Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-06T17:17:29.483Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Reducing Ingroup Bias in Ethical Consumption: The Role of Construal Levels and Social Goodwill

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 December 2019

Diego Costa Pinto
Affiliation:
NOVA Information Management School
Adilson Borges
Affiliation:
NEOMA Business School
Márcia Maurer Herter
Affiliation:
Universidade Europeia
Mário Boto Ferreira
Affiliation:
Universidade de Lisboa

Abstract:

Business ethics research has long been interested in understanding the conditions under which ethical consumption is consistent versus context-dependent. Extant research suggests that many consumers fail to make consistent ethical consumption decisions and tend to engage in ethical decisions associated with ingroup (vs. outgroup) identity cues. To fill this gap, four experiments examine how construal levels moderate the influence of ingroup versus outgroup identity cues in ethical consumption. The studies support the contention that when consumers use concrete construal to process information, they will focus on ingroup cues and make ethical consumption decisions that are aligned with ingroup biases. However, when consumers use abstract construal, they will act more consistently with their inner goals rather than focusing on ingroup and outgroup cues. Social goodwill, which indicates desires to give back to society, is identified as mediating the effects. The findings have important implications for ethical consumption and social influence literature.

Type
Article
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Business Ethics 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Aaker, J. L., & Akutsu, S. 2009. Why do people give? The role of identity in giving. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 19: 267270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Antonetti, P., & Maklan, S. J. 2016. Identity bias in negative word of mouth following irresponsible corporate behavior: A research model and moderating effects. Journal of Business Ethics, 149(4): 10051023.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Axt, J. R., Nguyen, H., & Nosek, B. A. 2018. The judgment bias task: A flexible method for assessing individual differences in social judgment biases. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 76: 337355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barbarossa, C., & De Pelsmacker, P. 2016. Positive and negative antecedents of purchasing eco-friendly products: A comparison between green and non-green consumers. Journal of Business Ethics, 134(2): 229247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berger, J., & Heath, C. 2007. Where consumers diverge from others: Identity-signaling and product domains. Journal of Consumer Research, 34: 121134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bray, J., Johns, N., & Kilburn, D. 2011. An exploratory study into the factors impeding ethical consumption. Journal of Business Ethics, 98(4): 597608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brennan, S. E., & Clark, H. H. 1996. Conceptual pacts and lexical choice in conversation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22(6): 1482.Google ScholarPubMed
Brewer, M. B. 1999. The psychology of prejudice: Ingroup love and outgroup hate? Journal of Social Issues, 55(3): 429444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burrus, J., & Roese, N. J. 2006. Long ago it was meant to be: The interplay between time, construal, and fate beliefs. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32(8): 10501058.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cadsby, C. B., Du, N., & Song, F. 2016. In-group favoritism and moral decision-making. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 128: 5971.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carrigan, M., & Attalla, A. 2001. The myth of the ethical consumer-do ethics matter in purchase behavior? Journal of Consumer Marketing, 18(7): 560578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carroll, A. B. 1979. A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance. Academy of Management Review, 4(4): 497505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carroll, A. B. 1991. The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders. Business Horizons, 34(4): 3948.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Casper, C., & Rothermund, K. 2012. Gender self-stereotyping is context dependent for men but not for women. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 34(5): 434442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chang, H., & Pham, M. 2013. Affect as a decision-making system of the present. Journal of Consumer Research, 40: 4263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chernev, A., & Blair, S. 2015. Doing well by doing good: The benevolent halo of corporate social responsibility. Journal of Consumer Research, 41(6): 14121425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Choi, W. J., & Winterich, K. P. 2013. Can brands move in from the outside? How moral identity enhances out-group brand attitudes. Journal of Marketing, 77(2): 96111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper-Martin, E. & Holbrook, M. B.. 1993. Ethical consumption experiences and ethical space. Advances in Consumer Research, 20(1): 113118.Google Scholar
Davis, J. L., Le, B., & Coy, A. E. 2011. Building a model of commitment to the natural environment to predict ecological behavior and willingness to sacrifice. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 31(3): 257265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Pelsmacker, P., Driesen, L. & Rayp, G.. 2005. Do consumers care about ethics? Willingness to pay for fair trade coffee. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 39(2): 363385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ding, Y., Wan, E. W., & Xu, J. 2017. The impact of identity breadth on consumer preference for advanced products. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 27(2): 231244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dodds, W., Monroe, K., & Grewal, D. 1991. Effects of price, brand, and store information on buyers’ product evaluations. Journal of Marketing Research, 28(3): 307319.Google Scholar
Doran, C. J. J. 2010. Fair trade consumption: In support of the outgroup. Journal of Business Ethics, 95(4): 527541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Escalas, J. E., & Bettman, J. R. 2005. Self-construal, reference groups, and brand meaning. Journal of Consumer Research, 32(3): 378389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fasoli, F., Cadinu, M., Carnaghi, A., Galdi, S., Guizzo, F., & Tassara, L. 2018. How do you self-categorize? Gender and sexual orientation self-categorization in homosexual/heterosexual men and women. Personality and Individual Differences, 123: 135139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferguson, M. J., & Bargh, J. A. 2007. Beyond the attitude object: Automatic attitudes spring from object-centered-contexts. Implicit measures of attitudes, 216246.Google Scholar
Flynn, L. R., & Goldsmith, R. E. 1999. A short, reliable measure of subjective knowledge. Journal of Business Research, 46(1): 566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forbes. 2018. The world’s most valuable brands. Available from: https://www.forbes.com/powerful-brands/list/.Google Scholar
Freitas, A. L., Gollwitzer, P., & Trope, Y. 2004. The influence of abstract and concrete mindsets on anticipating and guiding others’ self-regulatory efforts. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40(6): 739752.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fujita, K., Trope, Y., Liberman, N., & Levin-Sagi, M. 2006. Construal levels and self-control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(3): 351367.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gaither, S. E., Sommers, S. R., & Ambady, N. 2013. When the half affects the whole: Priming identity for biracial individuals in social interactions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49(3): 368371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garcia, M., Bazerman, S., Kopelman, M., Tor, S., & Miller, D. T. 2010. The price of equality: Suboptimal resource allocations across social categories. Business Ethics Quarterly, 20(1): 7588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gefen, D., & Straub, D. W. 2004. Consumer trust in B2C e-commerce and the importance of social presence: Experiments in e-products and e-services. Omega, 32(6): 407424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ghorbani, M., Liao, Y., Çayköylü, S., & Chand, M. 2013. Guilt, shame, and reparative behavior: The effect of psychological proximity. Journal of Business Ethics, 114(2): 311323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gineikiene, J., Schlegelmilch, B. B., & Auruskeviciene, V. 2017. “Ours” or “theirs”? Psychological ownership and domestic products preferences. Journal of Business Research, 72: 93103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldstein, N. J., Cialdini, R. B., & Griskevicius, V. 2008. A room with a viewpoint: Using social norms to motivate environmental conservation in hotels. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(3): 472482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Granitz, N. A., & Ward, J. C. 2001. Actual and perceived sharing of ethical reasoning and moral intent among ingroup and outgroup members. Journal of Business Ethics, 33(4): 299322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griskevicius, V., Tybur, J. M., & Bergh, B. V. 2010. Going green to be seen: Status, reputation, and conspicuous conservation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(3): 392404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hardin, C. D., & Higgins, E. T. 1996. Shared reality: How social verification makes the subjective objective. In Sorrentino, R. M. & Higgins, E. T. (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition, vol. 3: 2884. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Hayes, A. F. 2013. Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Henderson, M. D. 2013. When seeing the forest reduces the need for trees: The role of construal level in attraction to choice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49(4): 676683.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Irmak, C., Wakslak, C. J., & Trope, Y. 2013. Selling the forest, buying the trees: The effect of construal level on seller-buyer price discrepancy. Journal of Consumer Research, 40(2): 284297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kidwell, B., Farmer, A., & Hardesty, D. M. 2013. Getting liberals and conservatives to go green: Political ideology and congruent appeals. Journal of Consumer Research, 40(2): 350367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirmani, A. 2009. The self and the brand. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 19(3): 271275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kukar-Kinney, M., & Walters, R. G. 2003. Consumer perceptions of refund depth and competitive scope in price-matching guarantees: effects on store patronage. Journal of Retailing, 79(3): 153160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laran, J. 2009. Choosing your future: Temporal distance and the balance between self-control and indulgence. Journal of Consumer Research, 36(6): 10021015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ledgerwood, A., & Callahan, S. P. 2012. The social side of abstraction: Psychological distance enhances conformity to group norms. Psychological Science, 23: 907913.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ledgerwood, A., Trope, Y., & Chaiken, S. 2010. Flexibility now, consistency later: Psychological distance and construal shape evaluative responding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99(1): 3251.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Liberman, N., & Trope, Y. 1998. The role of feasibility and desirability considerations in near and distant future decisions: A test of temporal construal theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(1): 518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liberman, N., & Trope, Y. 2008. The psychology of transcending the here and now. Science, 322(5905): 12011205.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Liberman, N., Trope, Y., McCrea, S. M., & Sherman, S. J. 2007. The effect of level of construal on the temporal distance of activity enactment. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43(1): 143149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Line, N. D., Hanks, L., & Zhang, L. 2016. Sustainability communication: The effect of message construals on consumers’ attitudes towards green restaurants. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 57: 143151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lord, C. G., & Lepper, M. R. 1999. Attitude representation theory. In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, vol. 31: 265343. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Luchs, M. G., Naylor, R., Irwin, J., & Raghunathan, R. 2010. The sustainability liability: Potential negative effects of ethicality on product preference. Journal of Marketing, 74(5): 1831.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luguri, J. B., & Napier, J. L. 2013. Of two minds: The interactive effect of construal level and identity on political polarization. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49(6): 972977.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Masuda, N. 2012. Ingroup favoritism and intergroup cooperation under indirect reciprocity based on group reputation. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 311: 818.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McCrea, S., Wieber, F., & Myers, A. L. 2012. Construal level mind-sets moderate self-and social stereotyping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(1): 5168.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morhart, F., Malär, L., Guèvremont, A., Girardin, F., & Grohmann, B. 2015. Brand authenticity: An integrative framework and measurement scale. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 25(2): 200218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mullen, B., Brown, R., & Smith, C. 1992. Ingroup bias as a function of salience, relevance, and status: An integration. European Journal of Social Psychology, 22(2): 103122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicholls, A. & Lee, N.. 2006. Purchase decision-making in fair trade and the ethical purchase “gap”: Is there a fair trade “twix”? Journal of Strategic Marketing, 14(4): 369386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nilsson, A., Erlandsson, A., & Västfjäll, D. 2016. The congruency between moral foundations and intentions to donate, self-reported donations, and actual donations to charity. Journal of Research in Personality, 65: 2229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Cass, A., & McEwen, H. 2004. Exploring consumer status and conspicuous consumption. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 4(1): 2539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oyserman, D. 2009. Identity-based motivation: Implications for action-readiness, procedural-readiness, and consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 19(3): 250260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oyserman, D. 2013. Not just any path: Implications of identity-based motivation for disparities in school outcomes. Economics of Education Review, 33: 179190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paavola, J. 2001. Towards sustainable consumption: Economics and ethical concerns for the environment in consumer choices. Review of Social Economy, 59(2): 227248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinto, D. C., Nique, W. M., Herter, M. M., & Borges, A. 2016. Green consumers and their identities: How identities change the motivation for green consumption. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 40(6): 742753.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prothero, A., McDonagh, P., & Dobscha, S. 2010. Is green the new black? Reflections on a green commodity discourse. Journal of Macromarketing, 30(2): 147159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rim, S. Y., Uleman, J. S., & Trope, Y. 2009. Spontaneous trait inference and construal level theory: Psychological distance increases nonconscious trait thinking. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(5): 10881097.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rotella, K. N., Richeson, J. A., Chiao, J. Y., & Bean, M. G. 2013. Blinding trust: The effect of perceived group victimhood on intergroup trust. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39(1): 115127.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schaefer, A., & Crane, A. 2005. Addressing sustainability and consumption. Journal of Macromarketing, 25(1): 7692.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schons, L. M., Cadogan, J., & Tsakona, R. 2017. Should charity begin at home? An empirical investigation of consumers’ responses to companies’ varying geographic allocations of donation budgets. Journal of Business Ethics, 114(3): 559576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwarz, N. 2007. Attitude construction: Evaluation in context. Social Cognition, 25(5): 638656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shavitt, S., Torelli, C. J., & Wong, J. 2009. Identity-based motivation: constraints and opportunities in consumer research. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 19(3): 261266.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Singh, S. P., & Burns, T. 2006. Race and mental health: There is more to race than racism. British Medical Journal BMJ, 333(7569): 648651.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stephan, E., Liberman, N., & Trope, Y. 2010. Politeness and psychological distance: A construal level perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(2): 268280.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stephan, E., Liberman, N., & Trope, Y. 2011, The effects of time perspective and level of construal on social distance, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47(2): 397402.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stoddard, O., & Leibbrandt, A. 2014. An experimental study on the relevance and scope of nationality as a coordination device. Economic Inquiry, 52(4): 13921407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. 1979. An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In Austin, W. G. and Worchel, S. (Eds.), The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.Google Scholar
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. 1986. The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. Psychology of Intergroup Relations, 724.Google Scholar
Thompson, D. V., & Malaviya, P. 2013. Consumer-generated ads: Does awareness of advertising co-creation help or hurt persuasion? Journal of Marketing, 77(3): 3347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomson, M., MacInnis, D. J., & Park, C. W. 2005. The ties that bind: Measuring the strength of consumers’ emotional attachments to brands. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 15(1): 7791.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thorne, L., Massey, D. W., & Jones, J. 2004. An investigation of social influence: Explaining the effect of group discussion on consensus in auditors’ ethical reasoning. Business Ethics Quarterly, 14(3): 525551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Torelli, C. J., & Kaikati, A. M. 2009. Values as predictors of judgments and behaviors: The role of abstract and concrete mindsets. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96: 231247.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. 2010. Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychological Review, 117(2): 440463.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Trope, Y., Liberman, N., & Wakslak, C. 2007. Construal levels and psychological distance: Effects on representation, prediction, evaluation, and behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 17: 8395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tumasjan, A., Strobel, M., & Welpe, I. 2011. Ethical leadership evaluations after moral transgression: Social distance makes the difference. Journal of Business Ethics, 99(4): 609622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turner, J. C. 1991. Social influence. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole.Google Scholar
Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. 1987. Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. New York: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Turner, J. C., Brown, R. J., & Tajfel, H. 1979. Social comparison and group interest in ingroup favouritism. European Journal of Social Psychology, 9(2): 187204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vallacher, R. R., & Wegner, D. M. 1987. What do people think they’re doing? Action identification and human behavior. Psychological Review, 94(1): 315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vermue, M., Seger, C. R., & Sanfey, A. G. 2018. Group-based biases influence learning about individual trustworthiness. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 77: 3649.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, K., & Dahl, D. W. 2007. Are all out-groups created equal? Consumer identity and dissociative influence. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(4): 525536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, K., MacDonnell, R., & Dahl, D. W. 2011. It’s the mind-set that matters: The role of construal level and message framing in influencing consumer efficacy and conservation behaviors. Journal of Marketing Research, 48(3): 472485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winterich, K. P., Mittal, V., & Ross, W. T. Jr 2009. Donation behavior toward in-groups and out-groups: The role of gender and moral identity. Journal of Consumer Research, 36(2): 199214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood, M. O., Noseworthy, T. J., & Colwell, S. R. 2013. Might just cut down the forest: The perils of forced choice on “seemingly” unethical decision making. Journal of Business Ethics, 118(3): 515527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zabel, H. U. 2005. A model of human behaviour for sustainability. International Journal of Social Economics, 32(8): 717734.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhao, M., & Xie, J. 2011. Effects of social and temporal distance on consumers’ responses to peer recommendations. Journal of Marketing Research, 48(3): 486496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar