The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/1361-2026.htm

ACADEMIC PAPER Unethical

consumer
Associations of unethical behavior
consumer behavior and social
365
attitudes
Received February 2006
Karen S. Callen-Marchione Accepted July 2007
Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, Ohio, USA, and
Shiretta F. Ownbey
Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, Oklahoma, USA

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to investigate young adult consumers’ (i.e. university
undergraduates’) evaluations of consumer behavior scenarios as ethical or unethical in relation to the
respondents’ philosophies of human nature.
Design/methodology/approach – An existing ethical decision making model in marketing was
applied to consumer ethical decision-making. Based upon the model, the marketer’s solution to ethical
dilemmas is influenced by factors such as attitudes. This study focused on a specific type of attitude
(philosophies of human nature). Subjects completed a questionnaire that contained philosophies of
human nature (PHN) items and three consumer behavior scenarios. Factor analysis was conducted on
the PHN scale to assist in factoring items into subscales. One-way analysis of variance was used to
determine if a relationship existed between consumer ethical response scores and responses to the
PHN scale.
Findings – For two of the PHN factors, the consumer ethical response scores differed significantly
among the low, moderate, and high PHN groups. Subjects who were less believing that people behave
dishonestly for personal gain had higher ethical response scores in all of the scenarios than subjects
who were more believing. Subjects who were less believing that people will stand by their convictions
had higher ethical response scores in the “returned garment after use” scenario than subjects who were
more believing.
Originality/value – This study is one of a few that addresses variables related to how consumers
make ethically related decisions and the results can be useful to employers in the apparel industry
when screening job applicants.
Keywords Human nature, Ethics, Consumer behaviour, Young adults, Decision making
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
Frequently, consumers are portrayed as being taken advantage of by marketers rather
than consumers exhibiting unethical consumer behavior. This stereotypical portrayal of
marketers may have contributed to the large amount of research (Abdolmohammadi
et al., 1997; Barnett and Valentine, 2004; Ferrell, 2004; Ferrell and Gresham, 1985; Ferrell Journal of Fashion Marketing and
et al., 1989; Ferrell and Weaver, 1978; Glenn and Van Loo, 1993; Hunt and Vitell, 1986; Management
Vol. 12 No. 3, 2008
Loe et al., 2000; Murphy and Laczniak, 1992; Rao and Al-Wugayan, 2005; Sele, 2006; pp. 365-383
Vitell and Festervand, 1987; Wahn, 1993; Yoo and Donthu, 2002) that has been conducted q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1361-2026
investigating marketers’ ethical decision making. Marketers and students aspiring to be DOI 10.1108/13612020810889317
JFMM marketers have been found to choose unethical options (Swartz, 2006; Ferrell and
12,3 Weaver, 1978; Loe et al., 2000; Millage, 2005; Vitell and Festervand, 1987; Yoo and
Donthu, 2002), but consumers have also been found to be accepting of unethical
consumption activities (Cole, 1989; Cox et al., 1990; Fukukawa, 2002; Fullerton and Punj,
2004; Fullerton et al., 1996; Kallis et al., 1986; Klemke, 1982; Shen and Dickson, 2001; Van
Kenhove et al., 2003; Vitell, 2003; Vitell and Muncy, 1992). Unethical behavior by either
366 the marketer or the consumer will lead to unproductive exchanges (Fukukawa, 2003;
Morgan and Hunt, 1994). Unethical behavior by the consumer may result in an increase
in prices or to an inconvenient shopping environment.
Theoretical models have been developed to describe ethical decision making of
marketers (Brass et al., 1998; Ferrell and Gresham, 1985; Hunt and Vitell, 1986; Loe et al.,
2000; Trevino, 1986). There is a lack of theoretical frameworks in the literature that
address the multiple variables related to how consumers make ethically related
decisions. Muncy and Vitell (1992) stated that “after an extensive search of the literature,
fewer than twenty studies could be found which studied ethical issues in the marketplace
from the consumer’s perspective and most of these studies focused on very specific and
limited situations having ethical content (such as shoplifting)” (p. 585).
Fukukawa (2003) gave a brief overview of ethical decision making in marketing
models and suggested that these business ethics models could be applied to consumer
ethics research in order to develop a consumer ethical decision making model.
Consumer ethical decision making studies occurring since 1990 have been reviewed
and synthesized (Vitell, 2003). Many of these 31 studies applied a business ethics model
in order to investigate consumer ethical decision making. Fukukawa (2003) stated that
“if consumer ethics is to further develop theoretically, not only is it important that
more, and more varied research be conducted, but equally that more attention is placed
upon theoretical debates themselves” (p. 398).
Thus, an existing framework for ethical decision making in marketing (Ferrell and
Gresham, 1985) was adapted and applied to consumer ethical decision making. Ferrell
and Gresham (1985) assume that a marketer will experience ethical dilemmas. Based
upon the Ferrell and Gresham model, the marketer’s solution to the ethical dilemmas is
influenced by individual factors and organizational factors such as opportunity and
significant others (see Figure 1). This study did not investigate every component
within this “marketing” framework. A specific type of attitude (philosophies of human
nature), which is an “individual factor,” was the focus of this study. In the adapted
model for this study the consumer is exposed to consumer behavior dilemmas. The
consumer’s ethical decision making is influenced by individual factors such as social
attitudes (philosophies of human nature).
Researchers (Rokeach, 1973; Durgee et al., 1996) have suggested that attitudes are
based on values and influence behavior. A specific type of attitude is social attitude
(Allport, 1967). One might describe social attitudes as culturally induced explanations
woven together into networks called philosophies. Another label for social attitudes is
“philosophies of human nature.” Rotter (1980) suggested that people who have trusting
attitudes (or philosophies of human nature) toward others will exhibit trustworthy
behavior, such as honesty and not cheating or not stealing. Philosophies of human
nature are “assumptions about how people in general behave” (Wrightsman, 1992,
p. 55). Developed by observing and listening to others, philosophies of human nature
are acquired during one’s youth. Philosophies of human nature are primarily learned
 Unethical
consumer
behavior

