Int. J. Social Entrepreneurship and Innovation, Vol. 2, No.

1, 2013

21

The relationship between consumers religiosity and

risk perceptions surrounding the use of SNS
Thamer Ahmad Baazeem*,
Ursula-Sigrid Bougoure and
Larry Neale
QUT Business School,
Queensland University of Technology,
2 George St., GPO BOX 2434, Brisbane QLD 4001, Australia
E-mail: thamer.baazeem@connect.qut.edu.au
E-mail: u.bougoure@qut.edu.au
E-mail: l.neale@qut.edu.au
*Corresponding author
Abstract: Religion remains a significant influence on many consumers lives,
affecting consumer behaviour in terms of moral standards, thoughts, judgments,
attitudes, and actions. In previous research, religion has been shown to affect
consumer decision making, and ethical judgments towards the marketers and
the communication tools they use. However, due to the sensitivity of issues
surrounding religious beliefs and actions, religiosity related to consumer
behaviour has remained an under-researched area. Furthermore, social
networking sites (SNS) such as Twitter and Facebook have become a
significant part of millions of lives around the world. The importance of
religion and the importance of SNSs in peoples lives provide high possibility
for interactive relationships between them. Hence, there is still a need not only
to develop a theoretical explanation of how individual religiosity impacts
consumer behaviour, but also to improve our theoretical understanding of the
relationship between consumers religiosity and risk perceptions surrounding
the use of SNS. Based on insight from Hunt-Vitells General Theory of
Marketing Ethics (1986), this paper develops a conceptual argument that aims
to improve our theoretical understanding of the relationship between
consumers religiosity and risk perceptions surrounding the use of SNS.
Keywords: consumer religiosity;
perceptions; consumer behaviour.

social

networking;

consumer

risk

Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Baazeem, T.A.,

Bougoure, U-S. and Neale, L. (2013) The relationship between consumers
religiosity and risk perceptions surrounding the use of SNS, Int. J. Social
Entrepreneurship and Innovation, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp.2132.
Biographical notes: Thamer Ahmad Baazeem is a PhD student at QUT
Business School, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia.
Ursula-Sigrid Bougoure is a Lecturer in Marketing at QUT Business School,
Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia.
Larry Neale is an Associate Professor in Marketing at QUT Business School,
Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia.

Copyright 2013 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.

22

T.A. Baazeem et al.

This paper is a revised and expanded version of a paper entitled The impact of
consumer religiosity on consumer perceived risks of using social networking
sites presented at 2nd Global Islamic Marketing Conference, Abu Dhabi,
January 2012.

Introduction

Individual religiosity plays an important role in constructing knowledge, beliefs, values

and social normative systems (Swimberghe et al., 2011). Accordingly, religiosity has an
effect on determining buyer behaviour. This means that some businesses may experience
major consumer criticism when they have made marketplace moves that upset some
consumers sense of religion and religious values. For instance, Wal-Mart in the USA
experienced consumer backlash from its regular customers when it decided to adopt the
term holiday instead of the culturally appropriate Christian term for Christmas.
Similar criticism was meted out by Wal-Marts consumers when it announced its support
for same sex marriages (Swimberghe et al., 2011).
Additionally, in Saudi Arabia, where Saudis believe that religion is the most
significant element of their identity (Moaddel, 2006) and religious power continues to be
exercised by religious scholars in tandem with political leaders (Kechichian, 1986),
interestingly, when any new technology is imported into the country, religious scholars
and many citizens accuse these products of being potentially damaging to the religiously
conservative nature of the country. This is particularly the case with products that
improve lifestyle and communication such as mobile cameras and the internet. This
criticism has consistently occurred over the past 100 years, from the time of market entry
of telephones to Saudi Arabia, through to todays social networking sites (SNS) such as
Facebook and Twitter. While such forms of technology faced much religious criticism
when first introduced to Saudi Arabia, they are now popular with the general public as
well as the conservative religious scholars. In fact, according to Alriyadh, a Saudi
newspaper, as of May 2010, 2.3 million Saudis use Facebook; yet when Facebook was
first introduced to the country, some religious scholars highly criticised its use. Also,
according to Asharq Al-Awsat, a Saudi newspaper based in London, at the end of 2010
the percentage of Saudis who use Twitter has increased by 240% since the end of 2009.
Such changes in Saudi consumer behaviour are not understood and pose a number of
questions. Why has there been such a huge transition from mass, religious criticism to
mass consumer adoption? Do religious scholars have an influence on consumer
behaviour? What happened to the religious criticisms and why have they been relaxed
while Saudi Arabia remains such a religiously conservative nation? How do consumers
perceive the risk of new trends of social networking media? Do marketers need to
consider religiosity in Saudi Arabia at all? This paper provides a conceptual research
framework based on the general theory of marketing ethics and attempts to address some
of these questions.
In doing so, this paper furthers our conceptual knowledge in the area of consumer
religiosity by trying to understand the impact of personal religiosity on consumer social
and psychological risk perception associated with the adoption and use of SNS
technology. The remainder of this paper is structured as follows. First, the SNS and their
relationship with religions are discussed. Second, religion and religiosity are defined.

The relationship between consumers religiosity and risk perceptions

23

Third, descriptions of previous research that link religiosity with consumer behaviour are
discussed. Fourth, consumer risk perceptions are explained. Finally, gap identification,
research questions, and a conceptual framework are specified.

1.1 Social networking sites

SNS attract millions of users around the world. According to Boyd and Webb (2008,
p.211), social networking is defined as web-based services that allow anyone to create a
public or semi-public profile within an enclosed system, articulate a list of other users
with whom they share a connection, and view and traverse their list of connections as
well as those made by others within the system. Examples of social networking include
MySpace, Facebook, Cyworld, Twitter, and Google+.
Recently, many users have integrated these networks into their daily life, especially
via the use of sophisticated smart phones. While the technological features of SNS are
practically consistent, the cultures behind them are varied (Boyd and Webb, 2008). In
line with their pervasiveness in modern life, SNS have increasingly attracted the attention
of academic researchers who seek to examine and understand online consumer behaviour
(Boyd and Webb, 2008; Sean et al., 2009).
Religiosity affects the relationships and communication behaviour between
individuals, families, groups and communities (Choi, 2010; Tarakeshwar et al., 2003),
which means it can feature significantly for SNS. While SNSs are very popular among
people, especially the younger demographic, there have been growing fears from some
religious scholars with regards to the consequences of using these sites (Nyland and Near,
2007). For instance, the amount of time people spend using SNS may inhibit their
observance of religious practices. Also, using SNS opens communication between the
genders and that might be considered a threat in a conservative Muslim society like Saudi
Arabia. Moreover, a recent comment came from the grand mufti of Saudi Arabia in a
speech on 27 January 2012 when he warned Muslims about Twitter and said it promotes
lies and badly challenges religious and social figures; he ended his talk by asking
Muslims to stay away from Twitter. Despite these concerns, there has been a significant
lack of research addressing the correlation between religiosity and consumer behaviour in
using SNS (Ess et al., 2007; Livingstone, 2008). Before we continue, the following
section will define and describe religion and religiosity.

Religion and religiosity

Despite research interest spanning decades, there is still no generally accepted definition
of religion (Guthrie et al., 1980; Hood et al., 2009). There are practically as many
definitions as authors and most of the definitions satisfy only their authors (Hood et al.,
2009; Wilkes et al., 1986). However, despite the lack of conventional definition, religion
remains one of the most significant components of socio-cultural life, affecting the
values, behaviours, individualities, perceptions and beliefs of those who follow it (Cohen
and Hill, 2007). Moreover, since religion influences the relationships among individuals,
families, groups, communities, and countries (Choi, 2010; Tarakeshwar et al., 2003), it
significantly contributes to shaping consumers market-related behaviours.
Personal religiosity is defined by McDaniel and Burnett (1990, p.103), as a belief in
God accompanied by a commitment to follow principles believed to be set forth by God.

24

T.A. Baazeem et al.

According to Vitell and Paolillo (2003), personal religiosity represents a central

determinant of values and human convictions. Allport and Ross (1967) claim that there
are two different forms of religiosity. First, the intrinsic form assigns religion a high
significance in organising an individuals life. Second, extrinsic religiosity considers
religion a tool to enhance mutual recognition in the social environment. Recent research
affirms these two forms of religiosity (see, for example, Clark and Dawson, 1996; Muncy
and Vitell, 1992; Swimberghe et al., 2011; Vitell, 2009; Vitell and Paolillo, 2003)
Furthermore, demographic characteristics like age, gender, education, and social class
highly contribute to the prediction of an individuals level of religiosity (Welch, 1981;
Wilkes et al., 1986). For instance, Choi (2010) states that people tend to be more
religious as they get older. Moreover, some researchers argue that females are more
religious than males (Dutta, 1965; Miller and Hoffmann, 1995). Others observe that
middle class and higher educated persons are more religious (Deaton, 2009;
Schuman, 1971).
What remains unsolved is the discrepancy between individual behaviour and the
prescriptions of religious scholars which may influence individual religiosity (Arland
et al., 1992). In order to begin to address this, the following section will discuss the
theoretical background of the relationship between consumer religiosity and consumer
behaviour.

Religiosity and consumer behaviour

Religiosity remains a significant influence in many peoples lives [Hood et al., (2009),
p.8]. It affects behaviour in terms of outlining and determining moral standards, thoughts,
judgments, attitudes, and actions (Choi, 2010; Schneider et al., 2011). In consumer
research, religion and religiosity have enjoyed a long history of research inquiry
(Hirschman, 1981; Wilkes et al., 1986). However, this history is not satisfactory to make
the area active in terms of the volume of research. Early research on the relationship
between religion and consumer behaviour formulated the construct of religious affiliation
or denominational membership (Delener, 1994; Hirschman, 1981, 1983). This approach
presented inadequate conclusions because of its fundamental assumption that the power
of religious affiliation is uniform across religious groups. This led to some difficulties in
distinguishing the effects of characteristics of religious affiliation from those of actual
religiousness (Swimberghe et al., 2011). To overcome the limitations of this approach,
two other approaches have been developed.
The first approach is the concept of general religiosity, introduced by Wilkes et al.
(1986). They state that if an individual perceives themselves to be religious, then that
perception will control both cognitive and co native aspects of their behaviour. This
means that religion is decidedly individual in nature, which makes its effects on
consumer behaviour dependent upon on an individuals level of religiosity. According to
Schneider et al. (2011), this approach lacks the differentiation between intrinsic and
extrinsic religiosity. For example, the three variables included in the study (the
importance of religious values, confidence in religious values, and self-perceived
religiousness) did not allow Vitell and Paolillo (2003) to empirically assess the
relationship between religiosity and consumer behaviour. This was due to the
non-differentiation between the items of intrinsic and extrinsic religiosity (Schneider
et al., 2011).

The relationship between consumers religiosity and risk perceptions

25

The second approach views religiosity from the perspective of religious commitment.
Religious commitment is considered to be the degree to which a person has religious
beliefs and the frequency of participation in regular religious practices (McDaniel and
Burnett, 1990). This approach suggests that religious commitment is crucial in explaining
the effect of religion on consumer behaviour (McDaniel and Burnett, 1990; Schneider
et al., 2011; Swimberghe et al., 2011). Religious commitment includes two dimensions,
an intra-personal dimension, which focuses on personal principles or religious
knowledge, and an inter-personal dimension, which concentrates on the level of
individual involvement in organised religious activities (McDaniel and Burnett, 1990;
Swimberghe et al., 2011).
These two approaches share the concept that the consumer is an individual, whereas
the earlier religious affiliation approach considered the religious group to be a whole and
assumed individual affiliation to the groups to be consistent. The development of these
different methods in determining the relationship between religion and consumer
behaviour shows how important consumer religion is and how it has led to further studies
in an attempt to gain a richer understanding of the impact of religion on consumer
behaviour.

3.1 Linking religiosity with consumer actions

A review of the literature shows established links between religion and consumer
behaviour from two different research streams. The first stream focuses on linking
religiosity with consumer evaluations and purchasing decisions. For instance, Wilkes
et al. (1986) argue that religiosity can be meaningfully related to consumer lifestyle.
McDaniel and Burnett (1990) investigated one aspect of religiosity, religious affiliation,
and found that religion may be significant in forecasting the significance individuals
place on certain retail store evaluative criteria. Delener (1990, 1994) examined the impact
of religious affiliations on buyers decision-making processes and found that differential
role behaviour changes according to religious influences; religious consumers are less
open-minded, less flexible, and more rigid in their decision making. Bailey and Sood
(1993) found that people of dissimilar religious affiliations have parallel consumer
behaviours across certain circumstances. Other research has tried to build upon earlier
work by exploring how shopping and purchasing behaviours are determined by religious
affiliation and religiosity in different contexts (see, for example, Mokhlis, 2006; Nittin
and Sally, 2004; Sood and Nasu, 1995). Overall, findings suggest that religion is essential
in the consumer-purchasing decision-making process.
The second research stream focuses on religion as a variable which may have a major
effect on consumer ethical judgments. Reidenbach and Robin (1990, p.640) define ethical
judgment as the individuals summary assessment as to the level to which matters or
activities in question are morally true or acceptable and are strongly influenced by a
persons understanding of fairness, right and wrong, and religious experience. As such,
in a consumer context, this means that consumers use their ethical judgments when
making marketplace decisions and purchases.
Hunt and Vitell (1986) developed a general theory of marketing ethics, which has
formed the basis of subsequent studies (see, for example, Clark and Dawson, 1996;
Schneider et al., 2011; Swimberghe et al., 2011; Vitell and Muncy, 1992, 2005; Vitell
and Paolillo, 2003). This theory is a process theory of ethical decision making. In
particular, it addresses the situation in which individuals comfort issues are perceived to

26

T.A. Baazeem et al.

be containing ethical content (Hunt and Vitell, 2006). It argues that individuals perceive
alternatives and evaluate those alternatives based on their personal characteristics,
cultural environment, professional environment, industrial environment, and
organisational environment. After that, individuals form ethical judgments based on an
evaluation of the alternatives. The results of the process are first, intentions and second,
behaviour. The theory proposes that ethical judgments differ from intentions because
normally intentions are finalised after making ethical judgments (Hunt and Vitell, 2006).
Furthermore, this theory drew on two major normative ethical theories in moral
philosophy, deontological and teleological (Hunt and Vitell, 1986). According to Hunt
and Vitell (2006), in the process of deontological evaluation, individuals evaluate
whether the behaviours implied by alternatives are right or wrong. The process involves
comparing alternatives with a set of pre-arranged deontological norms, which represent
some personal values or standards of moral behaviour. These norms range from personal
beliefs about honesty, stealing, cheating, and fairness, to issue-specific beliefs about
deceptive advertising, product security, sales, and confidentially of data. In contrast, also
according to Hunt and Vitell (2006), in the process of teleological evaluation, individuals
concentrate on three constructs. The first is the perceived consequences of alternatives.
The second is the probability of each consequence to occur. The third is the desirability
or undesirability of each consequence.
In addition, the theory suggests that individuals religiosity contributes to shaping
their ethical judgments. The authors included religion among the variables of cultural
environment and the variables of personal characteristics, which influence perceptions of
circumstances, options, and consequences. Moreover, according to the theory, a person
with a high level of religiosity will tend to adhere more to an absolute religious law, or
deontology, and be less concerned with situational influences, or teleology, than the
person who has a lower level of religiosity (Hunt and Vitell, 1986, 2006; Reidenbach and
Robin, 1990). Accordingly, Cornwell et al. (2005) confirm that consumers high in
religiosity bestow additional importance to absolute laws and deontology and
increasingly reject situational reflections, or teleology.
Swimberghe et al. (2011) confirm that consumers form ethical judgments and
evaluate marketers actions. Also, they found that ethical judgments are a major
explanatory variable in consumers intentions to voice complaint, third party complaint,
and to boycott. Their approach adopts a framework from the general theory of marketing
ethics. They make the consumers ethical judgment a mediator between consumer
religiosity and consumer behavioural outcomes. They further argue that a consumers
ethical judgment arises mainly from how one internalises religious values rather than the
participatory or organisational component of their religious experiences. Although their
findings support the view that individual religiosity affects the formation of ethical
judgments, they ignore other personal characteristics in the theory of marketing ethics
affecting consumer ethical judgment such as value systems, belief systems, strength of
moral character, cognitive moral development, and ethical sensitivity. Those factors can
be grouped as non-religious ethical antecedents. Therefore, distinguishing between the
impact of the level of an individuals religiosity and the impact of non-religious ethical
antecedents on the formation of ethical judgments will provide better understanding of
the relationship between consumer religiosity and consumer behaviour.
Overall, two research streams have investigated the correlation between consumer
religiosity and consumer behaviour. The first one focused on the buyers decision-making
process. The major finding of this stream was that consumers with a low level of

The relationship between consumers religiosity and risk perceptions

27

religiosity tend to be more tolerant, more flexible, and less rigid than people with a higher
level of religiosity. The second stream tried to focus on using the approach of the general
theory of marketing ethics to identify the relationship. The major finding of this stream
was that consumers level of religiosity formed ethical judgments towards companies
products and communication tools, which led to consumer complaints, third party
complaints or boycotts. However, there is no research which distinguishes between the
contribution of the levels of an individuals religiosity and the contribution of
non-religious ethical antecedents such as value systems, belief systems, strength of moral
character, cognitive moral development, and ethical sensitivity in forming ethical
judgments. The concept of distinguishing between the level of religiosity and other
antecedents will improve our understanding of the level of importance of religiosity in
forming consumers behaviour. The following section briefly explains the consumer risk
perception.

Consumer risk perception

Consumer risk perceptions are widely considered to be one of the most influential factors
affecting consumer behaviour (Mitchell, 1999). In fact, the importance of perceived risk
stems from its great potential to explain differences in behaviour of consumers (Mitchell,
1999). It is defined as a consumers subjective feeling that there is some probability that
a choice may lead to undesirable outcome [Cunningham, (1967), p.83].
In addition, perceived risk is conceptualised as a multi-dimensional phenomenon
(Mitchell and Harris, 2005). The following dimensions have been described by Garner
(1986).
1

social, the risk that the selection of the object will negatively influence the
perception of others about the buyer

financial, the risk that the object used will not return the best possible monetary
gain for the consumer

physical, the risk that the performance of the object will result in a health hazard to
the consumer

performance, the risk that the object used will not be realised in a manner that will
result in customer satisfaction

time, the risk that the consumer will waste time, lose convenience or waste effort in
getting the object serviced

psychological, the risk that the selection or performance of the object will have a
negative effect on the consumers peace of mind or self perception.

These dimensions of perceived risk have been found to significantly affect the consumer
decision-making process, particularly at the consumer problem recognition stage [see, for
example, Cox, (1967), p.120; Cox and Rich, 1964] and also in post-purchase behaviour
(see, for example, LaBarbera and Mazursky, 1983; Mitchell, 1992).
Perceived risk receives special treatment from both practitioners and academics and
has been considered in a broad range of areas including intercultural comparisons, food
technology, dental services, banking, and apparel catalogue shopping (Mitchell, 1999). In

28

T.A. Baazeem et al.

terms of linking perceived risk with religiosity, Delener (1990) investigated dissimilar
characteristics of the predicted relationship between religiosity and perceived risk in
purchase decisions of durable goods. Results suggest that religious consumers are more
likely to be sensitive to any potentially negative consequences of their buying decisions,
such as poor performance of an automobile or a microwave oven, than non-religious
consumers. However, this study was limited to durable goods and concentrated on the
performance and financial dimensions of perceived risk. The following section specifies
the gap identification, research questions, and the conceptual framework.

Research questions and conceptual framework

The previous brief review of literature shows that despite the importance of religiosity in
the lives of many consumers, there is still much we have to learn (Cleveland and Chang,
2009). For example, few studies have attempted to measure how consumer religiosity
affects buyer behaviour in the market place (Swimberghe et al., 2011). Moreover, there
are calls in the literature for research that develop a theoretical explanation for
how religion affects consumer behaviour (Farah and Newman, 2010; Swimberghe
et al., 2011).
Figure 1

Preliminary conceptual model

Non-religious
ethical antecedents:
Value system
Belief system
Strength of moral
character
Cognitive moral
development
Ethical sensitivity

Perceived risk of
using SNS

Psychological risk
Consumer ethical
judgments
Social risk

Consumer
religiosity

Source: Adopted from Swimberghe et al. (2011) based on the general theory
of marketing ethics (Hunt and Vitell, 2006)

In a conservative Islamic society like Saudi Arabia, using SNS can introduce challenges
to the culture, since users may overstep some religious boundaries. From the consumer
perspective this may lead to concern about the perception of others about them, and other
social risks. Furthermore, it may also lead to an effect on the consumers self perception,
or psychological risk perception. These two classes of perceptions are formed by
individual religiosity, which leads to our main research question:

The relationship between consumers religiosity and risk perceptions

29

RQ1 How does consumer religiosity affect consumer-perceived social and

psychological risks associated with the adoption and use of SNS in a
conservatively religious society?
The Preliminary Conceptual Model in Figure 1 provides a visual representation of the
proposed relationship between religiosity and social and psychological risks associated
with SNS using consumer ethical judgment as a mediator based on the general theory of
marketing ethics (Hunt and Vitell, 2006; Swimberghe et al., 2011). Also, it distinguishes
non-religious ethical antecedents such as value systems, belief systems, strength of moral
character, cognitive moral development, and ethical sensitivity (see Figure 1).
However, Wilkes et al. (1986) state that demographics such as age, gender, education,
and social class reveal numerous religiosity structural variable relationships of interest.
This means that these demographic variables contribute to the relationship between
consumer religiosity and consumer-perceived social and psychological risks of using
SNS, which leads to our second research question:
RQ2 What are the roles of demographic characteristics, such as age, gender, education,
and social class, in forming the relationship between consumer religiosity and
consumer-perceived social and psychological risks associated with the adoption
and use of SNS?
In addition, some discontinuities may occur between individual behaviour and the
guidance of religious scholars, which may influence individual levels of religiosity
(Arland et al., 1992). In Saudi Arabia, religious scholars have criticised SNS, claiming
that they violate the boundaries of some fundamental religious laws. Some individuals
have followed them and others have not. However, with the passage of time, SNS have
become highly admired among many individuals, and even among various religious
scholars themselves. Previous research has not explained this change of opinion.
Characteristics of individual attitudes towards religious leaders may contribute
significantly to the model shown in Figure 1 to provide a better understanding of the
relationship between religiosity and risk perceptions. This leads to the third research
question:
RQ3 How do consumers attitudes towards religious leaders affect the relationship
between consumer religiosity and consumer-perceived social and psychological
risks associated with the adoption and use of SNS?

Conclusions

The main aim of this conceptual article is to improve the theoretical understanding of
how religion affects consumer behaviour by providing a comprehensive review of the
relevant literature and also by proposing a conceptual framework adopted from the
approach of the general theory of marketing ethics. It is assumed that the perceived social
and psychological risks of SNS are affected by the level of consumer religiosity and are
mediated by consumer ethical judgments. Also, non-religious ethical values and religious
ethical values are distinguished. Furthermore, the role of individual demographics and the
opinions of religious scholars in constructing the influences of religiosity on consumer
risk perception are considered.

30

T.A. Baazeem et al.

Finally, this paper contributes to the current research in three ways. Firstly, it is
suggested that distinguishing between non-religious ethical antecedents and religious
values will improve our understanding of the relationship between religiosity and
consumer-perceived social and psychological risks associated with the adoption and use
of SNS. Secondly, exploring the demographic effects on this relationship will improve
the understanding of the nature of religiositys influences on consumer behaviour.
Thirdly, exploring the role of the opinions of religious scholars on the relationship
between religiosity and consumer behaviour will contribute to a theoretical understanding
of the role of religiosity in how consumers perceive the risk of any new technology
coming to a conservative society.

References
Allport, G.W. and Ross, J.M. (1967) Personal religious orientation and prejudice, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 5, No. 4, pp.432443, doi:10.1037/h0021212.
Arland, T., Axinn, W.G. and Hill, D.H. (1992) Reciprocal effects of religiosity, cohabitation, and
marriage, American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 98, No. 3, pp.628651.
Bailey, J.M. and Sood, J. (1993) The effects of religious affiliation on consumer behavior: a
preliminary investigation, Journal of Managerial Issues, Vol. 5, No. 3, pp.328352.
Boyd, D.E. and Webb, K.L. (2008) Interorganizational ethical conflict within alliances: a
conceptual framework and research propositions, Journal of Business-to-Business Marketing,
Vol. 15, No. 1, pp.124, doi:10.1080/15470620801946397.
Choi, Y. (2010) Religion, religiosity, and South Korean consumer switching behaviors, Journal
of Consumer Behaviour, Vol. 9, No. 3, pp.157171, doi:10.1002/cb.292.
Clark, J.W. and Dawson, L.E. (1996) Personal religiousness and ethical judgements: an empirical
analysis, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 15, No. 3, pp.359372, doi:10.1007/bf00382959.
Cleveland, M. and Chang, W. (2009) Migration and materialism: the roles of ethnic identity,
religiosity, and generation, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 62, No. 10, pp.963971,
doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2008.05.022.
Cohen, A.B. and Hill, P.C. (2007) Religion as culture: religious individualism and collectivism
among American Catholics, Jews, and Protestants, Journal of Personality, Vol. 75, No. 4,
pp.709742, doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2007.00454.x.
Cornwell, B., Cui, C.C., Mitchell, V. and Schlegelmilch, B. (2005) A cross-cultural study of the
role of religion in consumers ethical positions, International Marketing Review, Vol. 22,
No. 5, pp.531546.
Cox, D. (1967) Introduction, in Cox, D.F. (Ed.): Risk Taking and Information Handling in
Consumer Behaviour, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, USA.
Cox, D. and Rich, S. (1964) Perceived risk and consumer decision-making the case of telephone
shopping, Journal of Marketing Research (pre-1986), Vol. 1, No. 000004, pp.3232.
Cunningham, S.M. (1967) The major dimensions of perceived risk, in Cox, D.F. (Ed.): Risk
Taking and Information Handling in Consumer Behaviour, pp.28108, Graduate School of
Business Administration, Boston, MA, USA.
Deaton, A. (2009) Aging, Religion and Health, August, National Bureau of Economic Research
(NBER) Working Paper No. 15271, [online] http://www.nber.org/papers/w15271 (accessed
18 August 2011).
Delener, N. (1990) The effects of religious factors on perceived risk in durable goods purchase
decisions, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 7, No. 3, pp.2738.
Delener, N. (1994) Religious contrasts in consumer decision behaviour patterns: their dimensions
and marketing implications, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 28, No. 5, pp.3653.

The relationship between consumers religiosity and risk perceptions

31

Dutta, N.K. (1965) Attitudes of university students towards religion, Journal of Psychological
Research, Vol. 9, No. 3, pp.127130.
Ess, C., Kawabata, A. and Kurosaki, H. (2007) Cross-cultural perspectives on religion and
computer-mediated communication, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, Vol. 12,
No. 3, pp.939955, doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00357.x.
Farah, M.F. and Newman, A.J. (2010) Exploring consumer boycott intelligence using a
socio-cognitive approach, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 63, No. 4, pp.347355,
doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2009.03.019.
Garner, S. (1986) Perceived risk and information sources in services purchasing, The
Mid-Atlantic Journal of Business, Vol. 24, No. 2, p.49.
Guthrie, S., Agassi, J., Andriolo, K.R., Buchdahl, D., Earhart, H.B., Greenberg, M. and Tissot, G.
(1980) A cognitive theory of religion [and comments and reply], Current Anthropology,
Vol. 21, No. 2, pp.181203.
Hirschman, E.C. (1981) American Jewish ethnicity: its relationship to some selected aspects of
consumer behavior, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 45, No. 3, pp.102102.
Hirschman, E.C. (1983) Cognitive structure across consumer ethnic subcultures: a comparative
analysis, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 10, No. 1, p.197.
Hood, R.W., Hill, P.C. and Spilka, B. (2009) The Psychology of Religion: An Empirical Approach
4th ed., The Guildford Press, New York, USA.
Hunt, S.D. and Vitell, S. (1986) A general theory of marketing ethics, Journal of
Macromarketing, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp.516, doi:10.1177/027614678600600103.
Hunt, S.D. and Vitell, S.J. (2006) The general theory of marketing ethics: a revision and three
questions, Journal of Macromarketing, Vol. 26, No. 2, pp.143153,
doi:10.1177/0276146706290923.
Kechichian, J.A. (1986) The role of the Ulama in the politics of an Islamic state: the case of Saudi
Arabia, International Journal of Middle East Studies, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp.5371.
LaBarbera, P.A. and Mazursky, D. (1983) A longitudinal assessment of consumer
satisfaction/dissatisfaction: the dynamic aspect of the cognitive process, Journal of Marketing
Research (pre-1986), Vol. 20, No. 000004, pp.393393.
Livingstone, S. (2008) Taking risky opportunities in youthful content creation: teenagers use of
social networking sites for intimacy, privacy and self-expression, New Media & Society,
Vol. 10, No. 3, pp.393411, doi:10.1177/1461444808089415.
McDaniel, S. and Burnett, J. (1990) Consumer religiosity and retail store evaluative criteria,
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 18, No. 2, pp.101112,
doi:10.1007/bf02726426.
Miller, A.S. and Hoffmann, J.P. (1995) Risk and religion: an explanation of gender differences in
religiosity, Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, Vol. 34, No. 1, p.63.
Mitchell, V-W. (1992) Understanding consumers behaviour: can perceived risk theory help?,
Management Decision, Vol. 30, No. 3, pp.2631.
Mitchell, V-W. (1999) Consumer perceived risk: conceptualisations and models, European
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 33, Nos. 1/2, pp.163195.
Mitchell, V-W. and Harris, G. (2005) The importance of consumers perceived risk in retail
strategy, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 39, Nos. 7/8, pp.821837.
Moaddel, M. (2006) The Saudi public speak: religion, gender, politics, International Journal of
Middle East Studies, Vol. 38, No. 01, pp.79108, doi:10.1017/S0020743806412265.
Mokhlis, S. (2006) The effect of religiosity on shopping orientation: an exploratory study in
Malaysia, Journal of American Academy of Business, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp.6474, Cambridge.
Muncy, J.A. and Vitell, S.J. (1992) Consumer ethics: an investigation of the ethical beliefs of the
final consumer, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 24, No. 4, pp.297311,
doi:10.1016/0148-2963(92)90036-b.

32

T.A. Baazeem et al.

Nittin, E. and Sally, D. (2004) Religious influences on shopping behaviour: an exploratory study,
Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 20, Nos. 78, pp.683712.
Nyland, R. and Near, C. (2007) Jesus is my friend: religiosity as a mediating factor in internet
social networking use, paper presented at The AEJMC Midwinter Conference, 2324
February, Reno, Nevada, USA.
Reidenbach, R.E. and Robin, D.P. (1990) Toward the development of a multidimensional scale for
improving evaluations of business ethics, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 9, No. 8,
pp.639653, doi:10.1007/bf00383391.
Schneider, H., Krieger, J. and Bayraktar, A. (2011) The impact of intrinsic religiosity on
consumers ethical beliefs: does it depend on the type of religion? A comparison of Christian
and Moslem consumers in Germany and Turkey, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 102, No. 2,
pp.319332, doi:10.1007/s10551-011-0816-y.
Schuman, H. (1971) The religious factor in Detroit: review, replication, and reanalysis, American
Sociological Review, February, Vol. 36, pp.3048.
Sean, Y., Debo, D. and Gopal, D. (2009) Extrapolating psychological Insights from Facebook
profiles: a study of religion and relationship status, CyberPsychology & Behavior, Vol. 12,
No. 3, pp.347350.
Sood, J. and Nasu, Y. (1995) Religiosity and nationality: an exploratory study of their effect on
consumer behavior in Japan and the United States, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 34,
No. 1, pp.19, doi:10.1016/0148-2963(94)00015-7.
Swimberghe, K., Flurry, L. and Parker, J. (2011) Consumer religiosity: consequences for
consumer activism in the United States, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 103, No. 3, pp.115,
doi:10.1007/s10551-011-0873-2.
Tarakeshwar, N., Stanton, J. and Pargament, K.I. (2003) Religion, Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology, Vol. 34, No. 4, pp.377394, doi:10.1177/0022022103034004001.
Vitell, S. (2009) The role of religiosity in business and consumer ethics: a review of the literature,
Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 90, No. 0, pp.155167, doi:10.1007/s10551-010-0382-8.
Vitell, S. and Muncy, J. (2005) The Muncy-Vitell consumer ethics scale: a modification and
application, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 62, No. 3, pp.267275,
doi:10.1007/s10551-005-7058-9.
Vitell, S.J. and Muncy, J. (1992) Consumer ethics: an empirical investigation of factors
influencing ethical judgments of the final consumer, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 11,
No. 8, pp.585597, doi:10.1007/bf00872270.
Vitell, S.J. and Paolillo, J.G.P. (2003) Consumer ethics: the role of religiosity, Journal of
Business Ethics, Vol. 46, No. 2, pp.151162, doi:10.1023/a:1025081005272.
Welch, K.W. (1981) An interpersonal influence model of traditional religious commitment,
Sociological Quarterly, Vol. 22, No. 1, pp.8192, doi:10.1111/j.1533-8525.1981.tb02210.x.
Wilkes, R., Burnett, J. and Howell, R. (1986) On the meaning and measurement of religiosity in
consumer research, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp.4756,
doi:10.1007/bf02722112.