects. Journal of Consumer Research, 30(2), 292–304.Google Scholar
  16. Carpenter, G. S., Glazer, R., & Nakamoto, K. (1994). Meaningful brands from meaningless differentiation: the dependence on irrelevant attributes. Journal of Marketing Research, 31(3), 339–350.Google Scholar
  17. Chakravarti, A., & Janiszewski, C. (2003). The influence of macro-level motives on consideration set composition in novel purchase situations. Journal of Consumer Research, 30(2), 244–258.Google Scholar
  18. Chernev, A., & Blair, S. (2015). Doing well by doing good: the benevolent halo of corporate social responsibility. Journal of Consumer Research, 41(6), 1412–1425.Google Scholar
  19. Creyer, E. H., & Ross, W. T. (1996). The impact of corporate behavior on perceived product value. Marketing Letters, 7(2), 173–185.Google Scholar
  20. De Martino, B., Kumaran, D., Seymour, B., & Dolan, R. J. (2006). Frames, biases, and rational decision-making in the human brain. Science, 313(5787), 684–687.Google Scholar
  21. Ding, M., Hauser, J. R., Dong, S., Dzyabura, D., Yang, Z., Su, C., & Gaskin, S. P. (2011). Unstructured direct elicitation of decision rules. Journal of Marketing Research, 48(1), 116–127.Google Scholar
  22. Edelman, R. (2012). Business must earn license to lead. Retrieved January 04, 2018 from
  23. Ehrich, K. R., & Irwin, J. R. (2005). Willful ignorance in the request for product attribute information. Journal of Marketing Research, 42(3), 266–277.Google Scholar
  24. Erdem, T., & Swait, J. (2004). Brand credibility, brand consideration, and choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(1), 191–198.Google Scholar
  25. Finucane, M. L., Alhakami, A., Slovic, P., & Johnson, S. M. (2000). The affect heuristic in judgments of risks and benefits. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 13(1), 1–17.Google Scholar
  26. Gershoff, A. D., & Frels, J. K. (2015). What makes it green? The role of centrality of green attributes in evaluations of the greenness of products. Journal of Marketing, 79(1), 97–110.Google Scholar
  27. Gigerenzer, G., & Goldstein, D. G. (1996). Reasoning the fast and frugal way: models of bounded rationality. Psychological Review, 103(4), 650–669.Google Scholar
  28. Gilbride, T. J., & Allenby, G. M. (2004). A choice model with conjunctive, disjunctive, and compensatory screening rules. Marketing Science, 23(3), 391–406.Google Scholar
  29. Gourville, J. T., & Soman, D. (2005). Overchoice and assortment type: when and why variety backfires. Marketing Science, 24(3), 382–395.Google Scholar
  30. Green, T., & Peloza, J. (2011). How does corporate social responsibility create value for consumers? Journal of Consumer Marketing, 28(1), 48–56.Google Scholar
  31. Green, T., & Peloza, J. (2014). Finding the right shade of green: the effect of advertising appeal type on environmentally friendly consumption. Journal of Advertising, 43(2), 128–141.Google Scholar
  32. Hatfield, E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Rapson, R. L. (1992). Primitive emotional contagion. Review of Personality and Social Psychology, 14, 151–177 Emotions and social behavior. Newbury Park, Ca.: Sage.Google Scholar
  33. Häubl, G., & Trifts, V. (2000). Consumer decision-making in online shopping environments: The effects of interactive decision aids. Marketing Science, 19(1), 4–21.Google Scholar
  34. Hauser, J. R. (2014). Consideration-set heuristics. Journal of Business Research, 67(8), 1688–1699.Google Scholar
  35. Hauser, J. R., & Wernerfelt, B. (1990). An evaluation cost model of consideration sets. Journal of Consumer Research, 16(4), 393–408.Google Scholar
  36. Hauser, J. R., Toubia, O., Evgeniou, T., Befurt, R., & Dzyabura, D. (2010). Disjunctions of conjunctions, cognitive simplicity, and consideration sets. Journal of Marketing Research, 47(3), 485–496.Google Scholar
  37. Henderson, T., & Arora, N. (2010). Promoting brands across categories with a social cause. Implementing effective embedded premium programs. Journal of Marketing, 74(11), 41–60.Google Scholar
  38. Hogarth, R. M. (1987). Judgement and choice. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  39. Hogarth, R. M., & Karelaia, N. (2005). Simple models for multiattribute choice with many alternatives: When it does and does not pay to face trade-offs with binary attributes. Management Science, 51(12), 1860–1872.Google Scholar
  40. De Houwer, J. D., & Hermans, D. (1994). Differences in the affective processing of words and pictures. Cognition & Emotion, 8(1), 1–20.Google Scholar
  41. Hoyer, W. D. (1984). An examination of consumer decision-making for a common repeat purchase product. Journal of Consumer Research, 11(3), 822–829.Google Scholar
  42. Irwin, J. R. (1994). Buying/selling price preference reversals: preference for environmental changes in buying versus selling modes. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 60(3), 431–457.Google Scholar
  43. Irwin, J. R., & Baron, J. (2001). Response mode effects and moral values. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 84(2), 177–197.Google Scholar
  44. Irwin, J. R., & Naylor, R. W. (2009). Ethical decisions and response mode compatibility: weighting of ethical attributes in consideration sets formed by excluding versus including product alternatives. Journal of Marketing Research, 46(2), 234–246.Google Scholar
  45. Irwin, J. R., & Spira, S. J. (1997). Anomalies in the values for consumer goods with environmental attributes. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 6(4), 339–363.Google Scholar
  46. Kahneman, D., & Knetsch, J. L. (1992). Valuing public goods: the purchase of moral satisfaction. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 22(1), 57–70.Google Scholar
  47. Kahneman, D., & Ritov, I. (1994). Determinants of stated willingness to pay for public goods: a study in the headline method. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 9(1), 5–37.Google Scholar
  48. Kahneman, D., & Snell, J. (1992). Predicting a changing taste: Do people know what they will like? Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 5(3), 187–200.Google Scholar
  49. Kirmani, A., Hamilton, R. W., Thompson, D. V., & Lantzy, S. (2017). Doing well versus doing good: the differential effect of underdog positioning on moral and competent service providers. Journal of Marketing, 81(1), 103–117.Google Scholar
  50. Kivetz, R., & Simonson, I. (2000). The effects of incomplete information on consumer choice. Journal of Marketing Research, 37(4), 427–448.Google Scholar
  51. Kogut, T., & Ritov, I. (2005a). The singularity effect of identified victims in separate and joint evaluations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 97(2), 106–116.Google Scholar
  52. Kogut, T., & Ritov, I. (2005b). The “identified victim” effect: an identified group, or just a single individual? Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 18(3), 157–167.Google Scholar
  53. Lee, S., Winterich, K. P., & Ross, W. T., Jr. (2014). I'm moral, but I won't help you: the distinct roles of empathy and justice in donations. Journal of Consumer Research, 41(3), 678–696.Google Scholar
  54. Luchs, M. G., Naylor, R. W., Irwin, J. R., & Raghunathan, R. (2010). The sustainability liability: potential negative effects of ethicality on product preference. Journal of Marketing, 74(5), 18–31.Google Scholar
  55. Markman, A. B., & Medin, D. L. (1995). Similarity and alignment in choice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 63(2), 117–130.Google Scholar
  56. McKinsey (2017). The new battleground for marketing-led growth. Retrieved January 22, 2018 from
  57. Menon, S., & Kahn, B. E. (2003). Corporate sponsorships of philanthropic activities: when do they impact perception of sponsor brand? Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13(3), 316–327.Google Scholar
  58. Mizerski, R. W. (1982). An attribution explanation of the disproportionate influence of unfavorable information. Journal of Consumer Research, 9(3), 301–310.Google Scholar
  59. Nyilasy, G., Gangadharbatla, H., & Paladino, A. (2014). Perceived greenwashing: the interactive effects of green advertising and corporate environmental performance on consumer reactions. Journal of Business Ethics, 125(4), 693–707.Google Scholar
  60. Paharia, N., Vohs, K. D., & Deshpandé, R. (2013). Sweatshop labor is wrong unless the shoes are cute: cognition can both help and hurt moral motivated reasoning. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 121(1), 81–88.Google Scholar
  61. Payne, J. W., Bettman, J. R., & Johnson, E. J. (1988). Adaptive strategy selection in decision-making. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 14(3), 534–552.Google Scholar
  62. Payne, J. W., Bettman, J. R., & Johnson, E. J. (1993). The adaptive decision maker. Cambridge: University Press.Google Scholar
  63. Peloza, J., White, K., & Shang, J. (2013). Good and guilt-free: the role of self-accountability in influencing preferences for products with ethical attributes. Journal of Marketing, 77(1), 104–119.Google Scholar
  64. Pracejus, J. W., & Olsen, G. D. (2004). The role of brand/cause fit in the effectiveness of cause-related marketing campaigns. Journal of Business Research, 57(6), 635–640.Google Scholar
  65. Roberts, J. H., & Lattin, J. M. (1997). Consideration: review of research and prospects for future insights. Journal of Marketing Research, 34(3), 406–410.Google Scholar
  66. Robinson, S. R., Irmak, C., & Jayachandran, S. (2012). Choice of cause in cause-related marketing. Journal of Marketing, 76(4), 126–139.Google Scholar
  67. Rozin, P., & Royzman, E. B. (2001). Negativity bias, negativity dominance, and contagion. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5(4), 296–320.Google Scholar
  68. Russell, D. W., & Russell, C. A. (2010). Here or there? Consumer reactions to corporate social responsibility initiatives: egocentric tendencies and their moderators. Marketing Letters, 21(1), 65–81.Google Scholar
  69. Shiv, B., & Fedorikhin, A. (1999). Heart and mind in conflict: the interplay of affect and cognition in consumer decision-making. Journal of Consumer Research, 26(3), 278–292.Google Scholar
  70. Shugan, S. M. (1980). The cost of thinking. Journal of Consumer Research, 7(2), 99–111.Google Scholar
  71. Slovic, P., & MacPhillamy, D. (1974). Dimensional commensurability and cue utilization in comparative judgment. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 11(2), 172–194.Google Scholar
  72. Strahilevitz, M. (1999). The effects of product type and donation magnitude on willingness to pay more for a charity-linked brand. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 8(3), 215–241.Google Scholar
  73. Strahilevitz, M., & Myers, J. G. (1998). Donations to charity as purchase incentives: how well they work may depend on what you are trying to sell. Journal of Consumer Research, 24(4), 434–446.Google Scholar
  74. Street, D. J., Burgess, L., & Louviere, J. J. (2005). Quick and easy choice sets: constructing optimal and nearly optimal stated choice experiments. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 22(4), 459–470.Google Scholar
  75. Tversky, A. (1972). Elimination by aspects: a theory of choice. Psychological Review, 79(4), 281–299.Google Scholar
  76. Völckner, F., & Sattler, H. (2006). Drivers of brand extension success. Journal of Marketing, 70(2), 18–34.Google Scholar
  77. White, K., MacDonnell, R., & Ellard, J. H. (2012). Belief in a just world: consumer intentions and behaviors toward ethical products. Journal of Marketing, 76(1), 103–118.Google Scholar
  78. WHO (2017). France becomes one of the first countries in region to recommend colour-coded front-of-pack nutrition labelling system. Retrieved January 17, 2018 from
  79. Winterich, K. P., & Barone, M. J. (2011). Warm glow or cold, hard cash? Social identity effects on consumer choice for donation versus discount promotions. Journal of Marketing Research, 48(5), 855–868.Google Scholar
  80. Zane, D. M., Irwin, J. R., & Reczek, R. W. (2016). Do less ethical consumers denigrate more ethical consumers? The effect of willful ignorance on judgments of others. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 26(3), 337–349.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Academy of Marketing Science 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christina Schamp
    • 1
    Email author
  • Mark Heitmann
    • 1
  • Robin Katzenstein
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute for Marketing & Customer InsightUniversity of HamburgHamburgGermany

Personalised recommendations