367

Figure 1.
A descriptive contingency
model of ethical decision
making in a marketing
organization

from parents, from the environment, and from programs such as religious training,
designed to develop social attitudes (Wrightsman, 1992). Consequently, the
assumption was made in this study that because there are varied parental attitudes
and values, varied cultural or environmental practices, and varied levels and types of
religious training, there would likely be a range of attitudes and values (i.e.
philosophies of human nature) among a sample of undergraduate university students.
Individuals may use philosophies of human nature to explain social interactions
(Wrightsman, 1992). The philosophies held by each human form perspectives that may
influence how one perceives another individual’s behavior, character, intent, or actions.
Consequently these philosophies may impact the nature of the interactions between
people and even the likelihood of interactions occurring.
Researchers (Duke and Wrightsman, 1968; Wrightsman, 1992) have suggested that
people’s personalities are related to their philosophies of human nature, and that
throughout their lives, these philosophies are constantly retested and modified.
Philosophies of human nature provide a paradigm that individuals can use to explain
social interactions, so are often used to justify interpersonal human behavior
(Wrightsman, 1964). Philosophies of human nature affect how people interact with one
another (Dole et al., 1969). Richmond et al. (1972) emphasized the importance of
understanding others by stating that it is “not only urgent, but a necessity for human
survival, that we learn to live effectively with others.” Understanding others’
philosophies of human nature may help to increase tolerance of diverse people and lead
to fulfilling relationships with others.
The relationship between philosophies of human nature and consumer ethical
decision making has not been investigated. Consumer ethics is defined as “the moral
principles and standards that guide behavior of individuals or groups as they obtain,
use, and dispose of goods and services” (Muncy and Vitell, 1992, p. 298).
JFMM An ethical decision a consumer could make is to not shoplift. Many people would
12,3 probably agree that shoplifting is wrong. Solutions to other ethical dilemmas may not
appear to be so clear, however. Consumer ethics involves many different issues, such as
consumers choosing environmentally friendly products, consumers purchasing
counterfeit goods, consumers boycotting businesses they find offensive, and consumers
benefiting from ethically questionable behavior (consumer honesty). Research has been
368 conducted in these different areas of consumer ethics (Belk et al., 2005; Brinkman, 2004;
Carrigan and Attalla, 2001; Cleveland et al., 2005; Klein et al., 2004). The focus of this
study pertains to consumers benefiting from ethically questionable behavior.
Depending upon the circumstances, a consumer may think that switching price tags
or purchasing an item with intent to return it for a full refund after use is acceptable.
After committing the act that seemed acceptable at the time, the person may evaluate
the behavior. Feelings of guilt may arise after behaving unethically. To ease guilt
feelings the person may rationalize the unethical behavior. Rationalizing was found to
be one of the factors contributing to shoplifting among adolescents (Cox et al., 1990).
Sykes and Matza (1957) referred to these rationalizations as neutralization techniques
and identified five techniques: denial of responsibility, denial of injury, denial of the
victim, condemnation of the condemners, and appeal to higher loyalties.
Researchers (Grove et al., 1989) have applied the techniques of neutralization to
consumer behavior. The “denial of responsibility” technique might be used if a
consumer shoplifts during the holidays and justifies the behavior by thinking, “it is not
my fault; I don’t have enough money to pay for this item.” A consumer might use the
“denial of injury” technique to justify taking a blouse by thinking, “this store is so big;
no one will ever notice that this one blouse is missing.” The “denial of the victim”
technique is used when the consumer believes the retailer deserves the injury, such as
when a shoplifter thinks, “It is the store’s fault for not having more sales associates on
the floor to watch the customers.” The “condemnation of the condemners” technique is
used when the attention from the consumer’s own unethical behavior is deflected onto
the retailer’s possible unethical behavior. A consumer who switches price tags may
justify his or her behavior by thinking, “it is okay to switch price tags because I bet this
retailer uses child labor to manufacture these products.” The “appeal to higher
loyalties” technique occurs when the norms of society are sacrificed to gratify the
smaller social group. For example, an adolescent may shoplift to impress friends.
Shoplifters have been found to be young (Cox et al., 1990; Kallis et al., 1986) and
subjects have reported that shoplifting activities declined with age (Klemke, 1982). Vitell
and Muncy (2005) found that student subjects were more accepting of unethical consumer
behavior than non-student subjects. Researchers (Fullerton et al., 1996; Muncy and Vitell,
1992) have indicated that older consumers are less accepting of unethical consumer
behavior than younger consumers. This lends support to Kohlberg (1969) who proposed
that people progress to a higher level of moral development as they grow older. Dubinsky
et al. (2005) investigated relationships between age and ethical ideologies, and found age
to be the most effective predictor of ethical ideologies. Swaidan et al. (2003) indicated that
older, more educated, and married subjects were less accepting of unethical consumer
behavior than younger, less educated, and single subjects. Using the diary method, Van
Kenhove et al. (2003) found that older subjects reported less actual unethical consumer
behavior than younger subjects reported. Vitell and Paolillo (2003) found older subjects to
be less accepting of unethical consumer behavior than younger subjects.
Purpose Unethical
The purpose of this study was to investigate young adult consumers’ evaluations of consumer
consumer behavior scenarios as ethical or unethical in relation to their extent of
agreement with philosophies of human nature statements. Based on the Ferrell and behavior
Gresham (1985) model, the researchers designed this exploratory study to discover if
consumers’ ethical tendencies were associated with their philosophies of human
nature. 369
The following hypothesis was investigated:
H1. There is a statistically significant difference among university students’ low,
moderate, and high responses on the philosophies of human nature (PHN)
Scale in relation to their evaluation of three consumer behavior scenarios as
ethical or unethical.

Methods
Description of the sample
A convenience sample of 1,117 university undergraduate students was obtained for
this study. University undergraduate students were chosen for this study because
undergraduate students work and shop in retail environments and younger consumers
have been found to be relatively more accepting of unethical behavior than older
consumers (Cox et al., 1990; Dubinsky et al., 2005; Fullerton et al., 1996; Hayes, 1996;
Kallis et al., 1986; Klemke, 1982; Muncy and Vitell, 1992; Swaidan et al., 2003; Van
Kenhove et al., 2003; Vitell and Muncy, 2005; Vitell and Paolillo, 2003). Instructors on
two university campuses in the US (one South Central and one East Coast) were
contacted by mail, telephone, and e-mail to obtain permission to administer the
questionnaire to students during regularly scheduled class periods. The instructors
were chosen by targeting courses at varying undergraduate classification levels and in
a wide range of colleges and majors. In addition to the sample differing by majors and
undergraduate classifications, the sample varied in gender, age, current employment
status, previous employment by an apparel retailer, and completion of an ethics course
(see Table I).

Questionnaire development
In this study, a pilot test was conducted using the three groups recommended by
Dillman (1978): subjects representing the population to be studied, colleagues and
professionals, and possible “users” of the results. The population studied was
university undergraduate students in the United States. The colleagues and
professionals were faculty researchers and the possible users of the results were
retail store managers.
For the pilot test the questionnaire was administered to undergraduate students
(n ¼ 77) on one university campus to determine the amount of time needed to complete
the questionnaire and the understandability of the items. Three faculty researchers and
three retail store managers reviewed the questionnaire and answered questions about
the relevance and the understandability of the items. Necessary adjustments were
made to the questionnaire based upon the feedback received.
The questionnaire contained three sections: consumer behavior scenarios,
philosophies of human nature (PHN), and demographic items. This project was part
of a larger study associating consumer ethics with philosophies of human nature and
JFMM
Variables n %
12,3
Gender
Males 523 46.86
Females 593 53.14
Missing 1
370 Age range
18-20 years 552 49.46
21-23 years 458 41.04
Over 24 years 106 9.50
Missing 1
Year in school
Year one 206 18.44
Year two 258 23.10
Year three 254 22.74
Year four 399 35.72
Currently employed
No 524 47.42
Yes, part-time 530 47.96
Yes, full-time 51 4.62
Missing 12
Employed by apparel retailer
No 819 74.39
Yes 282 25.61
Missing 16
Consistency in practice of faith
Not very consistently 177 16.94
Occasionally 294 28.13
Frequently 383 36.65
Very consistently 191 18.28
Missing 72
Table I. Completed an ethics course
Demographic No 819 74.93
characteristics of the Yes 274 25.07
sample (n ¼ 1; 117) Missing 24

with demographics. The consumer behavior scenarios section of the questionnaire was
comprised of three consumer behavior scenarios. Consumer scenario 1 involved not
reporting receipt of excess change in an apparel retail setting. Consumer scenario 2
involved not paying for the accidental damage to apparel. Consumer scenario 3
involved purchasing a garment with specific intent to return it for a full refund after
use. Information from previous studies (Fullerton et al., 1996; Muncy and Vitell, 1992;
Strutton et al., 1997; Wilkes, 1978) influenced the development of these consumer
behavior scenarios. To avoid question-order effects, the consumer scenarios were
counterbalanced in the pilot test and in the actual study.
Seven perceptual statements followed each scenario. One statement was the “moral
imperative” (Strutton et al., 1997, p. 96), indicating that the behavior depicted in the
scenario is inexcusable. Five of the statements were “neutralization techniques” (Sykes
and Matza, 1957) indicating that the behavior depicted in the scenario is justifiable Unethical
because of special circumstances. The last statement asked for an overall opinion of the consumer
person’s behavior in the scenario. Respondents indicated the extent of their agreement
with each perceptual statement by choosing a response from a five-point scale ranging behavior
from strongly agree to strongly disagree. For the purposes of analysis, responses were
coded so that a higher score indicated less acceptance of the consumer behavior
described in the scenario. 371
The philosophies of human nature scale developed by Wrightsman (1964) was used
in the present study. The philosophies of human nature scale has been shown to be
reliable and valid in numerous studies (Gardiner, 1972; Lee et al., 2003; Lupfer and
Wald, 1985; Maddock and Kenny, 1972; O’Connor, 1971; Sorenson, 1981; Stewart et al.,
1980; Weller and Benozio, 1987). The original scale comprised of six subscales
(trustworthiness, strength of will and rationality, altruism, independence, complexity,
and variability) contains 84 items. In order to produce a questionnaire of more
appropriate length and relevance to the present study four of Wrightsman’s (1964)
philosophies of human nature subscales (trustworthiness, strength of will and
rationality, altruism, and independence) were chosen. In response to suggestions from
the pilot study participants the number of items in the philosophies of human nature
section on the questionnaire was decreased. Other studies incorporating the
philosophies of human nature scale were reexamined. Three subscales (cynicism,
beliefs that people are conventionally good, and internal locus of control) from the
O’Connor (1971) factor analysis were chosen for this study. The three O’Connor (1971)
subscales contain items that overlap with the four Wrightsman (1964) subscales used
in the pilot test. The cynicism subscale contains ten items that “not only are critical of
human nature but also portray people as double-dealing, hypocrisy-ridden, or
self-deluding” (Wrightsman, 1992, p. 93). The beliefs that people are conventionally
good subscale contains 12 items indicating a general attitude that is positive regarding
the intentions and behavior of other people and reflects “the middle-class morality of
America” (Wrightsman, 1992, p. 93). The internal locus of control subscale contains
five items and indicates a belief that “rewards are contingent upon one’s own actions”
(Wrightsman, 1992, p. 76).
The demographic items were included in the questionnaire in order to confirm that
the sample was heterogeneous and to gather data on demographic characteristics that
were believed to be associated with students’ perceptions of unethical consumer
behavior and with students’ philosophies of human nature. The demographic section of
the questionnaire included items related to the following demographic traits: gender,
age, year in school, employment status, previous employment by an apparel retailer,
consistency in practice of faith orientation, and completion of an ethics course.

Statistical analysis
The philosophies of human nature scale used in this study was comprised of three of
O’Connor’s (1971) subscales (cynicism, beliefs that people are conventionally good, and
internal locus of control). A factor analysis was conducted on the philosophies of
human nature scale to assist in factoring items that are correlated and to assist in
interpreting the meaning of the items (see Table II). Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were
computed to test reliability (internal consistency) of the philosophies of human nature
factors, of the three scenarios, and of the collective responses to the three scenarios.
JFMM
Factor loading
12,3 Itema 1 2 3 4 5 6

Beliefs that people are conventionally good

7. Most people try to apply the Golden Rule (do unto others as
you would have them do unto you) 0.76
372 19. “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” is a
motto that most people follow 0.73
21. Most people will act as “Good Samaritans” (go out of their
way to help others in need) if given the opportunity 0.73
20. The typical person is sincerely concerned about the
problems of others 0.69
6. Most people do not hesitate to go out of their way to help
someone in trouble 0.62
Cynicism
15. Most people would tell a lie if they could gain by it 0.72
10. The typical student will cheat on a test when everybody else
does, even though he/she has a set of ethical standards 0.69
14. Most people are not really honest for a desirable reason;
they are afraid of getting caught 0.60
9. People typically claim that they have ethical standards
regarding honesty and morality, but few people stick to
them when they are under stress 0.60
4. Most people would cheat on their income tax if they had a
chance 0.55
Internal locus of control
13. The average person is largely the master of his/her own fate 0.75
18. There is little the average person can do to alter his/her fate
in lifeb 0.74
27. Most people have little influence over the things that
happen to themb 0.73
23. Most people have a lot of control over what happens to them
in life 0.72
Beliefs that people are conventionally good
12. On average, people will stick to their opinion if they think
they are right, even if others disagree 0.65
11. People typically succeed because of achievement rather
than popularity with others 0.63
22. In a local or national election, most people select a candidate
rationally and logically 0.51
24. Most people have the courage of their convictions 0.45
Cynicism
26. Most people inwardly dislike putting themselves out to help
other people 0.66
25. People typically pretend to care more about one another
Table II. than they really do 0.56
Factor analysis of 17. It’s pathetic to see an unselfish person, because so many
philosophies of human people take advantage of him/her 0.42
nature scale using Beliefs that people are conventionally good
Varimax rotation: 3. Most people will not speak out for what they believe inb 0.57
loadings (continued)
 Factor loading
Unethical
Itema
1 2 3 4 5 6 consumer
Cynicism
behavior
16. If most people could get into a movie without paying and be
sure that they were not seen, they still would not do itb 0.57
Items omitted from analysis due to loading on multiple factors 373
Cynicism
1. The average person is not conceitedb 0.34 0.46 0.35
Internal locus of control
2. The average person’s success in life is largely determined
by forces outside his/her own controlb 0.27 0.47 0.35
Beliefs that people are conventionally good
5. Typically, people will usually tell the truth, even when they
know they would be better off by lying 0.35 0.26 0.34
8. Most people would not stop and help a person whose car
b
was disabled 0.32 0.25 0.23
a
Notes: Grouped by O’Connor’s (1971) revised subscales of the philosophies of human nature scale;
b
Items were reverse scored before analysis; The items in column 1 are from Wrightsman (1992) Table II.

Subjects were placed in low, moderate, and high PHN groups for each factor. Subjects
with a mean score of 2 1 to 2 3 were placed in the low group. Subjects with a mean
score between 2 1 and 1 were placed in the moderate group. Subjects with a mean
score of 1 to 3 were placed in the high group. One-way ANOVA was used to determine
if a significant difference exists among response groups (low, moderate, and high) for
each factor of the PHN Scale in relation to evaluation of three consumer behavior
scenarios and of the collective responses to the scenarios as ethical or unethical. If
differences were found among the groups the Scheffé test was used to determine the
nature of the differences (see Table III).

Results
PHN scale factor analysis
The factor analysis resulted in six factors (see Table II). Items one, two, five and eight
loaded high on more than one factor so those items were omitted from subsequent
analyses. The first factor contains five items from O’Connor’s (1971) “beliefs that
people are conventionally good” subscale. The label “beliefs that people have an honest
concern for others” was developed for factor 1. The second factor contains five items
from O’Connor’s (1971) “cynicism” subscale. For the present study, the label “beliefs
that people behave dishonestly for personal gain” was developed for factor 2. The third
factor contains four of the five items from O’Connor’s (1971) “internal locus of control”
subscale; this factor was not retained for subsequent analyses because the reliability of
the factor was very low. The fourth factor contains four items from the “beliefs that
people are conventionally good” subscale. Based upon the content of items, the label
“beliefs that people will stand by their convictions” was used for factor 4. The fifth
factor contains three items from the “cynicism” subscale; this factor was not retained
for subsequent analyses because the reliability of the factor was very low. The sixth
JFMM
n Meana,b SD
12,3
Factor 2: beliefs that people behave dishonestly for personal gain
Received too much change
Low 114 3.84a 0.54
Moderate 561 3.52b 0.65
374 High 420 3.31c 0.74
Fð2; 1076Þ ¼ 29:45 * * * *
Accidental damage
Low 112 3.60a 0.65
Moderate 566 3.44ab 0.66
High 425 3.38b 0.69
Fð2; 1076Þ ¼ 4:72 * *
Returned garment after use
Low 114 3.90a 0.54
Moderate 563 3.59b 0.65
High 426 3.41c 0.74
Fð2; 1076Þ ¼ 24:93 * * * *
Combined scenarios
Low 110 3.79a 0.47
Moderate 554 3.52b 0.53
High 415 3.37c 0.58
Fð2; 1076Þ ¼ 26:97 * * * *
Factor four: beliefs that people will stand by their convictions
Returned garment after use
Low 115 3.72a 0.64
Table III. Moderate 679 3.56b 0.69
One-way ANOVA and High 308 3.48b 0.69
Scheffé test results for Fð2; 1075Þ ¼ 5:07 * *
relationships among PHN
factor groups and Notes: aMeans range from one to five; bmeans with different letters differ significantly at the
consumer behavior 5 percent level of significance; *significant at 0.05; * *significant at 0.01; * * *significant at 0.001;
scenarios * * * *significant at 0.0001; SD – standard deviation

factor contains one item from the “beliefs that people are conventionally good”
subscale and one item from the “cynicism” subscale. Factor 6 was not retained for
subsequent analyses because only two items loaded on this factor, the items are from
different O’Connor (1971) subscales, the content of the items was not clearly related,
and the reliability of the factor was very low.

PHN scale reliability

A Cronbach’s alpha value of 0.79 was calculated for the responses to factor 1 “beliefs
that people have an honest concern for others.” An alpha value of 0.69 was calculated
for the responses to factor 2 “beliefs that people behave dishonestly for personal gain.”
An alpha value of 0.46 was calculated for the responses to factor 3. An alpha value of
0.51 was calculated for the responses to factor 4 “beliefs that people will stand by their
convictions.” An alpha value of 0.43 was calculated for the responses to factor 5. An
alpha value of 0.02 was calculated for the responses to factor 6. For the purposes of this
study factors with an alpha value of 0.50 or higher were considered in subsequent
analyses so factors 1, 2, and 4 were analyzed. Pedhazur and Schmelkin (1991) report
that alpha values of 0.70 or higher meet the standard level of reliability and that an Unethical
alpha value of 0.50 “stinks”, but that “it is for the user to determine what amount of consumer
error he or she is willing to tolerate, given the specific circumstances of the study.” The
present study is exploratory research and the results will not be used for making behavior
important decisions about individuals so in this case a certain amount of error is
acceptable. Alpha values for factors three, five, and six were below 0.50 so were not
considered in subsequent analyses. 375
Consumer scenarios reliability
Cronbach’s alpha value of 0.87 was calculated for the responses to consumer scenario 1
(received too much change), an alpha value of 0.88 was calculated for responses to
consumer scenario 2 (accidental damage), and an alpha value of 0.83 was calculated for
consumer scenario 3 (returned garment after use). An alpha value of 0.91 was
calculated for the combined responses to all three scenarios. For the purposes of the
present study the alpha values for the consumer scenarios meets the standard level of
reliability and have been considered in subsequent analyses.

Consumer ethics differences among PHN factor one groups

Among the low, medium, and high groups for PHN factor one, “beliefs that people have
an honest concern for others,” there were no significant differences for the “received too
much change” consumer scenario (Fð2; 1075Þ ¼ 0:74, p . 0.05). No significant
differences were found among PHN groups for the “accidental damage” scenario
(Fð2; 1075Þ ¼ 1:43, p . 0.05). In addition, no significant differences were found among
groups for the “returned garment after use” scenario (Fð2; 1075Þ ¼ 0:94, p . 0.05). No
significant differences were found among PHN factor one groups for the total of the
three consumer scenarios (Fð2; 1075Þ ¼ 1:17, p . 0.05).

Consumer ethics differences among PHN factor two groups

A higher mean score on factor two, “beliefs that people behave dishonestly for personal
gain,” indicates more agreement that people behave dishonestly for personal gain
while a lower score indicates less agreement. A significant difference was found among
PHN factor two groups for the “received too much change” scenario
(Fð2; 1076Þ ¼ 29:45, p , 0.0001) (see Table III). The Scheffé test indicated that
subjects in all three groups differed significantly from each other. The group with the
lowest mean scores on PHN factor two had higher ethical response scores (n ¼ 114,
m ¼ 3:84, SD ¼ 0:54) than the moderate PHN group (n ¼ 561, m ¼ 3:52, SD ¼ 0:65)
and the high PHN group (n ¼ 420, m ¼ 3:31, SD ¼ 0:74). The high PHN group for
factor two had the lowest ethical response scores of all three groups.
A significant difference was found among PHN factor two groups in relation to their
responses to the “accidental damage” scenario (Fð2; 1076Þ ¼ 4:72, p , 0.01) (see
Table III). The Scheffé test indicated that subjects who had low mean scores on the
“people behave dishonestly for personal gain” factor had significantly higher ethical
response scores (n ¼ 112, m ¼ 3:60, SD ¼ 0:65) than subjects who had high mean
scores on the “people behave dishonestly for personal gain” factor (n ¼ 425, m ¼ 3:38,
SD ¼ 0:69). Subjects in the moderate PHN group (n ¼ 566, m ¼ 3:44, SD ¼ 0:66) did
not differ significantly from the low PHN group and from the high PHN group on the
identified PHN factor.
JFMM A significant difference was found among PHN factor two groups for the “returned
12,3 garment after use” scenario (Fð2; 1076Þ ¼ 24:93, p , 0.0001) (see Table III). The Scheffé
test revealed that subjects in all three groups differed significantly from each other. The
group with the lowest mean scores on PHN factor two had higher ethical response scores
(n ¼ 114, m ¼ 3:90, SD ¼ 0:54) than the moderate PHN group (n ¼ 563, m ¼ 3:59,
SD ¼ 0:65) and the high PHN group (n ¼ 426, m ¼ 3:41, SD ¼ 0:74). The high PHN
376 group for factor two had the lowest ethical response scores of all three groups.
A significant difference was found among PHN factor two groups for the total of the
three consumer scenarios (Fð2; 1076Þ ¼ 26:97, p , 0.0001) in relation to their ethical
responses (see Table III). The Scheffé test indicated that subjects in all three groups
differed significantly from each other. The low PHN group for factor two had higher
ethical response scores (n ¼ 110, m ¼ 3:79, SD ¼ 0:47) than the moderate PHN group
(n ¼ 554, m ¼ 3:52, SD ¼ 0:53) and the high PHN group (n ¼ 415, m ¼ 3:37,
SD ¼ 0:58). The high PHN group for factor two had the lowest ethical response scores
of all three groups.

Consumer ethics differences among PHN factor four groups

A higher mean score on factor four, “beliefs that people will stand by their
convictions,” indicates more agreement that people will stand by their convictions,
while a lower score indicates less agreement that people will stand by their convictions.
No significant difference was found among PHN factor four groups for the “received
too much change” scenario (Fð2; 1075Þ ¼ 1:63, p . 0.05). No significant difference was
found among PHN factor four groups for the “accidental damage” scenario
(Fð2; 1075Þ ¼ 1:44, p . 0.05). A significant difference was found among PHN factor
four groups in relation to the “returned garment after use” scenario (Fð2; 1075Þ ¼ 5:07,
p , 0.01) (see Table III). The Scheffé test indicated that subjects who had low mean
scores on factor four had significantly higher ethical response scores (n ¼ 115,
m ¼ 3:72, SD ¼ 0:64) than subjects who had moderate mean scores on factor four
(n ¼ 679, m ¼ 3:56, SD ¼ 0:69) and subjects who had high mean scores on the factor
four subscale (n ¼ 308, m ¼ 3:48, SD ¼ 0:69). Subjects in the moderate response group
for factor four did not differ significantly from subjects in the high response group. No
significant difference was found among PHN factor four groups for the total of three
consumer scenarios (Fð2; 1075Þ ¼ 2:48, p . 0.05).

Discussion
In the factor analysis performed in this study, items loaded similarly to O’Conner’s (1971)
revised PHN subscales. O’Conner’s (1971) “beliefs that people are conventionally good”
subscale basically loaded into two factors named “beliefs that people have an honest
concern for others” and “beliefs that people will stand by their convictions.” O’Conner’s
(1971) “cynicism” subscale loaded into two factors. In the present study, one of the
“cynicism” factors was named “beliefs that people behave dishonestly for personal gain.”
The other “cynicism” factor was not included in subsequent analyses because the
Cronbach’s alpha value was below 0.50. Most all of the items in O’Conner’s (1971)
“internal locus of control” subscale loaded into one factor in this study but was not
included in subsequent analyses because the Cronbach’s alpha value was below 0.50.
The ethical response scores for the “returned garment after use” scenario differed
significantly among the PHN groups for two of the three PHN factors. In factor 2,
Beliefs that people behave dishonestly for personal gain, the ethical response scores for Unethical
the “returned garment after use” scenario significantly differed among the low, consumer
moderate, and high PHN groups. The ethical response scores for the “returned garment
after use” scenario also significantly differed among the low and moderate PHN groups behavior
and among the low and high PHN groups for PHN factor four, beliefs that people will
stand by their convictions.
The ethical response scores for the “received too much change” scenario and for the 377
combined scenarios differed significantly among the low, moderate, and high PHN
groups for factor two, beliefs that people behave dishonestly for personal gain. The
ethical response scores for the “accidental damage” scenario differed significantly
among the low and high PHN groups for factor 2, beliefs that people behave
dishonestly for personal gain.
The “returned garment after use” scenario may have been related to two of the PHN
factors as a result of the action described in the scenario being clearly premeditated
and deliberate. The two other scenarios describe actions taken in response to accidents.
In one scenario, a garment is torn accidentally. In response to the other scenario, a
respondent might easily decide that it was simply chance that the consumer received
extra change. Respondents’ assessments of the ethical decisions in each scenario
appear to be dependent upon their assessments of different circumstances, which infer
that the university students surveyed may be inclined to practice “situational ethics.”
Vitell and Muncy (1992) found that subjects rated consumer behavior according to the
perceived level of “wrongness” of the unethical behavior. The subjects reported
“switching price tags” to be more unethical (wrong) than “getting too much change and
not saying anything.” Subjects reported “getting too much change and not saying
anything” to be more unethical (wrong) than “breaking a bottle in a store and not
paying for it” and “taping a television movie” (Vitell and Muncy, 1992).
No significant difference was found for the low, moderate, and high PHN factor one,
“beliefs that people have an honest concern for others” groups in relation to their
evaluation of three consumer behavior scenarios as ethical or unethical. This result
does not support the present study’s hypothesis. More research is needed in this area.
Many other variables that were not addressed in this study may influence an
individual’s ethical decision-making, such as the desire to take risks, shopping
orientations, and materialism. Future research should investigate other variables that
may be related to consumer ethical decision-making in order to contribute to the
advancement of the consumer ethics body of knowledge.
For PHN factor four, subjects who were less believing that people will stand by their
convictions had higher ethical response scores in the “returned garment after use”
scenario than subjects who were more believing that people will stand by their
convictions. The opposite was expected and is contrary to the factor two findings
described in the next paragraph.
For PHN factor two, subjects who were less believing that people behave
dishonestly for personal gain had higher ethical response scores in all three of the
scenarios and in the combined scenarios than subjects who were more believing. These
findings lend support to Rotter’s (1980) suggestion that an individual will exhibit
behavior that is a reflection of the type of attitude the individual has toward others.
Lending support to Rotter’s (1980) suggestion is based on the assumption that the
respondents’ assessment of the consumer behavior scenarios is a reflection of their own
JFMM behavior in a similar retail situation (Ajzen and Fishbein, 1977). Overall, subjects with
12,3 more positive philosophies of human nature had higher consumer ethical response
scores. Therefore, one might infer that the subjects with higher philosophies of human
nature scores (more positive social attitudes) should be more likely to exhibit ethical
behavior in a retail setting than subjects with lower philosophies of human nature
scores (less positive social attitudes).
378 As shown in Figure 2, the results of this study were applied to Ferrell and
Gresham’s (1985) framework to develop a model of consumer ethical decision making.
The “individual factors” component of the model contains PHN factor 2 beliefs that
people behave dishonestly for personal gain because it was found to be associated with
ethical responses to all three consumer behavior scenarios in this study.

Implications
Educators may wish to incorporate consumer scenarios into ethics courses in order to
expose students to solving ethical issues and to discuss the impact unethical consumer
behavior has on retailer profits. Prior to their participation in retail internships students
could be exposed to consumer ethics and inventory shrinkage information. During the
internship an assignment could be included related to consumer ethics offering students
an opportunity to reflect upon concrete experiences and interpret experiences in relation
to their own work in a retail setting from the perspective of the retailer.
In addition, the results of this study can be useful to retailers and marketers when
developing programs to educate the consuming public and their own employees about
the negative ramifications of unethical consumer behavior in the marketplace. In-store
communications as well as public service campaigns similar to the “don’t drink and
drive” campaign could heighten consumers’ and employees’ awareness of the costs and
legal consequences of unethical consumer behavior. Unethical consumer behavior
costs consumers through an increase in prices, an inconvenient shopping environment,
and more restrictive retail policies. In some cases, consumers are prosecuted for illegal
actions. Employees have much to lose when engaging in risky unethical behavior in
the workplace.
For some employment situations, consumer scenarios could become an additional
tool for employers as they screen job applicants for employment decisions, particularly

Figure 2.
Descriptive model of
consumer ethical decision
making focusing on PHN
factors as “individual
factors”
when hiring individuals in key roles who will have significant influence in training Unethical
sales associates. For example, a given employer might consider a job applicant who consumer
consistently agrees with unethical behavior depicted in the scenarios a less suitable
candidate for key positions than someone who consistently supports ethical choices. behavior
The individual who accepts such consumer behavior may be inclined to engage in
behavior that results in inventory shrinkage, either through personal unethical
decisions or by looking the other way when a customer behaves unethically. While 379
data from such employment screening would not constitute the only method of
selecting employees, it could add a dimension to the selection process to aid an
employer in discerning more information about a given applicant’s ethical orientation.
Additional research is recommended to refine the PHN scale, consumer scenarios and
perceptual statements for use by employers as a tool to screen job applicants for
employment decisions. Employee theft is a tremendous contributor to billions of lost
dollars through inventory shrinkage (Ernst & Young, 1992; Hayes, 1996). In addition to
employee theft, employees may give illegitimate discounts or look away when a
shoplifter is observed. The consumer scenarios and the PHN scale could be a useful
tool in predicting a potential employee’s ethical decision making and actual ethical
behavior. An individual’s beliefs about others’ behavior have been found to be a
predictor of actual behavior (Ajzen and Fishbein, 1977). If for example, a potential
employee obtained a high PHN factor two score (beliefs that people behave dishonestly
for personal gain) and had low ethical response scores, the employer might want to
carefully consider the hiring decision.

Limitations and future research

The convenience sample was limited to undergraduate students enrolled in one of two
university campuses in the United States. Therefore, results of the study are not
generalizable to all US consumers. However, the relatively large sample size of
students represented various majors and undergraduate classification levels better
ensuring diversity of the sample.
Limitations resulted from the development of the survey instrument. Participants
provided judgments about a hypothetical dilemma of another individual. A subject
who accepts unethical consumer behavior of another may or may not behave
unethically in a consumer situation. However, the majority of consumer ethics studies
have used scenarios or brief statements to ascertain the subjects’ perceptions of the
behavior depicted (Vitell, 2003) and are considered suitable for use in ethics research
(Hunt and Vitell, 1986).
Future research should further investigate psychographic characteristics, such as
ethical ideologies, materialism, product involvement, and loyalty proneness. Results of
these types of studies could be used by marketers to segment their prospective target
markets and to assist in developing marketing strategies.

References
Abdolmohammadi, M.J., Gabhart, D.R.L. and Reeves, M.R. (1997), “Ethical cognition of business
students individually and in groups”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 16, pp. 1717-25.
Ajzen, J. and Fishbein, M. (1977), “Attitude-behavior relations: a theoretical analysis and review
of empirical research”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 84, pp. 888-918.
JFMM Allport, G.W. (1967), “Attitudes”, in Fishbein, M. (Ed.), Readings in Attitude Theory and
Measurement, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY, pp. 3-13.
12,3
Barnett, T. and Valentine, S. (2004), “Issue contingencies and marketers’ recognition of ethical
issues, ethical judgments and behavioral intentions”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 57
No. 4, pp. 338-46.
Belk, R.W., Devinney, T. and Eckhardt, G. (2005), “Consumer ethics across cultures”,
380 Consumption, Markets and Culture, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 275-89.
Brass, D.J., Butterfield, K.D. and Skaggs, B.C. (1998), “Relationships and unethical behavior:
a social network perspective”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 14-31.
Brinkman, J. (2004), “Looking at consumer behavior in a moral perspective”, Journal of Business
Ethics, Vol. 51, pp. 129-41.
Carrigan, M. and Attalla, A. (2001), “The myth of the ethical consumer – do ethics matter in
purchase behavior?”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 7, pp. 560-77.
Cleveland, M., Kalamas, M. and Laroche, M. (2005), “Shades of green: linking environmental
locus of control and pro-environmental behaviors”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 22
No. 4, pp. 198-212.
Cole, C. (1989), “Deterrence and consumer fraud”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 65, pp. 107-20.
Cox, D., Cox, A.D. and Moschis, G.P. (1990), “When consumer behavior goes bad: an
investigation of adolescent shoplifting”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 17, pp. 149-59.
Dillman, D.A. (1978), Mail and Telephone Surveys: The Total Design Method, John Wiley & Sons,
New York, NY.
Dole, A.A., Nottingham, J. and Wrightsman, L.S. Jr (1969), “Beliefs about human nature held by
counseling, clinical, and rehabilitation students”, Journal of Counseling Psychology, Vol. 16
No. 3, pp. 197-202.
Dubinsky, A.J., Nataraajan, R. and Huang, W.Y. (2005), “Consumers’ moral philosophies:
identifying the idealist and the relativist”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 58,
pp. 1690-701.
Duke, R.B. and Wrightsman, L.S. (1968), “Relation of repression-sensitization to philosophies of
human nature”, Psychological Reports, Vol. 22, pp. 235-8.
Durgee, J.F., O’Connor, G.C. and Veryzer, R.W. (1996), “Observations: translating values into
product wants”, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 36 No. 6, pp. 90-100.
Ernst & Young (1992), “Ernst & Young’s survey of retail loss prevention trends”, Chain Store
Age Executive, Vol. 68 No. 1, pp. 16-21.
Ferrell, O.C. (2004), “Business ethics and customer stakeholders”, Academy of Management
Executive, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 126-9.
Ferrell, O.C. and Gresham, L.G. (1985), “A contingency framework for understanding ethical
decision making in marketing”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 49, pp. 87-96.
Ferrell, O.C. and Weaver, K.M. (1978), “Ethical beliefs of marketing managers”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 42, pp. 69-73.
Ferrell, O.C., Gresham, L.G. and Fraedrich, J. (1989), “A synthesis of ethical decision models for
marketing”, Journal of Macromarketing, Vol. 9, pp. 55-64.
Fukukawa, K. (2002), “Developing a framework for ethically questionable behavior in
consumption”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 41, pp. 99-119.
Fukukawa, K. (2003), “A theoretical review of business and consumer ethics research: normative
and descriptive approaches”, The Marketing Review, Vol. 3, pp. 381-401.
Fullerton, R.A. and Punj, G. (2004), “Repercussions of promoting an ideology of consumption: Unethical
consumer misbehavior”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 57, pp. 1239-49.
consumer
Fullerton, S., Kerch, K.B. and Dodge, H.R. (1996), “Consumer ethics: an assessment of individual
behavior in the market place”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 15, pp. 805-14. behavior
Gardiner, H.W. (1972), “Philosophies of human nature among Roman Catholic sisters”,
Psychological Reports, Vol. 30, pp. 369-70.
Glenn, J.R. Jr and Van Loo, M.F. (1993), “Business students’ and practitioners’ ethical decisions 381
over time”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 12, pp. 835-47.
Grove, S.J., Vitell, S.J. and Strutton, D. (1989), “Non-normative consumer behavior and the
techniques of neutralization”, in Bagozzi, R. and Peter, J.P. (Eds), proceedings of the 1989
AMA Winter Educators’ Conference, American Marketing Association, Chicago, IL,
pp. 131-5.
Hayes, R.R. Jr (1996), “Selling the concept of loss prevention”, Security Management, Vol. 40
No. 12, pp. 53-7.
Hunt, S.D. and Vitell, S. (1986), “A general theory of marketing ethics”, Journal of
Macromarketing, Vol. 6, pp. 5-16.
Kallis, M.J., Krentler, K.A. and Vanier, D.J. (1986), “The value of user image in quelling aberrant
consumer behavior”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 14, pp. 29-35.
Klein, J.G., Smith, N.C. and John, A. (2004), “Why we boycott: consumer motivations for boycott
participation”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 68 No. 3, pp. 92-109.
Klemke, L.W. (1982), “Exploring juvenile shoplifting”, Sociology and Social Research, Vol. 67
No. 1, pp. 59-75.
Kohlberg, L. (1969), “Stage and sequence: the cognitive developmental approach to socialization”,
in Goslin, D.A. (Ed.), Handbook of Socialization Theory and Research, Rand McNally,
Chicago, IL, pp. 347-480.
Lee, D.Y., Lee, J.Y. and Kang, C.H. (2003), “Development and validation of an altruism scale for
adults”, Psychological Reports, Vol. 92, pp. 555-61.
Loe, T.W., Ferrell, L. and Mansfield, P. (2000), “A review of empirical studies assessing ethical
decision making in business”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 185-204.
Lupfer, M. and Wald, K. (1985), “An exploration of adults’ religious orientations and their
philosophies of human nature”, Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, Vol. 24 No. 3,
pp. 293-304.
Maddock, R.C. and Kenny, C.T. (1972), “Philosophies of human nature and personal religious
orientation”, Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 277-81.
Millage, A. (2005), “Ethical misconduct prevalent in workplace”, Internal Auditor, Vol. 62 No. 6,
pp. 13-15.
Morgan, R.M. and Hunt, S.D. (1994), “The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing”,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58, pp. 20-38.
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, pp. 297-311.
Murphy, P.E. and Laczniak, G.R. (1992), “Emerging ethical issues facing marketing researchers”,
Marketing Research, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 6-11.
O’Connor, J. (1971), “Multimethod analysis of the philosophies of human nature scale”,
unpublished manuscript, George Peabody College for Teachers, Nashville, TN.
Pedhazur, E.J. and Schmelkin, L.P. (1991), Measurement, Design, and Analysis: an Integrated
Approach, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 109-10.
JFMM Rao, C.P. and Al-Wugayan, A.A. (2005), “Gender and cultural differences in consumer ethics in a
consumer-retailer interaction context”, Journal of International Consumer Marketing,
12,3 Vol. 18 Nos 1/2, pp. 45-71.
Richmond, B.O., Mason, R.L. Jr and Padgett, H.G. (1972), “Self-concept and perception of others”,
Journal of Humanistic Psychology, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 103-11.
Rokeach, M. (1973), The Nature of Human Values, The Free Press, New York, NY.
382 Rotter, J.B. (1980), “Interpersonal trust, trustworthiness, and gullibility”, American Psychologist,
Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 1-7.
Sele, K. (2006), “Marketing ethics in emerging markets – coping with ethical dilemmas”, IIMB
Management Review, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 95-104.
Shen, D. and Dickson, M. (2001), “Consumers’ acceptance of unethical clothing consumption
activities: influence of cultural identification, ethnicity, and Machiavellianism”, Clothing
and Textiles Research Journal, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 76-87.
Sorenson, R.C. (1981), “Evangelical seminarians’ philosophies of human nature and theological
beliefs”, Journal of the Scientific Study of Religion, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 33-8.
Stewart, R.A.C., Mulipola-Lui, M. and Laidlaw, H. (1980), “Beliefs about human nature held by
adolescents in Fiji: some preliminary ethnic and sex comparisons”, Social Behavior and
Personality, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 125-8.
Strutton, D., Pelton, L.E. and Ferrell, O.C. (1997), “Ethical behavior in retail settings: is there a
generation gap?”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 16, pp. 87-105.
Swaidan, Z., Vitell, S.J. and Rawwas, M. (2003), “Consumer ethics: determinants of ethical beliefs
of African Americans”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 46, pp. 175-86.
Swartz, N. (2006), “Corporate criminals strike out in 2005”, Information Management Journal,
Vol. 40 No. 2, p. 10.
Sykes, G.M. and Matza, D. (1957), “Techniques of neutralization: a theory of delinquency”,
American Sociological Review, Vol. 22, pp. 664-70.
Trevino, L.K. (1986), “Ethical decision making in organizations: a person-situation interactionist
model”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 601-17.
Van Kenhove, P., De Wulf, K. and Steenhaut, S. (2003), “The relationship between consumers’
unethical behavior and customer loyalty in a retail environment”, Journal of Business
Ethics, Vol. 44, pp. 261-78.
Vitell, S.J. (2003), “Consumer ethics research: review, synthesis and suggestions for the future”,
Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 43, pp. 33-47.
Vitell, S.J. and Festervand, T. (1987), “Business conflicts: conflicts, practices and beliefs of
industrial executives”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 6, pp. 111-22.
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,
pp. 585-97.
Vitell, S.J. and Muncy, J. (2005), “The Muncy-Vitell consumer ethics scale: a modification and
application”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 62, pp. 267-75.
Vitell, S.J. and Paolillo, J. (2003), “Consumer ethics: the role of religiosity”, Journal of Business
Ethics, Vol. 46, pp. 151-62.
Wahn, J. (1993), “Organizational dependence and the likelihood of complying with organizational
pressures to behave unethically”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 12, pp. 245-51.
Weller, L. and Benozio, M. (1987), “Homosexuals’ and lesbians’ philosophies of human nature”,
Social Behavior and Personality, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 221-4.
Wilkes, R.E. (1978), “Fraudulent behavior by consumers”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 42, pp. 67-75. Unethical
Wrightsman, L.S. (1964), “Measurement of philosophies of human nature”, Psychological Reports, consumer
Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 743-51.
Wrightsman, L.S. (1992), Assumptions about Human Nature, 2nd ed., Sage Publications,
behavior
Newbury Park, CA.
Yoo, B. and Donthu, N. (2002), “The effects of marketing education and individual cultural values
on marketing ethics of students”, Journal of Marketing Education, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 92-103. 383
About the authors
Karen S. Callen-Marchione is Assistant Professor in the School of Family and Consumer Sciences
at Bowling Green State University. Her research is directed toward consumer ethical decision
making as it relates to variables such as philosophies of human nature, materialism, and
counterfeit product consumption. She received her PhD degree from Oklahoma State University
and her MS degree from Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. Karen
S. Callen-Marchione is the corresponding author and can be contacted at:
callenk@bgnet.bgsu.edu
Shiretta F. Ownbey is Associate Dean and Professor in the College of Human Environmental
Sciences at Oklahoma State University. Her research is directed toward consumer behavior of
special markets, experiential learning, and college success. She received her PhD and MS degrees
from Texas Tech University.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints