Marketplace Morality Research Articles

Breaking Bad, Dostoevsky, Nihilism, and Marketplace Morality

ABSTRACT From the perspective of the television series Breaking Bad (2008–2013), Walter White, its antihero, is not just an “angry middle-aged white guy”. He represents the repressed rage of countless ill-used Ph.Ds. This is why “he is the danger.” The cultural moment of Breaking Bad may serve for us in Siegfried Kracauer’s term as a “close-up shot or establishing shot.” The series is an index of Kracauer’s “law of levels.” White has lived his life according to what he thought was standard and decent conduct. His life has been adequate. He echoes Tolstoy’s Ivan Ilyich whose life “was most ordinary and therefore most terrible.” White also recalls Stavrogin from Dostoevsky’s The Possessed. Stavrogin condemns himself because he can only have been satisfied by himself (in both senses). He is more Mephistopheles than Faust; he is never out of hell because he will not accept the possibility of anything outside himself. Breaking Bad also reifies Carlo Ginzburg’s “estrangement.” The screens that we carry with us transmit endless meaninglessness. We are consumed by consumerism. Therefore, Walter White is not an antihero: He is the perfect hero for a world in which the marketplace alone determines value.

Do consumers care about morality? A review and framework for understanding morality's marketplace influence

AbstractThere are many ways consumers' morality has been shown to impact their marketplace behavior. We present a theoretical framework for how to conceive of and study marketplace morality in an attempt to unify these disparate findings. First, we describe two common conceptualizations of marketplace morality: (a) the attribute‐level approach (where a product attribute fits within a category that is normatively considered moral) and (b) the person‐level approach (where consumers differ in the extent to which they dispositionally value morality). We then introduce a third conceptualization: (c) the attitude‐level approach (where consumers differ in the extent to which they see their relevant attitude as based in their morality). Through this approach, we demonstrate morality's predictive utility for consumers' marketplace behaviors and help explain why other research could have found mixed evidence for its influence. Moreover, we use this approach to illuminate four contexts in which consumers' morality is more likely to influence marketplace attitudes and thereby impact their behavior: when the consumer's attitude is emotional, value‐relevant, identity‐relevant, and/or conceived in a negative valence. We conclude with a discussion of some of the unique challenges to attitude moralization in the marketplace as well as implications for managers promoting morally positioned purchases.

It’s Good to Be Different: How Diversity Impacts Judgments of Moral Behavior

AbstractRecently, conversation on diversity and inclusion has been at the forefront in the media as well as the workplace. Though research has examined how diversity impacts organizational culture and decision-making, little attention has been given to how corporate diversity impacts consumers’ responses to the firm. This article establishes a link between diversity and the perceived morality of market actors. A series of studies demonstrate that greater diversity (racial, gender, or national) in a corporate team leads to perceptions of greater morality of the firm and its representatives and, as a consequence, results in more favorable consumer attitudes and behavior toward the firm. This positive effect arises because consumers perceive diverse teams as possessing higher perspective-taking abilities. Since marketplace morality is concerned with the greater good, we argue that higher perceptions of perspective-taking signal that the team will safeguard the broad interests of the community rather than serve narrow interest groups. The findings have broad implications since consumers are increasingly concerned with moral consumption. Our research suggests that diversity in the workforce is not only important for team performance and social equity but can shape consumers’ sentiments and behavior toward the firm.

When Sustainability is Not a Liability: The Halo Effect of Marketplace Morality

Prior research has suggested that consumers believe that products made using sustainable, environmentally friendly technologies are likely to underperform those made using traditional methods. We question the robustness of this assumption and identify scenarios in which sustainability is likely to have the opposite effect, strengthening rather than weakening consumers' product performance beliefs. Specifically, we argue that sustainability is likely to produce a halo effect able to attenuate and even override the negative impact of compensatory inferences underlying consumers' belief that sustainability comes at the expense of performance. We propose that this halo effect stems from consumers' view of the company as a moral agent engaged in a prosocial behavior. In this context, we identify two factors that are likely to influence the strength of the halo effect: the degree to which consumers view the company as a moral agent whose actions aim to benefit society and the degree to which moral concerns are prominent in consumers' minds. Following this line of reasoning, we identify two ways in which managers can increase the perceived performance of sustainable products: by associating sustainable benefits with the company rather than with its products and by emphasizing the societal benefits of sustainability. We test these predictions in a series of four empirical studies that show convergent evidence for our theorizing. Our findings have important public policy implications, documenting actionable strategies that managers can use to mitigate the potential negative impact of sustainability and strengthen the perceived performance of sustainable products.

