22

Japan Forum of Business and Society Annals, No.6, pp. 22-42, 2017

Understanding Consumer Behaviourfor Social Change――An Empirical Investigation of Neutralisation Techniques in the UK

Kyoko Fukukawa
Senior Lecturer, School of Management, University of Bradford

Kalmonwan Sungkanon
Account Manager, Procter & Gamble Trading (Thailand) Ltd.

Nina Reynolds
Professor, School of Management, Operations and Management, University of Wollongong
Key words：Ethical Consumption, Theory of Planned Behaviour, Techniques of Neutralisation, UK【Abstract】
The paper investigates the attitude-behaviour gap in ethical consumption. Drawing on findings of
251 respondents in the UK, results suggest despite positive attitude towards ethical consumption,
consumers are also susceptible to the techniques of neutralisation. Hierarchical and moderated
regression analyses reveal that inclusion of the neutralisation construct moderates the influences ofattitudes on behavioural intention, and advances the model’s predictive capacity. In spite ofsuggested positive attitude towards ethical consumption, real existing behaviour is frequently
filtered through the techniques of neutralisation. The sample is restricted in size and location,
however the study clearly establishes neutralisation techniques as a construct in the decision-making
process, and confirms validity of the addition of the neutralisation construct into the modified TPB
model noted by Chatzidakis, Hibbert and Smith (2007). It suggests improvement in predicting
behavioural intention and shows the moderating effects that techniques of neutralisation have on
constructs in the modified TPB model.

to develop a marketing approach that reflects

1.

Introduction

the sort of progressive change we wish tobring to society. There is, of course, precedentth

At the 6 JFBS conference under the theme

for such a view. The following text by Adamof Marketing and Social Change, one of the au-

Smith articulates the connectivity of individu-

thors of this paper argued we need to under-

als in society and the multi-faceted roles westand the consumer perspective through theplay as consumer, supplier, merchant and solens of ethical consumption, if, that is, we areforth:

Understanding Consumer Behaviour for Social Change

23

When the division of labour has beenmarketing, one common reference point isonce thoroughly established, it is but alaissez-faire economics (the suggestion that wevery small part of a man’s wants which‘let the market decide’). What it is implied here

the produce of his own labour can supply.

about the role of consumers from the businessHe supplies the far greater part of themperspective is that as long as customers are

by exchanging that surplus part of the

happy (that they are making the decisions that

produce of his own labour, which is overthey do, showing market loyalties etc.), compa-

and above his own consumption, for suchnies must be doing ‘right’ because the ‘cus-

parts of the produce of other men’s la-

tomer is always right’; indeed the ‘customer isbour as he has occasion for. Every man

king’. The much cited (and arguably mis-quoted)

thus lives by exchanging, or becomes, inreference to Adam Smith’s notion of the ‘in-some measure, a merchant, and the soci-visible hand’ gives rise to the idea that con-

ety itself grows to be what is properly asumers themselves ensure an effective ‘polic-commercial society. (Adam Smith, The

ing’ of the market, that their decision-making

Wealth of Nations, 1776 [2007: 17] emphasis

can eliminate unintended and unwanted con-added)

sequences of business practices. A frequentassumption being made, however, is that busi-

Adam Smith offers an account of the envi-

nesses are only attending to the market space,ronment we live in, describing the interde-rather than actually existing (and themselvespendence of people as well as the multiple

consuming) within it. Yet the notion of a busi-

roles we play. Rather than considering the ‘di-ness as a ‘corporate citizen’ needs to taken on

vision of labour’ simply in terms of separation,

in a more holistic, engaged sense – to under-

Smith suggests of a working together, thatstand consumption as a shared experience – if

we live by exchanging. We are born into the

we are to envisage the means to do better forsystem of exchange: everyone is effectively athe society.

consumer and more besides, we are all part of

Of course, in examining the actions of con-a system of exchange. Are market ethics thensumers (including how businesses engage in and

up to businesses or consumers? It is in fact

understand ethical conduct), the critical question

through multiple roles that we are all contrib-

is whether as consumers ‘we’ (being intercon-

uting to the ethical ‘landscape’. Bringing about

nected members of society) always do the rightthe sort of change we wish to see in society

thing. To explore this question in more depth,

more broadly is inevitably at the behest notthis paper draws upon a case from the UK

only of businesses but also consumers. Indeed,market. From 1999-2007 a surge in consumer

while someone maybe a manager of a compa-

interest in ethical consumption (e.g. supportingny, they will equally be a consumer at otherlocal shops and recycling) occurred across alltimes, in other situations.

age groups in the UK (Carrigan and de Pels-

When reviewing ethical perspectives inmacker, 2009) and there has been a steady in-24

招待論文 /Invited Articles

crease over subsequent years. In 2011, theEven in the domain of consumer activism, in-overall UK market for ethical products wasconsistencies between political and consumer

worth £46.8 billion (a near 8.8% increase frombehaviour of an individual, but also is seen to

the 2010 figure of £43 billion, Co-operative Bank,

exist across purchasing contexts (Sagoff, 2007).

2011) .

In 2014, ethical money and ethicalIn the contexts of ethical consumerism (Despending in the UK is said to have risen by a

Pelsmacker, Driessen and Rayp, 2005; Chatzidakis,

further £38 billions (8%) from the previous

Hibbert and Smith, 2007), consumers may claim

year, reaching £80 billion. However, thisto want to behave ethically, but can in reality

growing trend towards ethical consumption

make other choices at the point of sale (Carri-accounts for only 5.7% of overall UK house-gan and Attalla, 2001; Belk, Devinney and Eck-

hold expenditure (£1380 billion / £1.38 trillion)

hardt, 2005). This has profound implications forin 2014 (Euromonitor International, 2016). While

marketers of ethical products, not least as

growth in ethical consumption has increased

marketing campaigns centring purely on ethi-

both in proportional and absolute terms, it

cal interests can be costly failures (Carrington,

nonetheless remains a small percentage ofNeville and Whitwell, 2010). A recent special is-overall consumer expenditure. The market

sue in Journal of Business Ethics provides ashare for ethical consumption is still small,number of studies that take a closer look atthus pursuing ethical products is seen as spe-

the attitude-behaviour gap (Caruana, Car-

cialist.

rington and Chatzidakis, 2016). The editorial in-

In line with these trends, research illus-

troduction reviews existing literatures which

trates that the attitudes of consumers to-are broadly categorised into positivist and in-wards ethical consumption have become more

terpretivist streams of research（1）. The edi-

positive than in the past. However, this shift

tors note that the positivist stream of re-in attitude does not appear to have been

search focuses on understanding the effect oftranslated into consistent behavioural pat-methodological flaws (e.g., effect of socially desir-terns (Carrigan, Szmigin and Wright, 2004;

able responding style), situational issues (e.g.,

Uusitalo and Oksanen, 2004); consumer purchas-lack of consumers’ finance and time, product in-ing is inconsistent with their positive attitudeformation asymmetry) and the addition of fur-towards ethical products. The inconsistency

ther constructs (e.g., ethical obligation; self-identi-

has been persistent for a while. One study

ty; techniques of neutralisation) in order to(Futerra, 2005, p. 23) found that while 30 per-explain the gap. The study presented here fo-

cent of consumers said that they would pur-cuses on the last of these concerns, i.e. to in-chase ethical products, only 3 percent of themvestigate further constructs in explaining theactually do. Another study by Young et al.

attitude-behaviour gap.

(2010) found that 30% of their respondents es-

Understanding the gap between the atti-

timated to be concerned about environmental

tude of consumers and what they actually

issues but only 5% acted on such a concern.

purchase has become a vital managerial, aca-

Understanding Consumer Behaviour for Social Change

25

demic, and social objective (Belk, Devinney andassume that consumers are necessarily being

Eckhardt, 2005; Carrington, Neville and Whitwell,

proactive in being ethical in their activities.