LUXURY CONSUMER IDENTITY PROJECTS - A STUDY OF MORAL SENSITIVITY IN LUXURY CONSUMPTION PRACTICES

Consumer behavior in the luxury goods market is often characterized by status-seeking and conspicuous buying motivations. These attitudes can plausibly be explained by hedonistic selfcenteredness, which constitutes the base of the post-modern consumerism. Yet, decadent consumption practices repeatedly evoke public criticism about personal irresponsibility, carelessness and disregard for the collective good. While exploring buyers’ attitudes in the United Arab Emirates, the current study investigates, how luxury consumers respond to the strong societal drivers for a more responsible consumption. In the environment of a decreasing influence of long-established social categories, luxury consumers are growing concerned about the transformation of the sense of their identity. By investigating two research questions, the study seeks to address the latest socio-cultural transformations: firstly, it inquires whether in the social setting of affluent consumers, a moralism about consumption exists. Secondly, it explores the character of non-market-mediated consumer identity projects underlying luxury consumers’ marketplace morality. The study is an empirical inquiry focusing on consumer behavior in luxury furniture segment. Based on semi-structured in-depth consumer interviews, the research analyzes moral attitudes of luxury buyers. While providing a deeper understanding of motivational antecedents in the luxury market, the analysis yields new insights into luxury consumers’ marketplace behavior. Furthermore, the study discloses prevalence of moralistic identity work among luxury consumers. From a managerial standpoint, the results call for a greater consideration of the role of ethics in the communication between the production and consumption. Keywords: Marketplace Morality, Luxury Goods, Consumer Identity Work

Sense and sensibility: The impact of visual and auditory sensory input on marketplace morality

In a series of studies, we demonstrate that moral judgment is impacted by sensory input experienced during the product evaluation process due to its impact on mental construal level. We find that seeing or hearing a product while evaluating it elicits more concrete thought, which entails the consideration of contextual factors and extenuating circumstances, and hence leads to moral leniency. Importantly, we show this phenomenon holds only among consumers who possess a flexible moral mindset, which makes them more inclined to consider contextual factors when making moral judgments. This work is the first we are aware of to demonstrate systematic effects of visual and auditory sensory input on marketplace morality, as well as the moderating role of moral mindset. Implications and areas for future research are discussed.

A Framework for the Consumer Psychology of Morality in the Marketplace

This article is part of the issue “Marketplace Morality”

Theory of marketplace morality and impoverished consumers

Morality related to the marketplace has been studied in interdisciplinary contexts as well as the marketing and consumer behavior domains. This research has resulted in prescriptions and proscriptions that seek to right what is perceived as wrongful marketer actions. Yet this work has had little influence on marketing theory. Thus, we seek to advance a marketplace morality theory within a consumer behavior frame, emphasizing treatment of the poor by actors who may or may not supply the goods and services necessary so that they can meet “consumption adequacy.” The article opens with a look at how this discussion has moved along a theoretical path. Implications for morality related to consumers in poverty come next, followed by blending of philosophical and consumer literatures to reveal a novel theoretical framework.

Call for Papers for a Special Issue in Journal of Consumer Psychology: "Marketplace Morality"

Call for Papers for a Special Issue in Journal of Consumer Psychology: "Marketplace Morality"

The Case for Moral Consumption: Examining and Expanding the Domain of Moral Behavior to Promote Individual and Collective Well-Being

This research delineates and critically examines extant empirical research on marketplace morality within the context of transformative consumer research. The authors identify how public policy can be leveraged to promote moral consumption in the marketplace in line with the transformative consumer research objectives of personal and collective well-being. They conduct a systematic review of the last decade of marketing literature and find that the definition of what is considered “marketplace morality” has been rather narrow. Subsequently, the authors propose a broader definition and develop a typology of moral consumption behaviors based on the valence of moral judgment/behavior (moral or immoral) and moral content (harm, fairness, loyalty, authority, and purity). The authors find that most research has focused on understanding one-time (im)moral behaviors in narrow domains, which have local implications and short-term impact. This research proposes that there is untapped potential in investigating repeated (im)moral behaviors associated with lifestyle choices and habits and that these have wider, long-term moral implications (e.g., wastefulness, overindulgence, pollution, authenticity, discrimination). Finally, the authors consider the underlying motivations for (im)moral behaviors and offer recommendations for policy development and research.

Call for papers for a special issue in Journal of Consumer Psychology: “Marketplace Morality”

Journal of Consumer PsychologyVolume 26, Issue 3 p. 459-459 AnnouncementFree Access Call for papers for a special issue in Journal of Consumer Psychology: “Marketplace Morality” Margaret (Meg) C. Campbell, Margaret (Meg) C. Campbell Editors University of Colorado, USASearch for more papers by this authorKaren Page Winterich, Karen Page Winterich Editors Pennsylvania State University, USASearch for more papers by this author Margaret (Meg) C. Campbell, Margaret (Meg) C. Campbell Editors University of Colorado, USASearch for more papers by this authorKaren Page Winterich, Karen Page Winterich Editors Pennsylvania State University, USASearch for more papers by this author First published: 15 June 2016 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2016.06.001AboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onEmailFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article. Volume26, Issue3July 2016Pages 459-459 RelatedInformation

Call for papers for a special issue in Journal of Consumer Psychology: "Marketplace Morality"

Journal of Consumer PsychologyVolume 26, Issue 2 p. 313-313 AnnouncementFree Access Call for papers for a special issue in Journal of Consumer Psychology: “Marketplace Morality” Margaret (Meg) C. Campbell, Margaret (Meg) C. Campbell Editors University of Colorado, USASearch for more papers by this authorKaren Page Winterich, Karen Page Winterich Editors Pennsylvania State University, USASearch for more papers by this author Margaret (Meg) C. Campbell, Margaret (Meg) C. Campbell Editors University of Colorado, USASearch for more papers by this authorKaren Page Winterich, Karen Page Winterich Editors Pennsylvania State University, USASearch for more papers by this author First published: 23 March 2016 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2016.02.003AboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onEmailFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article. Volume26, Issue2April 2016Pages 313-313 RelatedInformation

Counselling: The Current Opium of the People?

Western religion’s propensity to stultify holiness and the sacred is eclipsed in the profession of counselling. With its fundamentalist enthralment with the individual self, this poster-girl of liberalism, through its central modusoperandi, language has achieved a privileged rhetoric thereby relegating itself to the dustbin of history certainly in Western society. It is less a “sigh of the oppressed soul” (Marx, 1978) as the empowerment of an opportunistic harlotry that energises the profession in a neoliberal marketplace with discourses of social justice routinely cheapened and ideologically hijacked. The author designates a genealogy of this ascendant plummet learnt through retrospective insight. Counsellors have not only unconditionally accepted tablets of stone around truths but also binaries of truths. Interrogating several sacred cows in the profession including the concept of burnout, the should/need dichotomy and the parallel process he apprehends a trajectory chronicling nodal points and concluding that many undertakings within counselling serve increasingly to perpetuate a political-non-political conflation with marketplace morality idealised as liberalism morphs seamlessly into neoliberalism. What descends from a neoliberal paradise are reconfigurations of dichotomies not” of our choosing” (Marx, 1978) but of our own choice. Willingly with the anesthetising of any coherent Judeo-Christian impulses we opt for the sanctity of a vacuous Starbuck spirituality as liberalism or religion in its “degutted” version (Eagleton, 2009: p. 41) enacts the comfort of the afflicted but never the affliction of the comfortable.

Why Should We Compensate Organ Donors When We Can Continue to Take Organs for Free? A Response to Some of My Critics

In Kidney for Sale by Owner: Human Organs, Transplantation, and the Market, I argued that the market is the most efficient and effective-and morally justified-means of procuring and allocating human organs for transplantation. This special issue of The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy publishes several articles critical of this position and of my arguments mustered in its support. In this essay, I explore the core criticisms these authors raise against my conclusions. I argue that clinging to comfortable, but unfounded, notions that human body parts are not commodities, that the physician-patient relationship transcends commercial practices, and that medicine rises above market-place morality (where "market-place morality" is presented rhetorically as a criticism) leads to a real failure adequately to appreciate the complex reality of modern medicine. Denying the illicit moral intuitions that commodification of body parts is immoral or that it necessarily violates human dignity would benefit donors and recipients alike, while also reinforcing virtuous transplantation practice and policy. Honestly acknowledging the medical marketplace would shed light on what is often a hazy and shrouded policy setting. At stake is not solely the efficiency of procuring human organs for transplantation but also the recognition of the moral authority of persons over themselves.

107. Biobehavioral and spiritual responses of women in a labyrinth walking program

Consumer psychology has been overly reliant on a small set of paradigms. As a result, the field appears less prepared than it could aspire to be for contributing new knowledge on, and relief from, our hyper-consumption era. Accordingly, I explore Buddhist psychology by drawing from its foundational framework known as the Three Marks of Existence (suffering, impermanence, and no-self) to introduce an Eastern theory of mind and provide alternative guidance on research for consumer well-being. The TME framework offers an opportunity to re-think the priorities, nature, and processes of the comparing and judging consumer mind (e.g., expectations, preferences, satisfaction); the attaching and depending consumer mind (e.g., ownership, materialism, excessive behaviors); and the deciding, choosing, and regulating consumer mind (marketplace morality, cognitive biases, values-based choice, and free will). From these considerations I generate research questions and summarizing propositions for future research. The closing discussion synopsizes the contributions and limitations, including extra opportunities for integrating Buddhist and consumer psychologies.

The Legitimacy of Direct Corporate Humanitarian Investment

Private firms are uniquely positioned to provide significant relief to the misery that pervades the developing world. Global misery has persisted due to a variety of failures in the provision of relief by nation-states and non-governmental organizations, including corruption and the absence of strong background institutions in the countries in need of aid. In many situations, private firms have a comparative advantage over these entities in the provision of aid. Examples such as Merck and the cure for river blindness show how firms can use their specific competencies and knowledge to relieve misery through Direct Corporate Humanitarian Investment (DCHI). DCHI is legitimized by marketplace morality and is consistent with the role of business within society, including legal dimensions. Shareholders may formally approve a corporation’s DCHI strategy and all stakeholders may act in support of their moral desires with respect to the firm and its DCHI strategy.

The Legitimacy of Direct Corporate Humanitarian Investment

Abstract:Private firms are uniquely positioned to provide significant relief to the misery that pervades the developing world. Global misery has persisted due to a variety of failures in the provision of relief by nation-states and non-governmental organizations, including corruption and the absence of strong background institutions in the countries in need of aid. In many situations, private firms have a comparative advantage over these entities in the provision of aid. Examples such as Merck and the cure for river blindness show how firms can use their specific competencies and knowledge to relieve misery through Direct Corporate Humanitarian Investment (DCHI). DCHI is legitimized by marketplace morality and is consistent with the role of business within society, including legal dimensions. Shareholders may formally approve a corporation’s DCHI strategy and all stakeholders may act in support of their moral desires with respect to the firm and its DCHI strategy.

Comment on Dunfee

A.A. SOMMER, JR. [*] Professor Dunfee has done singularly competent job in elucidating one of the recognized exceptions to the general proposition that, in the words of [ss] 2.01 of the American Law Institute's Principles of Corporate Governance: Analysis and Recommendations, a corporation [ldots] should have as its objective the conduct of business activities with view to enhancing corporate profit and shareholder gain. [1] The exception is that corporation may take into account ethical considerations even if they adversely affect shareholder value. He has provided framework within which managers can make rational--and rationalized--decisions as to when ethical considerations may supersede shareholder interests. As the Reporter for the Principles of Corporate Governance remarks, [t]here is very little direct authority on the permissibility of taking ethical considerations into account in framing corporate action where doing so might not enhance profits. [2] This proposition is in many ways more difficult to articulate than is the exception relating to eleemosynary contributions, which is often dealt with explicitly in statutes. The proposition that the managers of the corporation (executives and directors) have primary and almost all-encompassing obligation to maximize shareholder value is one that many find difficult to accept. The debate is not new one, and it did not start with the famous Berle-Dodd dust-up in the early 1930s. The seeds of this controversy had their origins in the very beginnings of the corporate form of economic enterprise. The earliest corporations, while they were generally organized by private citizens, nonetheless existed because of royal or parliamentary largesse, and, while they were permitted and often encouraged to make profit from their activities, they were also adjured to serve some public purpose, such as the operation of toll road, the provision of essential supplies, and so on. Charting the limits for manager in giving heed to ethical considerations is difficult. Separating out the manager's personal ethical instincts from those that should properly animate him as an official of the corporation is not an easy task. What one manager may perceive as marketplace morality, even hypernorm, may appear differently in the eyes of another manager. The ambiguities are amply demonstrated in the examples that accompany the articulation of the general principle in section 2.01 of the Principles of Corporate Governance. In several instances, set of hypothetical facts is stated, and conflicting conclusions are both justified under the principles set forth in the black letter principle. [3] A recognition that corporation and its management may depart from strict adherence to the profit-making purpose of the corporation opens up large area of discretion for management. In day when homelessness is pervasive problem, it is easy to rationalize substantial corporate commitment to easing the plight of the homeless. Such activity might be linked to making the community more desirable place in which to live; that rationalization could easily mask simple sentimentality and the sympathy of corporate official for the underprivileged. Professor Dunfee would like his conclusions regarding the appropriate impact of moral considerations upon corporate decisionmaking to stand alone and not depend upon any corporate benefit deriving from adherence to community ethical perceptions. However, not infrequently in his article the corporate benefit--or detriment--creeps in. This is not inappropriate. The corporation flouting the prevailing ethical mindset in community might very well suffer in its business. Corporate executives are probably more sensitive than they have ever been to the impact public opinion can have on their business. Newspapers, radio, television, and now the Internet make the dissemination of information about corporate conduct instantaneous and provide the mechanisms for mobilizing opinion and action quickly. …