2010) . Behaviour relates to an instance inInstead it acknowledges the decision to buy awhich someone acts, which is always difficult

particular product is based on a number of

to capture in a form that is appropriate tofactors. So, for example, some consumers may

comparative analysis. Thus, more typically, as

consider their own actions as having very lit-is the approach of the current study, re-tle effect when set against the bigger picture

searchers examine intention, as this is as-of consumer trends. In this case, the view

sumed to be the immediate antecedent of be-

generally held is that an individual’s actions

haviour. It must be stressed it is not always

set against a perceived status quo are not go-

the case that intention results in behaviour.

ing to have any real impact. Similarly, we

More specifically, as Ajzen (1985) argues, ‘in-might find that while a consumer is very de-tention can only be expected to predict a per-liberate in purchasing ethical products, it does

son’s attempt to perform behaviour, not nec-

not necessarily mean they are seriously con-essarily its actual performance.’ There are,cerned with the ethical issues to which thethen, remaining factors affecting success or

product pertains. Such a consumer, for exam-

failure of performing a specific behaviour.

ple, may make their decisions based on only

These factors (e.g., changing attitudes over time,vague associations relating to peers or frag-inability to overcome various obstacles to executementary information. Thus, this study accepts

intentions) are beyond one’s control and result

the idea that even consumers with a highly

in a failure to observe the predicted behav-

ethical consumption perspective can make de-iour. Nonetheless, it is considered that ‘inten-

cisions based on a variety of considerations,tions are indicators of how hard people arewithout necessarily manifesting patterns of be-

willing to try, of how much of an effort theyhaviour in line with their ethical views. Whenare planning to exert, in order to perform theconsidering the development of the field of

behaviour’ (Beck and Ajzen, 1991, p. 286) . A

consumer ethics, Vitell (2003, p. 45) has notedworking assumption is that the stronger thepreviously how ‘even normally ethical con-assumption the more likely the behaviour

sumers can easily rationalize unethical behav-

specified in the process of evaluation is per-iours by appealing to the techniques of neu-

formed; furthermore intention is presumed to

tralisation’. Such ‘techniques’, then, cancapture motivational factors influencing a be-potentially explain a great deal ‘as to why

haviour.

otherwise ethical consumers sometimes be-

Across a spectrum of behaviour, consumers

have unethically’ (Vitell, 2003, p. 45). The cur-

may make many decisions everyday without

rent study picks up on this suggestion, andnecessarily being consistent in the scrutiny oftakes the view a spectrum exists upon we

one’s actions. Thus, rather than focusing on

can consider more relative positions of ethical-

ethical judgments, the current study does notunethical behaviour. The purpose of the cur-

26

招待論文 /Invited Articles

rent paper, then, is to explore the discrepancy

ing etc. (Strong, 1996; Doane, 2001; Crane, 2001).

between attitude and behavioural intention

Ethical purchases are said to include, among

with a focus on the role of neutralisation. Spe-other things, ‘green, socially responsible, andcifically, it evaluates the inclusion of neutrali-fair trade’ products (Valor, 2007, p. 675). Howev-

sation in a modified theory of planned behav-

er, it does not directly follow that all con-iour.

sumption of ethical products is a deliberate

The findings of the current study suggest

engagement in ethical consumption and/orthat although consumers have a positive atti-

that all ethical consumption is genuinely

tude towards ethical consumption, they havefounded in adherence to ethical principles inalso been found to favourably accept the tech-

the first instance. In explaining green con-niques of neutralisation. Furthermore, hierar-

sumption, for example, Peattie (2001) notes

chical regression analyses reveal that not only

there are some consumers who are willing todoes the inclusion of techniques of neutralisa-

make their purchases on the basis of green la-tion improve the modelling of predictive ca-bels or green consumer guild recommenda-

pacity but they also moderate the influences

tions. Yet, consumers may not necessarilyof attitudes on behavioural intention. In addi-

have any intention of changing their lifestyles,tion, neutralisation has a significant direct ef-

or reconsider how they manage their overall

fect on intention. In spite of a wide range ofconsumption patterns. They may also pur-evidence to suggest positive attitude towards

chase green products with little care about

ethical consumption, real existing behaviour isthe environment. Hence, green consumers

frequently filtered through the techniques ofand green advocates cannot be assumed to be

neutralisation. It is evident that understand-the same. Ethical consumption, then, can be

ing the role of the techniques of neutralisation

said to define a broad spectrum of behaviour,

helps provide a fuller explanation of consumer

which includes the consumption choices of adecision-making in the ethical context, andrange of consumers who (in various ways) may

can lead to future practical implications.

or may not incorporate ethical and moral as-

2.

Understanding ethicalconsumption

pects of production when selecting products.
Given that the purchasing of ethical goods
does not necessarily reflect a firm commit-

Ethical consumption encompasses a broad ar-ment to ethical living, the current investiga-

ray of ethical commitments and issues rele-tion examines how intention to purchase ethi-

vant to a wide range of consumer products

cal products manifests, regardless of what weand services. It concerns the actions of an in-might initially know of a purchaser’s positive

dividual consumer freely selecting and pur-or negative attitude toward buying an ethicalchasing a product after considering various

product.

ethical issues, for example, human rights, la-In order to explain inconsistent behaviour

bour conditions, environment, animal well-be-in the context of ethical consumption, previ-Understanding Consumer Behaviour for Social Change

27

ous studies suggest factors such as lack of in-intentions. The moderating effects of the tech-formation, product availability and productniques of neutralisation on ethical decision-

choice (Uusitalo and Oksanen, 2004; Dahlstrand,

making (Sykes and Matza, 1957) have been giv-

2005; Young et al., 2010); as well as price sensi-

en some attention in both business (e.g.,

tivity and product quality (Bray et al., 2011). In

Anand, Ashforth and Joshi, 2005) and consumer

choosing not to purchase ethical products,

contexts (e.g. Padel and Foster, 2005; Chatzidakis,

consumers may rationalize their choice

Hibbert and Smith, 2004; 2007; Valor, 2007). In ad-

through a cynicism toward profit-making

dition (as noted in the introduction), based on an

business, and/or suppress feelings of guilt byextensive literature review on consumer eth-assuming potential impact of their action be-

ics, Vitell (2003) highlights the importance ofing insignificant (Bray et al., 2011). Bourdieu

expanding our knowledge base of the concept(1984 as cited in Henry, 2010, p. 672), for example,of neutralisation. The empirical investigationrefers to consumers from a poorer economic

for the current study was designed to exam-

bracket ‘as having a “taste for necessity” that

ine, in step, three related models to explain

promotes more limited horizons and fatalistic

the decision-making process of ethical con-thinking. Such fatalism is likely to affect how

sumption, and in turn to establish and exam-

consumers think about their rights and re-ine a role of a construct concerning rational-

sponsibilities, via greater resignation and ac-

ization (i.e., the techniques of neutralisation) .

ceptance of power imbalances in markets’.

The models – as discussed in the following

These views arguably extend beyond mere-

section – are the theory of planned behaviour

ly those of lower economic standing. As Wilk

(TPB, Ajzen, 1985; 1991), the modified TPB for(2001 as cited in Henry, 2010, p. 672) notes, ‘con-

ethical consumption (Shaw, Shiu and Clarke,

sumption is in essence a moral matter, since it2000), and the modified TPB with the tech-always and inevitably raises issues of fairness,niques of neutralisation (Chatzidakis, Hibbertself vs. group interest, and immediate vs. de-and Smith, 2007).

layed gratification’. Nevertheless, across all social backgrounds, there is a perennial tension
between self-serving interests and collective

3.

Modelling the decision-making
process

well-being (Henry, 2010; Luedicke, Thompson

The theory of planned behaviour (TPB) (Ajzen,

and Giesler, 2009).

1985; 1991) has been widely applied to investi-

These issues lead to the need to focus ongate social behaviour, including ethical behav-

the apparent gap between attitude and be-iour. TPB includes the two components of thehaviour in the context of ethical consumption.

theory of reasoned action (Fishbein and Ajzen,

An exploration of the techniques of neutralisa-

1980) – attitude and subjective norm – along-tion can help to explain inconsistencies arisingside a third component – perceived behav-

from the assumption that consumers tend toioural control – to predict behavioural inten-

moderate attitudes before implementing theirtion. More recently, the core framework of28

招待論文 /Invited Articles

TPB has been broadened to include additionaltional TPB model to predict intention. This ismeasures of ethical obligation and self-identity

particularly pertinent in the contexts of ethi-(i.e. self-identification as an ‘ethical’ consumer),cal consumption where attitude alone is notnoted to be relevant in ethical consumption

adequate to overcome perceived difficulties incontexts (Shaw and Clarke, 1999; Shaw and Shiu,

purchasing (Shaw, Shiu and Clarke, 2000). Argu-

2003). Prior studies have shown that, in gener-

ably, then, the modified TPB provides a con-al, attitude alone is a poor predictor of pur-ceptually well-grounded model for investigat-

chaser behaviour (Cobb-Walgren, Ruble anding attitude and beliefs underlying a certain

Donthu, 1995); this is evident, for example, in

issue (Uusitalo and Oksanen, 2004). However,

the area of fair-trading (Shaw and Clarke, 1999).

while ethical obligation and self-identity are

On account of the research of Shaw, Shiu andimportant when predicting the intentions of

Clarke (2000), ethical obligation is found to in-those who purchase ethical products, it is notdependently contribute to the prediction of in-yet known why those who believe in ethicaltention. This is in keeping with findings re-purchases, in principle, do not act upon theirported by Sparks and Shepherd (1992) andbeliefs by purchasing ethical products. Here,Raats et al. (1992). Shaw, Shiu and Clarke (2000)

other aspects of the decision-making process

also note that the role of self-identity helps

may need to be considered. In particular tech-

improve the predictability of intention; illus-

niques of neutralisation and moral rationaliza-

trating a significant improvement of the TPB

tions whereby, for example, we can ‘employ

model.

external justification, by which we minimize

In the context of ethical consumption,

our responsibility for [a] dissonant act by call-

Shaw, Shiu and Clarke (2000) argue behav-

ing on excuses out of our control’ (Lowell, 2012,

ioural beliefs and outcome evaluations (compo-

p. 19) may be relevant. Such rationalizations

nents of attitude) may not be of a purely self-

not only allow a discrete action to become

interested nature. For instance, attitude topermissible, but can also lead to subsequent

fair trade products is likely to be influenced

behaviour, whereby ‘once successfully inter-by a sense of ethical obligation more than be-

nalized, they can truly become neutralizing

ing driven by self-motivated concerns only.

devices … as opposed to post behavioural ra-

In other words, in certain contexts, behaviour

tionalizations’ (Chatzidakis, Hibbert and Smith,tends to be centred around concerns for oth-2007, p. 90). More generally, then, as Bersoff

ers. In addition, ethical behaviour is not mere-(1999) argues, unethical behaviour ‘is not [nec-ly driven by the expectations of society, it isessarily the] result of moral judgment failing

also a reflection of an individual’s beliefs re-to determine action but rather moral judg-

garding what is moral and what is immoral

ment corrupted by self-serving interests suc-

(Shaw, Grehan and Shiu, 2005).

ceeding in determine action’ (p. 424).

The addition of ethical obligation and self-

Chatzidakis, Hibbert and Smith (2004) as-

identity improves the capacity of the tradi-

serts that although the techniques of neutrali-Understanding Consumer Behaviour for Social Change

29sation are commonly employed in deviant be-

ethical decision-making in ethical consump-haviours, they can also be used in normatively

tion. In summary, the study examines three

flexible contexts, such as purchasing fair-models in steps – i.e. TPB (Ajzen, 1991), modi-

trade products and recycling. O’Fallon andfied TPB (Shaw, Shiu and Clarke, 2000) and

Butterfield (2005) have stated that the primarymodified TPB incorporating the techniques offunction of neutralisation is to bring back bal-neutralisation (Chatzidakis, Hibbert and Smith,ance when consumers act in an attitudinally2007). Subsequently, it examines the extent toincongruent manner without attitude change.

which the model with neutralisation offers a

Neutralisation may be an important moderat-

fuller explanation of the decision-making pro-ing variable that explains ethical breaches incess in ethical consumption.

everyday choices that consumers make (Holland, Meertens and Van Vugt, 2002 cited in Chatzidakis, Hibbert and Smith, 2007).

4.

Theoretical framework andpropositions

While the techniques of neutralisation ap-

Originally, the neutralisation theory was de-pear appropriate to the investigation of theveloped by Sykes and Matza (1957) to explain

decision making process in ethical consump-criminal behaviour. Chatzidakis, Hibbert andtion, its notion has not been fully explored.

Smith (2007), who found neutralisation helped

One pertinent exception is De Bock and vanunderstand the attitude-behaviour discrepan-

Kenhove’s (2011) study of consumer response

cies in fair-trade consumption contexts, de-to unethical corporate behaviour. In this case,scribe neutralisation as ‘a mechanism that fa-

the authors show how techniques of neutrali-cilitates behaviour that is either norm violat-

sation can explain how ‘the same respondents

ing or in contravention of expressed attitude’;who justify questionable consumer actions to

as such, ‘when social norms are not being in-a certain degree, condone the same misbehav-

ternalized to the degree that they can guideiours instigated by business (representative) tobehaviour under all conditions, people mighta much lesser extent’ (p. 283). Furthermore,develop coping strategies to cope with theand with more specific pertinence to the cur-discrepancy that they experience’ (pp. 89-90).

rent study, Chatzidakis, Hibbert and Smith

Sykes and Matza (1957) identify five different(2007) argue that the notion of neutralisation

techniques to cope with such discrepancy: de-may be key to understanding the attitude-be-nial of responsibility; denial of injury; denial of

haviour gap in purchasing ethical products (i.e.,

victim; condemning the condemners; and ap-

fair trade products). Following their proposal

peal to higher loyalties (Appendix 1). Adopting

to add a new construct, neutralisation, to thethese techniques allows individuals to restore

modified TPB model (Shaw, Shiu and Clarke,‘equilibrium without attitude change’ (Chatzi-

2000), the current study conducted an empiri-

dakis, Hibbert and Smith, 2007, p. 94). Individuals

cal investigation to look further into the influ-

are likely to insulate themselves from self-ence of neutralisation within the process of

blame, and therefore learn patterns of30

招待論文 /Invited Articles

thought that can help them to remain committed to the normative system and qualify

5.

Research methodology

their actions as ‘acceptable’ if not ‘right’ (Chatzidakis, Hibbert and Smith, 2007, p. 90).

In conducting a survey of UK consumers, theResearchers using the TPB to explore ethi-

current study designated ethical products as

cal decision-making have shown that one rea-

being fair trade, organic, recycled, re-used,

son why individuals’ behaviours are not al-produced locally, cruelty free, free of sweat-

ways consistent with their attitudes is disso-shop labour conditions, and/or environmental-

nance (Uusitalo and Oksanen, 2004; Dahlstrand,ly friendly. An elicitation questionnaire was

2005; Chatzidakis, Hibbert and Smith, 2004; 2007;

employed as suggested by Fishbien and

McGregor, 2006; Young et al., 2010). The current

Ajzen (1980). All the measures for the modi-

study investigates the role of neutralisation as

fied TPB used in this research were taken

a source of such dissonance. It examines thefrom Shaw, Shiu and Clarke (2000). Neutrali-

relationship between attitudes and intentions

sation was measured using items modified

that can lead to the discrepancy. Hence, thefrom the study on the role of neutralisation incurrent empirical investigation has three aims

fair-trade products by Chatzidakis, Hibbert(partially examining some of the propositions

and Smith (2007) and the work of Strutton, Vi-

made by Chatzidakis, Hibbert and Smith, 2007),

tell and Pelton (1994) on an application of thewhich derive from mapping the components

techniques of neutralisation. Both the modified

of TPB (i.e. attitude, subjective norm, perceived

TPB and neutralisation variables were as-

behavioural control) with modified TPB compo-

sessed on 7-point scales, scored from 1 (nega-

nents (ethical obligation and self-identity) andtive/disagree) to 7 (positive/agree). Prior to ad-

the incorporation of the techniques of neutral-ministering the questionnaires, a pre-test was

isation. The first aim is to examine whether

carried out. Further details of the question-or not the modified TPB will be predictive ofnaire are given in Appendix 2.

behavioural intentions (based on the model by

251 responses were collected from metro-

Shaw, Shiu and Clarke, 2000). The second aim ispolitan areas in the North of England, UK.

to examine whether or not the incorporation

The respondents were recruited from shop-of the neutralisation variable into the modified

ping areas as this research was particularly

TPB will lead to an increase in the amount ofinterested in the consumers’ attitude. The ob-variance explained in behavioural intention

jective of the study was associated with any(along the lines of the model by Chatzidakis, Hib-

consumers in the UK so the ‘mall’-intercept

bert and Smith, 2007). The third aim is to ex-

sampling method was considered to be appro-amine whether the techniques of neutralisa-

priate. Table 1 shows the demographics of thetion will moderate the relationship between

sample.

the modified TPB variables and behaviouralintention.

Understanding Consumer Behaviour for Social Change

Table 131

Demographic profile of respondents (Total number = 251)

Gender(no response = 1)

Male = 113

Female = 137

Age(no response = 0)

Under 24 years
old = 47

Marital status(no response = 5)

Living with spouse/partner= 101

Any children?
(no response = 9)

Yes
= 80

Education(no response = 4)

Up to A-levels= 42

University Diploma= 41

Bachelor degree= 84

Post-graduate
degree = 80

Annual householdincome(no response = 27)

Under
£10K
= 22

£2030K= 81£4050K= 28£75100K=525-34 years old= 73

35-44 years old= 95
Single= 119

Over 45 years old
= 36
Other
= 26

No
= 162

£1020K= 20£3040K= 45£5075K
= 20

Over
£100K
=2

archical regression clearly shows that the6.

Findings

TPB is a good predictor of behavioural intentions (R2adj=.46). However, including ethical ob-

The scales show acceptable levels of reliabili-

ligation and self-identity significantly im-ty (Cronbach’s alpha ranging from .603 to .910)

proves the amount of variance in behaviouraland the correlations between variables indi-intentions explained (R2adj=.54, ∆ R2=.08), indicat-

cate that while some relationships exist, there

ing that modifying the TPB in this way doesis also a clear distinction between the differ-improve predictive ability. The power of pre-ent concepts (Table 2). In addition, the levels

diction is improved further when neutralisa-

of kurtosis (from -1.02 to 1.07) and skew (fromtion is added in the analysis (R2adj=.59, ∆ R2=.05).

-.76 to .39) do not indicate any major devia-

Across all three models, attitude and subjec-tions from normality. The range of means

tive norm consistently have a positive impact

varies from 3.3 with subjective norms (indicat-

on respondents’ intention to purchase an ethi-

ing that respondents did not feel that they were

cal product. However, their impact is de-expected to buy ethical products) and neutralisa-

creased when ethical obligation and self-iden-tion, to 5.7 with perceived behavioural control.

tity are included in the equation, and further

A hierarchical regression analysis is useddecreases when neutralisation is added.

(Table 3) to evaluate the three models. Initially

The final aim of the current empirical in-this is to assess whether the modified TPB

vestigation is to assess the effects of interac-can predict behavioural intention; then it as-

tions between the modified TPB variables

sesses whether the incorporation of the neu-

and neutralisation. That is, whether neutrali-

tralisation variable into the modified TPB

sation will moderate, or influence, the relation-leads to an increase in the amount of varianceship between the modified TPB variables (atti-

in behavioural intention explained. The hier-tudes, subjective norm, behavioural control,

32

招待論文 /Invited Articles

ethical obligation and self-identity) and behav-

ioural intention. A hierarchical moderated re-7.

Discussion

gression is used to investigate the direct andindirect impacts of neutralisation on the TPB

The current study seeks to investigate thevariables (see Table 4). It shows that each vari-

gap between consumers’ attitude and inten-

able, with the exception of perceived behav-tion towards purchasing ethical products inioural control, is a significant predictor of be-

the UK context. It is designed to examine a2havioural intentions (R adj = .54, beta coefficients

three-step model (i.e., TPB, modified TPB, andfrom .14 to .31). However, adding the direct andmodified TPB with neutralisation) applicable toindirect (moderating) effects of neutralisation

the decision-making process in ethical con-2

lead to a significant change in R ( ∆ R = .08).

sumption. The key focus has been to exam-

The findings show neutralisation has a signifi-

ine the role of neutralisation with an expecta-

cant direct effect on intention and moderates

tion to discover a more powerful model tothe relationships between behavioural inten-

predict the behavioural intention to purchasetion and subjective norm; and behavioural in-

ethical products. A general observation de-tention and ethical obligation. In addition,

rived from the descriptive statistics (Table 2)

when the direct and indirect impact of neu-is that consumers in the UK have positive in-tralisation is taken into account, the main ef-

tention (mean = 4.80) and attitude (mean = 5.40)

fect of perceived behavioural control is signifi-

towards ethical consumption. This is consis-

cant, while the main effects of attitude,

tent with previous studies (Mintel, 2003; Carri-

subjective norm, ethical obligation and self-gan, Szmigin and Wright, 2004; Carrigan and de

identity are not significant.

Pelsmacker, 2009; Padel and Foster, 2005).

2

Table 2

Descriptive statistics

Self-identity.65 ＊＊＊ -.64 ＊＊＊Attitude5.4

1.0 -.71

1.07 .808.47 ＊＊＊.31 ＊＊＊.61 ＊＊＊.56 ＊＊＊ -.50 ＊＊＊Subjective norms

3.3

1.5

.39

-.59 .910.00.54 ＊＊＊.60 ＊＊＊ -.48 ＊＊＊Control

5.7

1.0 -.76.26 .603.26 ＊＊＊.04

Ethical obligation

4.8

1.5 -.69-.34 .788

Self-identity

4.2

1.7 -.34-.58 .813

3.3

1.5

Neutralisation
N.B. :＊＊

p<.05.,

＊＊＊

p<.01

.23 -1.02 .883

.66

Neutralisation

Ethical obligation.60 ＊＊＊

Control.55 ＊＊＊ .20 ＊＊＊Subjective norms-.45 .902 .61 ＊＊＊Attitude

1.6 -.55

Reliability

4.8

KurtosisStandard deviation

Purchase intention

Skewness

Mean

Correlations, N=249-251

-.08
＊＊＊

-.48 ＊＊＊-.58 ＊＊＊

Understanding Consumer Behaviour for Social Change

Table 3

The impact of modifying themodified TPB on predicting

Table 4

behavioural intentions

33

Impact of neutralisation on TPB

variables as predictors of behavioural intentions

Step 1

Step 2

Step 3

Step 1

.43

＊＊＊

.25

＊＊＊

.19

＊＊＊

.25

＊＊＊

.22

Subjective norm

.35

＊＊＊

.17

＊＊＊

.13

＊＊

Subjective norm

.17

＊＊＊

-.10

Control.07

Attitudes

Ethical obligation
Self-identity.08

Control.08.14 ＊＊.13 ＊＊

Ethical obligation.14 ＊＊

.31

R adj

.46

2

R change
N.B. :＊＊

p<.05,

＊＊＊

＊＊＊

.19 ＊

.08

＊＊＊

Neutralisation

2

Attitudes

.54

＊＊＊

.08

＊＊＊

Step 2.21

Self-identity

-.30

＊＊＊

Neutralisation-.56 ＊＊

Attitudes by neutralisation

-.06

.59

＊＊＊

Subjective norm by neutralisation.28 ＊＊.05＊＊＊

Control by neutralisation-.22

Ethical obligation by neutralisation.32 ＊Self-identity by neutralisation

-.06

p<.01

.31

＊＊＊

-.10

＊＊＊

.19

In the current study, when all factors aretreated as influencing intention (i.e. to have di-R2adj

rect impact), the findings are on a par with

R2change

studies of a similar nature. The hierarchical

N.B. : ＊p<.1, ＊＊p<.05, ＊＊＊p<.01.54 ＊＊＊.62 ＊＊＊.08 ＊＊＊

linear regression analyses (Table 3) provide
some interesting findings. Firstly, the twonorm has a significant direct influence on be-

constructs added by Shaw, Shiu and Clarke

havioural intention across all the three models(2000), self-identity and perceived ethical obli-in this study (without taking account of interac-gation, improve the predictability of the be-tion effects of the neutralisation) (Table 3).

havioural intention model (Table 3, ∆ R = 0.08,

fact, even after the addition of the constructs

Step 1 to Step 2). This provides support to the

ethical obligation and self-identity, subjective

study of Shaw, Shiu and Clarke (2000) for theirnorm maintains a significant direct effect on

addition of ethical obligation and self-identity

intention. Such a finding is in keeping withto the TPB, within the context of ethical con-Kalafatis et al. (1999), who note the importancesumerism. Within the model, both self-identityof social norm as a determinant of intention.

2

In(beta coefficient = 0.14, p< .01) and ethical obli-

It is important to note, however, Vallerandgation (beta coefficient = 0.31, p< .01) are found

et al. (1992) and Shaw, Shiu and Clarke (2000)

to have a significant impact on behavioural in-find subjective norm to be insignificant or totention. This is also in line with the findings

be least influential when predicating intention.

in the study of Shaw, Shiu and Clarke (2000);

Noting here a contrast with the current

both factors are found to have a direct impact

study, one explanation for the ‘poor perfor-on predicting intentions. Secondly, the current

mance of the subjective norm determinantstudy found that the construct of subjectivelies in its measurement as many scholars use

34

招待論文 /Invited Articles

single item measures, as opposed to more reli-of our actions may still motivate intention toable multi-item scales’ (Armitage and Conner,purchase an ethical product. Thus, modera-

2001, p. 478). Further to this explanation, anoth-tion by neutralisation on subjective norm

er contributing factor may relate to the tech-needs to be taken account when it comes toniques of neutralisation. In the current study,

predicting behavioural intention. Similarly, thethe inclusion of neutralisation generates an in-significant impact of ethical obligation by neu-

crement, however small, in predicting inten-

tralisation can mean that where we feel obli-tion (Table 3, Step 3, ∆ R = 0.05). Its impact isgated to pursue an ethical value, there follows

also found to be statistically significant (betaa commitment to purchase an ethical product.

coefficient = -0.30, p< .01). This finding supports

Perceived behavioural control is also signifi-

the proposition by Chatzidakis, Hibbert andcant after taking account its interaction with

Smith (2004) that neutralisation is appropriate

neutralisation. This might suggest that if weand applicable to explain a less deviant be-

have the ‘right’ attitude to purchase ethicalhaviour context like ethical consumption. This

products, access and control with respect tofinding also places the role of neutralisation

ethical consumption is important in overcom-

within the TPB model.

ing any final barrier in making a purchase.

2

The hierarchical regression analysis shown

With the example of recycling, a significant

in Table 4, which includes the interaction ef-

correlation was found between positive atti-

fect of neutralisation, was significant with antude and perceived behavioural control (Ton-overall predictive power of 0.62 (p<0.01). Thisglet, Phillips and Read, 2004). In this case, theis an improvement from the modified model

researchers did not find a significant impact(Step 1 to Step 2, ∆ R 0.08) and also the neutral-of perceived behavioural control on intention

isation model which does not take account offor recycling. They explained that this may

any interactions (Table 3, Step 3). The impact

have been caused by the nature of their sam-of each of the constructs was moderated byple: perceived behavioural control may not be

neutralisation (Table 4, Step 2), except for the

relevant to the decision-making process ofconstruct for perceived behavioural control.

those who have access to a local authority’s

In response to the impact of neutralisation,

curbside recycling scheme. Furthermore, they

the main effects of subjective norm and ethi-

argue that perceived behavioural control

cal obligation disappear, however they contin-

would be ‘more appropriate for explaining theue to positively influence consumers’ intention

behaviour of those who do not recycle or do

to purchase an ethical product through their

not have access to recycling resource’ (Tonglet,interaction with neutralisation. For example,

Phillips and Read, 2004, p. 210). It is worth noting

despite consideration of numerous self-serving

that, while perceived behavioural control mea-

excuses, the significant impact of subjectivesures the degree of control an individual per-norm by neutralisation suggests the expecta-

ceives they have, neutralisation in the form oftions we attribute to what peers/society think‘denial of responsibility’ is attributed to a2=

Understanding Consumer Behaviour for Social Change

35

sense of lack of control. Together perceived

goes beyond the individual. While in truth webehavioural control and neutralisation accountmight argue it is the individual who evokes

for two sides of the same coin (i.e., control and/this barrier or a justification to perform a be-or lack of), helping to explain why interest to-haviour for their own benefit, their own per-wards ethical consumption may not always

ception is that the cause lies elsewhere, out-

lead to ethical consumer behaviour.

side of themselves.

An intriguing finding, however, is that self-

Overall, the techniques of neutralisation canidentity (i.e., self-identification as an ‘ethical’ con-be seen not only to be deployed by consum-

sumer) appears weakened by the interactioners (so having a direct negative impact on inten-

of neutralisation. If individuals firmly consider

tion to purchase an ethical product, as shown inthemselves to be ethical consumers, the tech-

Table 3, Step 3), but also to affect the degree ofnique of neutralisation – the very process of

impact of the other variables (Table 4, Step 2).

rationalization itself – is irrelevant. Nonethe-

The results indicate strongly the role of neu-

less, due to a range of problems and circum-

tralisation as a moderator in the TPB as ad-

stances (e.g. lack of availability of a product),dressed by Chatzidakis, Hibbert and Smitheven ardent ethical consumers can potentially(2007), and indeed provide further clarity andfail to uphold ethical principles. Mitchell et al.

complexity by bringing to the fore the inter-(2009) have shown in a previous report that

action of factors by neutralisation.

up to 75% of respondents (across UK, US,
France and Austria) have engaged in unethical8.

Conclusion

consumption on at least one occasion (including
behaviours such as copying software and provid-

The current research has tested the proposed

ing misleading information).

Similarly, in twomodel of Chatzidakis, Hibbert and Smith (2007),

separate studies (Rawwas, 1996; Fullerton et al.,

who integrated individuals’ mental strategies

1996), less than one fifth of the respondents as-or techniques of neutralisation into the modi-

serted a strong ethical position. The implica-

fied TPB model (Shaw, Shiu and Clarke, 2000).

tion is that the majority (over 80%) of the sam-

The results of the current study broadly con-ple appear to make ethical judgments based

cur with the propositions by Chatzidakis, Hib-

on a given situation rather than according tobert and Smith (2007). Furthermore, the cur-

universal moral principles. In which case, self-

rent analysis suggests improvement in

identity is arguably not driving their behav-

predicting behavioural intention and showsiour, but rather other factors specific to a situ-

the moderating effects the techniques of neu-

ation. Equally, however, a de-emphasis of self-

tralisation have on the remaining constructs

identity in the study can also be said to relate

in the modified TPB model. Additionally, theto the fact that neutralisation is by default

neutralisation construct is itself found to haveconcerned with the externalization of a prob-

a significant impact on moderating purchas-lem. It designates a problem or barrier that

ing intention in ethical consumption (beta coef-

36

招待論文 /Invited Articles

ficient = -0.56, p< 0.01).

the long term (e.g., achieving healthy

Mitchell and Chan (2002) note the tech-weight). … In the context of virtues suchniques of neutralisation do not represent total

as eating healthy, exercising and saving

rejection of norms, yet they are a means tomoney, sometimes all that is needed is adecrease a norm’s influence in situations per-contextual push toward better behavior

ceived not to be socially acceptable. Minor…. Marketers are all about nudging, so(1981) finds neutralisation techniques are more

why not use it to promote more ethicalcommonly employed by those who have aconsumer behavior? (Irwin, 2015)

strong bond to the conventional moral order,
given that they seek to restore equilibrium

Unfortunately Irwin doesn’t illustrate any spe-

without changing their attitude (cited in Chat-cific means to ‘nudge’ individuals to facilitatezidakis, Hibbert and Smith, 2007), thus they can‘better’ consumer engagements. Nonethelessengage in less ethical behaviour without expe-

the use of the more colloquial term, ‘nudge’, isriencing guilt. McGregor (2008) has stated thatperhaps a useful reminder of the more contin-

consumers view their passive unethical action

gent, and even intimate circumstances in

as a more acceptable behaviour. This viewwhich we end up making choices. Arguably,

can extend to non-engagement in ethical con-marketers can pay attention not only to the

sumption or when consumers employ mental

explicit rational choices and patterns custom-

strategies to deny any blame and absent oth-ers attend to, but equally to their more com-

ers through their purchasing choices. These

plex and even irrational behaviours. Indeed,discussions support the idea that in real situa-

each of us are likely to be open to genuine

tions with regards to ethical consumption,

help or prompts from time to time, as the ef-

positive attitude and moral concerns cannot,

fect of social norms found in the current

alone, assist consumers to overcome con-study implies.

straints that stand in the way of desirable be-

Overall, the current investigation has ad-

haviours. These constraints can lead individu-

dressed the role of the techniques of neutrali-

als to rationalize less ethical consumption

sation as a potential cause that brings about

decisions. Thus, attitude and the perception of

the discrepancy between attitude and behav-

morality are inadequate to forecast actual eth-iour within the context of ethical consump-ical behaviour. However, as Irwin describes,

tion. Indeed, the theory of neutralisation cansometimes all we need is a nudge in the right

be another step towards answering the ques-direction to alter or re-emphasise our actions,tion posed by many scholars: ‘Why ethicalbut which nonetheless is still suggestive ofconsumers don’t walk the talk?’ (Carrington,

the interrelationship of situational factors:

Neville and Whitwell, 2010, p. 139) . Inevitably,

further research on the techniques of neutraliPeople often want something different insation in the context of ethical decision-mak-the short term (e.g., chocolate cake) versus

ing would be beneficial (Strutton, Vitell and Pel-

Understanding Consumer Behaviour for Social Change

37

ton, 1994; Chatzidakis, Hibbert and Smith, 2007;‘new form’ of capitalism (Carrington, Zwick and

McGregor, 2008). The sample in the current

Neville, 2016). Thus, caution needs to be noted

study is restricted in terms of size and only

in marketing ‘ethical’ products, to ensure a se-involved collecting data from one geographic

rious attempt is made to achieve the statedregion of the UK, which limits the significanceaims.

of the results and degree to which implica-

Nonetheless, the theoretical implication oftions can be inferred. In light of which, fur-the current study warrants further, sustained

ther investigation on the role of the tech-

investigation on the conceptual overlap be-niques will be beneficial in order to enrichtween subjective norm and ethical obligation,

and ascertain its validity as one of the mea-

as noted by previous studies (e.g. subjectivesures in the modified TPB model, particularly

norm and moral norm by Kaiser and Scheuthle,

in cross-cultural settings as noted by Vitell

2002; subjective norm and descriptive norm by(2003). Swaiden (2012) has found that consum-

Rivis and Sheeran, 2003). An overlap between

er ethics and culture are connected. Culture

the two constructs can take place in certain

might also have an impact on how neutralisa-

circumstances; for instance, in an ethicallytion techniques influence the variables in thequestionable situation where the likelihood ofmodified TPB model. For example, while thisthat an individual’s ethical obligation is in line

research found a moderating role for neutrali-with the expectations of the society. More im-sation with two of the five modified TPB vari-portantly, it would appear that some tech-ables, the UK is a highly individualistic cul-niques better allow consumers to rationalize

ture. It may be that the impact of neutralisa-

behaviours that are inconsistent with theirtion changes in more collectivistic cultures

beliefs (Grove, Vitell and Strutton, 1989, cited inwhere harmony with the group is highly val-

Chatzidakis, Hibbert and Smith, 2007). This mayued (Hofstede, 1991). In addition, it is worth

be because they minimize their responsibility

noting a critique toward businesses creating

for the behaviour using external justification

ethical products for the sake of their unique(Lowell, 2012). While the current study estab-selling point and/or enhancing their brandlishes the role of the techniques of neutralisa-

value (resulting profit maximisation). Such actstion as a construct in the decision-making pro-are, to many consumers, that ‘ethical prod-

cess, further in-depth examination of each ofucts’ may be seen as a marketing gimmick, so

the techniques will provide value, and practi-

making perceptive consumers (who are often

cal understanding for future strategy develop-

interested in ethical consumption) think twice

ment fostering ethical consumption. Helping

about making purchases, i.e. to double-takeus, then, to better understand and respond towhether or not they are actually ‘doing good’the ‘moment’ in which the consumer decides,

in buying ‘ethically marketed’ products. In-

and demonstrating that an individual’s own

deed, in this respect, ethical consumption canbeliefs do not necessarily play enough of abe critiqued along ideological grounds, as arole in the wider consumption patterns to un-38

招待論文 /Invited Articles

derline their day to day living.
（1）

The interpretivist stream is observed to chal-lenge the theoretical development of the positivist
stream, in particular its methodological assumption that consumer behaviour is seen as ‘rationaland stripped away from a broader social, historical and cultural context’ (Caruana, 2007a, b citedin Caruana, Carrington and Chatzidakis, 2016,p. 215). The interpretivist stream of research isoften developed interdisciplinary to enable researchers explore a complexity of people’s daily
lives where social-cultural influences intertwine
and result in various modes of ethical consumption. While this stream of research brings an important (philosophical) debate, it is beyond thescope of the current study.
〈References〉
Anand, V., B.E. Ashforth and M. Joshi (2005) “Businessas usual: the acceptance and perpetuation of corruption in organizations”, Academy of Management
Executive, Vol. 19, Issue 4, pp. 9-23.
Ajzen, I. (1985) “From intentions and actions: a theoryof planned Behaviour”, in J. Kuhl and J. Beckman(Eds.), Action control: from cognitions to behaviour, Heidelberg: Spring Verlag., pp. 11-39.
―― (1991) “The theory of planned Behaviour”, Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 50, Issue 2, pp. 179-211.
Armitage, C.J. and M. Conner (2001) “Efficacy of the
Theory of planned behaviour: a meta-analytic review”, British Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 40,
Issue 4, pp. 471-499.
Beck, L. and I. Ajzen (1991) “Predicting dishonest actions using the theory of planned behaviour”,
Journal of Research in Personality, Vol. 25, Issue 3,
pp. 285-301.
Belk, R.W., T.M. Devinney and G. Eckhardt (2005)“Consumer ethics across cultures”, Consumption
Markets and Culture, Vol. 8, No. 3, pp. 275-289.
Bersoff, D.M. (1999) “Explaining unethical behaviour
among people motivated to act prosocially”, Journal of Moral Education, Vol. 28, No. 4, pp. 413-428.
Bray, J., N. Johns and D. Kilburn (2011) ‘An Exploratory Study into the Factors Impeding Ethical Consumption’, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 98, No. 4,
pp. 597-608.
Carrigan, M. and A. Attalla (2001) “The myth of the

ethical consumer - do ethics matter in purchasebehaviour?”, Journal of Consumer Marketing,Vol. 18, Issue 7, pp. 560-578.
――, I. Szmigin and J. Wright (2004) “Shopping for abetter world? An interpretive study of the potential for ethical consumption within the older market”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 21, Issue 6, pp. 401-417.
―― and P. de Pelsmacker (2009) “Will ethical consumers sustain their values in the global credit
crunch?”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 26,
Issue 6, pp. 674-687.
Carrington, M.J., B.A. Neville and G.J. Whitwell (2010)“Why ethical consumers don’t walk their talk: towards a framework for understanding the gap between the ethical purchase intentions and actual
buying behaviour of ethically minded consumers”,
Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 97, Issue 1, pp. 139158.
――, D. Zwick and B. Neville (2016) “The ideology ofthe ethical consumption gap”, Marketing Theory,
Vol. 16, Issue 1, pp. 21-38.
Caruana, R., M.J. Carrington and A. Chatzidakis (2016)“Beyond the attitude-behaviour gap: novel perspectives in consumer ethics”: introduction to thethematic symposium’, Journal of Business Ethics,
Vol. 136, Issue 2, pp. 215-218.
Chatzidakis, A., S. Hibbert, D. Mittusis and A.P. Smith(2004) “Virtue in consumption?”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 20, Issue 5-6, pp. 526-543.
――, S. Hibbert and A.P. Smith (2007) “Why people
don’t take their concerns about fair trade to thesupermarket: the role of neutralisation”, Journal ofBusiness Ethics, Vol. 74, Issue 1, pp. 89-100.
Cobb-Walgren, C.J., C.A. Ruble and N. Donthu (1995)“Brand equity, brand preference, and purchase intent”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 24, No. 3, pp. 2540.
Co-operative Bank (2011) The ethical consumerism report 2011, Manchester, Retrieved from http://
www.co-operative.coop/PageFiles/416561607/Eth
ical-Consumerism-Report-2011.pdf (Accessed on
18 April 2012)
Crane, A. (2001) “Unpacking the ethical product”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 30, Issue 4, pp. 361-373.
Dahlstrand, U. and A. Biel (2005) “Values and habits: adual-process model”, In S. Krarup, and C.S. Russell(Eds), Environment, information and consumer behaviour, (pp. 33-49), Cheltenham: E. Elgar.

Understanding Consumer Behaviour for Social Change

39

De Bock, T. and P. Van Kenhove’s (2011) “Double stan-

to a moral extension of the theory of planned be-

dards: the role of techniques”, Journal of Businesshavior: moral norms and just world beliefs in con-

Ethics, Vol. 99, Issue 2, pp. 283-296.

servationism”, Personality and Individual Differ-

De Pelsmacker, P., L. Driesen and G. Rayp (2005) “Do

ences, Vol. 35, pp. 1033-1048.

consumers care about ethics? Willingness-to-pay

Kalafatis, S.P., M. Pollard, R. East and M.H. Tsogas

for fair-trade coffee”, Journal of Consumer Affairs,(1999) “Green marketing and Ajzen’s theory ofVol. 39, Issue 2, pp. 363-385.

planned behaviour: a cross-market examination”,

Doane, D. (2001) Taking fight: the rapid growth of ethical consumerism: The Ethical Purchasing Index
2001, London: New Economics Foundation.
Euromonitor International (2016) United Kingdom
country factfile, Available at
http://www.euromonitor.com/united-kingdom/country-factfile, Accessed on 9 March 2017.

Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 16, Issue 5,
pp. 441-460.
Lowell, J. (2012) ‘Managers and Moral Dissonance: Self
Justification as a Big Threat to Ethical Management?,’ Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 105, No. 1,
pp. 17-25.
Luedicke, M.K., C.J. Thompson and M. Giesler (2010)

Fishbein, M. and I. Ajzen (1980) “Acceptance, yielding“Consumer identity work as moral protagonism:

and impact: cognitive processes in persuasion”, In

How myth and ideology animate a brand-mediat-

R.E. Petty, T.M. Ostrom and T.C. Brock (Eds.),

ed moral conflict”, Journal of Consumer Research,

Cognitive responses in persuasion, Hillsdale: Erlbaum, pp. 339-360.
Fullerton, S., K.B. Kerch and H.R. Dodge (1996) ‘Con-

Vol. 36, Issue 6, pp. 1016-1032.
McGregor, S.L.T. (2006) “Understanding consumer
moral consciousness”, International Journal ofsumer Ethics: An Assessment of Individual Be-

Consumer Studies, Vol. 30, Issue 2, pp. 164-178.

haviour in the Market Place,’ Journal of Business―― (2008) “Conceptualizing immoral and unethical

Ethics, Vol. 15, No. 7, pp. 805-814.
Futerra Sustainability Communications (2005) The
rules of the game: the principals of climate change
communications, London.

consumption using neutralization theory”, Family
and Consumer Sciences Research Journal, Vol. 36,
Issue 3, pp. 261-276.
Minor, W.W. (1981) ‘Techniques of neutralization: a re-

Grove, S.J., S.J. Vitell and D. Strutton (1989) “Non-nor-conceptualization and empirical examination’,mative customer behaviour and the techniques of

Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency,

neutralisation”, Proceedings of the 1989 AMA
Winter Educators Conference, pp. 131-135.
Henry, P.C. (2010) “How mainstream consumers thinkVol. 18, Issue 2, pp. 295-318.
Mintel (2003) Organic foods UK, London: MINTEL International Group.

about consumer rights and responsibilities”, Jour-

Mitchell, V. and J. Chan (2002) ‘Investigating UK con-nal of Consumer Research, Vol. 37, Issue 4, pp. 670-

sumer’s unethical attitude and behaviours’, Jour-687.

nal of Marketing Management, Vol. 18, Issue 1, pp.

Hofstede, G. (1991) Cultures and organizations, Software of the Mind: intercultural cooperation and its

5-26.
Mitchell, V.W., G. Balabanis, B.B. Schlegelmilch andimportance for survival, London: Harper Collins.

T.B. Cornwell (2009) ‘Measuring unethical con-Holland, R.W., R.M. Meertens and M. Van Vugt (2002)

sumer behaviour across four countries’, Journal of“Dissonance on the road: self-esteem as a modera-

Business Ethics, Vol. 88, Issue 2, pp. 395-412.

tor of internal and external self-justification strate-

O’Fallon, M.J. and K.D. Butterfield (2005) ‘A review ofgies”, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,the empirical ethical decision-making literature:

Vol. 28, Issue 12, pp. 1713-1724.

1996-2003’, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 59, Is-

Irwin, J.E. (2015) ‘Ethical consumerism isn’t dead, it

sue 4, pp. 375-413.

just needs better marketing’, Harvard Business

Padel, S. and C. Foster (2005) ‘Exploring the gap be-

Review, Jan 12, 2015, Available at https://hbr.

tween attitudes and behaviour: understandingorg/2015/01/ethical-consumerism-isnt-dead-it-just-

why consumers buy or do not buy organic food’,

needs-better-marketing, Accessed on 9 March2017.
Kaiser, F.G., and H. Scheuthle (2002) “Two challenges

British Food Journal, Vol. 107, Issue 8, pp. 606-625.
Peattie, K. (2001) ‘Golden goose or wild goose? The
Hunt for the Green Consumer’, Business Strategy

40

招待論文 /Invited Articles

and the Environment, Vol. 10, Issue 4, pp. 187-199.
Raats, M., R. Shepherd and P. Sparks (1992) ‘Including

tion’, Marketing Intelligence and Planning, Vol. 14,
Issue 5, pp. 5-13.

Moral Dimensions of Choice Within the Structure

Strutton, D., S.J. Vitell and L.E. Pelton (1994) ‘How con-of Theory of Planned Behavior,’ Journal of Applied

sumers may justify inappropriate behaviour in

Social Psychology, Vol. 25, Issue 6, pp. 484-494.

market settings: an application on the techniques

Rawwas, M.Y.A. (1996) ‘Consumer Ethics: An Empiri-of neutralization’, Journal of Business Research,cal Investigation of the Ethical Beliefs of AustrianConsumer,’ Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 15, No.
9, pp. 1009-1019.
Rivis, A. and P. Sheeran (2003) ‘Descriptive norms as

Vol. 30, Issue 3, pp. 253-260.
Swaidan, Z. (2012) ‘Culture and Consumer Ethics,’
Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 108, No. 2, pp.
201-213an additional predictor in the theory of planned

Sykes, G.M. and D. Matza (1957) ‘Techniques of neu-

behaviour: a meta-analysis’, Current Psychology,

tralization: a theory of delinquency’, American So-

Vol. 22, Issue 3, pp. 218-233.

ciological Review, Vol. 22, No. 6, pp. 664-670.

Sagoff, M. (2007) The economy of the earth: philosophy,

Tonglet, M., P.S. Phillips and A.D. Read (2004) ‘Using

law, and environment, 2nd edition, New York:the theory of planned behaviour to investigate theCambridge University Press.

determinants of recycling behaviour: a case study

Shaw, D. and I. Clarke (1999) ‘Belief formation in ethical consumer groups: an exploratory study’, Marketing Intelligence and Planning, Vol. 17, Issue 2,
pp. 109-120.
――, E. Shiu and I. Clarke (2000) ‘The contribution of

from Brixworth, UK’, Resources, Conservation andRecycling, Vol. 41, Issue 3, pp. 191-214.
Uusitalo, O. and R. Oksanen (2004) ‘Ethical consumerism: a view from Finland’, International Journal ofConsumer Studies, Vol. 28, Issue 3, pp. 214-221.

ethical obligation and self-identity to the theory ofVallerand, R.J., P. Deshaies, J. Cuerrier, L.G. Pelletier

planned behaviour: an exploration of ethical con-and C. Mongeau (1992) ‘Ajzen and Fishbein’s tho-sumers’, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 16,

ery of reasoned action as applied to moral behav-

Issue 8, pp. 879-894.

iour: a confirmatory analysis’, Journal of Personali-――. and E. Shiu (2003) ‘Ethics in consumer choice: amultivariate modelling approach’, European Jour-ty and Social Psychology, Vol. 62(1), pp. 98-109.
Valor, C. (2007) ‘The influence of information about la-nal of Marketing, Vol. 37, Issue 10, pp. 1485-1498.

bour abuses on consumer choice of clothes: a――, E. Grehan, E. Shiu, L. Hassan and J. Thomson

grounded theory approach’, Journal of Marketing(2005) ‘An exploration of values in ethical consumer decision making’, Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Vol. 4, Issue 3, pp. 185-200.
Sparks, P. and R. Shepherd (1992) ‘Self-identity and theManagement, Vol. 23, Issue 7-8, pp. 675-695.
Vitell, S.J. (2003) ‘Consumer ethics research: review,
synthesis and suggestions for the future’, Journalof Business Ethics, Vol. 43, Issue 1, pp. 33-47.

theory of planned behaviour: assessing the role ofYoung, W., K. Hwang, S. McDonald and C.J. Oates

identification with “green consumerism”’, Social(2010) ‘Sustainable consumption: green consumer

Psychology Quarterly, Vol. 55, No. 4, pp. 388-399.

behaviour when purchasing products’, Sustainable

Strong, C. (1996) ‘Features contributing to the growthof ethical consumerism: a preliminary investiga-

Development, Vol. 18, Issue 1, pp. 20-31.

Understanding Consumer Behaviour for Social Change

Appendix 1

41

Techniques of neutralization (Sykes and Matza, 1957; adopted from Chatzidakis,
Hibbert and Smith, 2007, p.90)

Denial of responsibility

Is when a person takes no responsibility for her/his actions; on the contrary she/he blames factors outside of her/his control (e.g. It is not my fault, I
had no other choices).

Denial of injury

Is when a person claims that no one got hurt by her/his behaviour andshe/he claims that she/he did not cause any harm. This technique also includes the attitude that her/his behaviour will not make a difference or create an impact (e.g. What’s the big deal, nobody will miss it).

Denial of victim

Is when a person justifies her/his behaviour by claiming that it is a rightthing to do considering the circumstance (e.g. It is their fault; if they had beenfair with me, I would not have done it).

Condemning the condemners

Is when a person places blame on the people condemning her/him insteadof on her/himself (e.g. it is a joke they should find fault with me, after the rip-offs
they have engineered).

Appeal to higher loyalties

Is when a person is caught in a circumstance that needs to be resolved bybehaviour that violates the norms (e.g. to some what I did may appear wrong,but I did it for my family).

42

招待論文 /Invited Articles

Appendix 2

Items (7-point scale, Disagree – Agree unless others noted)

Intention

1 . I expect to purchase an ethical product the next time I do my shopping.
2 . I want to purchase an ethical product the next time I do my shopping.
3 . I intend to purchase an ethical product the next time I do my shopping.

Attitude

4 . My purchasing an ethical product will encourage retailers to stock ethical products.
5 . My purchasing an ethical product will result in my peace of mind.
6 . I believe buying ethical products is ... (unimportant – important)
7 . I believe supporting ethical companies is ... (unimportant – important)
8 . In general, purchasing ethical products is ... (harmful – beneficial)
9 . In general, purchasing ethical products is ... (unpleasant – pleasant)Subjective Norm

10. My family thinks I should purchase ethical products.
11. My friends think I should purchase ethical products.
12. I tend to do what my family thinks I should do.
13. I tend to do what my friends think I should do.
14. Most people who are important to me think I should purchase ethical products.
15. It is expected of me to purchase ethical products

Perceived
BehaviouralControl

16. The availability of the ethical products will not affect my purchase (item deleted due
to poor fit).
17. I am in charge in making decision to purchase ethical products.
18. I am confident that I could purchase ethical products if I wanted to.
19. For me the purchase of ethical products is easy.

Ethical Obligation

20. I feel that I have an ethical obligation to purchase ethical products.
21. It would be morally right to purchase ethical products.

Self-identity

22. I think of myself as someone who is concerned about ethical issues.
23. I want other people to see me as a person who is concerned about ethical issues.

Techniques of
Neutralisation

24. I do not purchase ethical products because it is not my responsibility.
25. I do not purchase ethical products because not buying them will not cause any serious injuries.
26. I do not purchase ethical products because I care more about people who surroundme such as my family and friends.
27. I do not purchase ethical products because firms manufacture their products unethically. If the products had been produced ethically, I would not have bought unethical ones.
26. I do not purchase ethical products because it is the firms that are at fault. They engineer methods of exploitation that have nothing to do with me.