Journal of Business Ethics (2006) 64: 137–155
Springer 2006

DOI 10.1007/s10551-005-5905-3

An Empirical Investigation
of the Relationships among a Consumer’s
Personal Values, Ethical Ideology Sarah Steenhaut
and Ethical Beliefs Patrick van Kenhove

ABSTRACT. This study provides an additional partial differences in value priorities (resultant conservation and
test of the Hunt–Vitell theory [1986, Journal of Macro- resultant self-enhancement) directly and indirectly
marketing, 8, 5–16; 1993, ‘The General Theory of Mar- (through idealism) influence the judgment of ethically
keting Ethics: A Retrospective and Revision’, in N. C. questionable consumer practices. These findings may
Smith and J. A. Quelch (eds.), Ethics in Marketing (Irwin significantly contribute to the theoretical understanding
Inc., Homewood), pp. 775–784], within the consumer of ethical decision-making.
ethics context. Using structural equation modeling, the
relationships among an individual’s personal values KEY WORDS: consumer ethics, ethical beliefs, ethical
(conceptualized by the typology of Schwartz [1992, decision making, ethical ideology, personal values,
‘Universals in the Content and Structure of Values: structural equation modeling
Theoretical Advances and Empirical Tests in 20 Coun-
tries’, in M. P. Zanna (ed.), Advances in Experimental Social
Psychology (Vol. 25, Academic Press, Orlando), pp. 1--65]
ethical ideology and ethical beliefs are investigated. The Introduction
validity of the model is assessed in a two-step procedure.
First, a measurement model of constructs is tested for key The most widely accepted theory which provides
validity dimensions. Next, the hypothesized causal rela-
a framework for understanding ethical decision-
tionships are examined in several path models, comparing
making processes is the Hunt–Vitell model (1986,
no mediation, partial and complete mediation of ethical
ideology. The empirical results indicate that individual 1993). This theory identified an individual’s moral
philosophy, or ethical ideology, as the key factor to
explain differences in ethical judgments and behav-
Sarah Steenhaut is research assistant and doctoral candidate at ior. Hunt and Vitell (1986, 1993) further noted that
Ghent University, Faculty of Economics and Business this ethical orientation is influenced by several
Administration, Research Center for Consumer Psychology background factors, among others an individual’s
and Marketing (Belgium). Her research interests lie in the personal characteristics. Since complete testing of
area of ethical aspects and marketing, more specifically, con- this comprehensive theory is difficult, only partial
sumers’ ethical beliefs, attitudes and behavior. She has tests have been attempted by several researchers
recently published in Journal of Business Ethics. (Singhapakdi and Vitell, 1993b), especially with re-
Patrick Van Kenhove is Professor of Marketing at Ghent gard to the relationship between ethical ideology and
University, Faculty of Economics and Business Administra-
ethical judgments in various contexts. Relatively
tion, Department of Marketing (Belgium). He has recently
published in Journal of Business Ethics, Psychology and
little conceptual or empirical attention has been
Marketing, Journal of Retailing, Advances in Con- devoted to the antecedents of an individual’s moral
sumer Research, Journal of Economic Psychology, philosophy (Kleiser et al., 2003; Singhapakdi et al.,
Journal of Health Communication and The Interna- 1999c).
tional Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer An individual’s value system is incorporated
Research. (among other personal factors) in the Hunt–Vitell
138 Sarah Steenhaut and Patrick Van Kenhove

model (1986, 1993), and also other theoretical antecedents of consumer ethics, more specifically the
frameworks (e.g. Ferrell and Gresham, 1985), as an influence of individual differences in value priorities
important determinant of ethical decision-making. In on the judgment of ethically questionable consumer
the business ethics context, empirical studies have practices. The closer we move to an understanding
demonstrated the influence of basic human values on of what causes some people to behave unethically
the judgment of unethical activities (e.g. Douglas while others do not, the better we will be able to
et al., 2001; Finegan, 1994; Fritzsche, 1995; prevent consumers from taking advantage of the
Giacalone and Jurkiewicz, 2003; Singhapakdi seller by committing an unethical act. A second,
and Vitell, 1993b), on moral philosophies (e.g. Sing- more theoretical aim is to provide an additional
hapakdi and Vitell, 1993a), and on marketers’ pro- partial test of the relationships postulated in the
fessional values and marketing norms (e.g. Rallapalli Hunt–Vitell model within a consumer context, as
et al., 2000; Singhapakdi et al., 1995, 1999a). suggested by Vitell (2003). Using structural equation
However, ethics are not only an issue for the seller modeling, the relationships among personal values,
side of the buyer/seller dyad. Consumers are major ethical ideology and ethical beliefs are addressed.
participants in the business process and not consid- Different path models are tested to investigate the
ering them in ethics research could result in an individual’s moral philosophy as an intervening
incomplete understanding of that process (Vitell, variable between personal values and judgments of
2003). In the last decade an important stream of ethically questionable consumer practices.
research has emerged involving (un)ethical con-
sumer behavior (for a recent overview see Vitell,
2003). Within this domain, many studies have Personal values
identified the two dimensions of Forsyth’s (1980)
ethical ideology, i.e. idealism and relativism, as Personal values can be defined as ‘‘concepts or beliefs
important determinants of consumers’ evaluation of about desirable end states or behaviors that transcend
ethically questionable consumer activities (e.g. Erff- specific situations, guide selection or evaluation of
meyer et al., 1999; Rawwas et al., 1995; Singhapakdi behavior and events, and are ordered by relative
et al., 1999b; Swaidan et al., 2003). Research on a importance’’ (Schwartz and Bilsky, 1987, p. 551).
consumer’s value system as antecedent of both moral They are socially approved verbal representations of
philosophy and ethical beliefs has been rather scarce basic motivations (Rokeach, 1973; Schwartz, 1992).
(e.g. Rawwas et al., 2004; Rawwas and Isakson, Values convey what is important to us in our lives.
2000) although personal values are generally Each person holds numerous values with varying
acknowledged to be very helpful in explaining and degrees of importance. A particular value may be
understanding a wide spectrum of consumer very important to one person but unimportant to
behavior across many situations (Rokeach, 1973; another.
Schwartz, 1992). Among others, values have been Probably the most important stream of research
used to explain purchase of organic food (Grunert on personal values in the past decade has been
and Juhl, 1995), ecological behavior (Ellen, 1994; conducted by Schwartz and his colleagues (e.g.
McCarty and Shrum, 1994), cigarette smoking Schwartz, 1992; Schwartz and Sagiv, 1995). Build-
(Grube et al., 1984), mall shopping attitude and ing on and extending Rokeach’s (1973) work,
behavior (Shim and Eastlick, 1998), internet use Schwartz derived a typology of values. Based on the
(Schiffman et al., 2003), innovativeness (Steenkamp universal requirements of human existence (i.e.
et al., 1999), existence of market segments (Bran- biological needs, interpersonal coordination and
gule-Vlagsma et al., 2002; Madrigal and Kahle, social institutional demands to ensure group wel-
1994; ter Hofstede et al., 1999), and academic dis- fare), the Schwartz (1992) Value Theory defines 10
honesty (Rawwas and Isakson, 2000; Rawwas et al., broad values according to the motivation that
2004). underlies each of them. These values are presumed
The purpose of the present study is twofold. A to encompass the range of motivationally distinct
first objective is to scrutinize basic human values as values recognized across cultures. Table I provides
 Relationships among a Consumer’s Personal Values, Ethical Ideology and Ethical Beliefs 139

TABLE I
Definitions of types of values and the items that represent and measure them

Value Definition and Items

Power Social status and prestige, control or dominance over people and resources
(Social power, authority, wealth)
Achievement Personal success through demonstrating competence according to social standards
(Successful, capable, ambitious, influential)
Hedonism Pleasure and sensuous gratification for oneself (Pleasure, enjoying life)
Stimulation Excitement, novelty, and challenge in life (Daring, a varied life, an exciting life)
Self-direction Independent thought and action-choosing, creating, exploring
(Creativity, freedom, independent, curious, choosing own goals)
Universalism Understanding, appreciation, tolerance and protection of the welfare of all people and of nature
(Broadminded, wisdom, social justice, equality, a world at peace, a world of beauty,
unity with nature, protecting the environment)
Benevolence Preservation and enhancement of the welfare of people with whom one is in frequent personal contact
(Helpful, honest, forgiving, loyal, responsible)
Tradition Respect, commitment and acceptance of the customs and ideas that traditional culture or religion
provide the self (Humble, accepting my portion of life, devout, respect for tradition, moderate)
Conformity Restraint of actions, inclinations, and impulses likely to upset or harm others and violate social
expectations or norms (Politeness, obedient, self-discipline, honoring parents and elders)
Security Safety, harmony and stability of society, of relationships, and of self (Family security, national security,
social order, clean, reciprocation of favors)

the definitions of each broad value and lists specific Extensive research has assessed the theory in over
value items that represent them. 200 samples in more than 60 countries from every
The most important feature of this theory is the inhabited continent (representative national samples,
structure of dynamic relations among the 10 values. school teachers, university students, adolescents,
It postulates that actions expressive of any value have samples of workers in specific occupations)
practical, psychological, and social consequences that (Schwartz and Boehnke, 2004). These studies
may conflict or be compatible with the pursuit of concluded that the data largely support (a) the
other values. For example, actions intended to foster distinctiveness of the ten values, (b) the idea that
social order (a security value) are also likely to pro- these values are comprehensive of the major, moti-
mote obedience (a conformity value). However, vationally distinctive types of values, and (c) the
these same actions are likely to conflict with actions ordering of values postulated by the circumplex
that promote self-direction values such as indepen- structure (Schwartz, 1992, 1994; Schwartz and
dence and freedom. The circular structure in Fig- Bardi, 2001; Schwartz and Sagiv, 1995).
ure 1 portrays the total pattern of relations of conflict
and congruity among values. Conflicting values are
in opposing directions from the center; congruent Hypotheses
values are adjacent to one another in the circle. The
circular arrangement of the values represents a The 10 value types can be organized in four higher
motivational continuum. The closer any two values order value domains that form two basic bipolar
in either direction around the circle, the more dimensions, i.e. conservation versus openness to
similar their underlying motivations; and the more change and self-enhancement versus self-transcen-
distant any two values, the more antagonistic their dence (Figure 1). These two dimensions constitute
underlying motivations. the most fundamental aspect of the Schwartz value
140 Sarah Steenhaut and Patrick Van Kenhove

Self-transcendence

Universalism Benevolence

Tradition
Self-direction
Openness Conformity
to change Conservation
Stimulation
Security
Hedonism
Power
Achieve
ment

Self-enhancement

Figure 1. Theoretical model of relations among 10 motivational types of values.

system (Schwartz and Sagiv, 1995) and are the focus high need to follow socially desirable behavior,
of this article. whereas unethical consumers were likely to have a
The conservation versus openness to change dimension high propensity to take risks and a high need for
defines ‘‘values in terms of the extent to which they innovation. Van Kenhove et al. (2001) investigated
motivate people to preserve the status quo and the the influence of need for closure (i.e. the desire for
certainty it provides in relationships with close clear, definite, or unambiguous knowledge that will
others, institutions, and traditions versus following guide perception and action, as opposed to the
their own emotional and intellectual interests in undesirable alternative or ambiguity and confusion,
unpredictable and uncertain directions’’ (Schwartz, Kruglanski, 1989) on ethical beliefs and concluded
1992, p. 43). The three value types underlying the that individuals with a high need for closure tend to
conservation pole are security, conformity, and tra- have beliefs that are ethical. Although these per-
dition. The value types pertaining to the higher- sonality traits are distinct from values, they are
order type openness to change are self-direction, conceptually related to the overarching Schwartz
stimulation and hedonism1. value typology, giving support to our expectations.
Conservation goals are likely to be congruent The more importance a consumer attaches to
with an ethical disposition, as unethical consumer conservation relative to openness to change, i.e.
practices involve breaking traditional patterns of ‘‘resultant conservation’’ (Feather, 1995), the more
behavior and violating expectations and norms. In likely the consumer is to let his/her life be guided by
contrast, openness to change values are likely to be customs, traditions and standards rather than taking
congruent with an unethical disposition because challenges to experience excitement and to explore
unethical consumer practices provide the opportu- opportunities. Therefore, we hypothesize that the
nity to experience some variety and stimulation consumer will be more likely to evaluate ethically
through change from established patterns. Previous questionable consumer actions as inappropriate
consumer ethics studies have examined the rela- when giving relatively more priority to conservation
tionship between diverse personality traits and con- compared to openness to change. In other words,
sumers’ ethical beliefs. Rallapalli et al. (1994) found resultant conservation is likely to be congruent with
that ethical consumers were more likely to possess a an ethical disposition.
 Relationships among a Consumer’s Personal Values, Ethical Ideology and Ethical Beliefs 141

H1: Resultant conservation will result in an H2: Resultant self-enhancement will result in a
intolerant judgment of unethical consumer tolerant judgment of unethical consumer
practices practices

The second bipolar dimension, self-enhancement versus In the Hunt–Vitell model (1986, 1993) an individ-
self-transcendence, defines ‘‘values in terms of the ual’s moral philosophy is the key factor of differences
extent to which they motivate people to enhance in ethical judgments. These moral philosophies are
their own personal interests (even at the expense of deontological and teleological in nature. While the
others) versus to transcend selfish concerns and deontological evaluation focuses on the specific
promote the welfare of others, close and distant, and actions or behaviors of the individual, the teleological
of nature’’ (Schwartz, 1992, p. 43). Underlying the evaluation stresses the consequences of the action or
self-enhancement pole are power and achievement. behavior. Forsyth (1980, 1992) conceptualized two
Self-transcendence encompasses the value types evaluative dimensions that have long been used to
universalism and benevolence. classify an individual’s ethical and moral judgments:
Self-enhancement goals are likely to be congruent idealism and relativism. Idealism refers to the degree
with an unethical disposition, because unethical to which an individual believes that the right decision
consumer practices involve promoting personal can be made in an ethically questionable situation.
interests, with little or no regard for others. In This is essentially the deontological perspective that
contrast, self-transcendence values are likely to be embodies concern for others’ welfare. Idealistic
congruent with an ethical disposition as these are individuals belief that there is a morally correct
concerned with the harm that ethical transgressions alternative that will not harm others. Less idealistic
can do to others. In previous consumer ethics studies individuals may make decisions irrespective of the
Machiavellianism has been frequently related to impact on others. Relativism, on the other hand,
consumers’ ethical judgments. Machiavellianism can refers to the rejection of universal rules in making
be defined as ‘‘a negative epithet, indicating at least ethical judgments and focuses on the social conse-
an immoral way of manipulating others to accom- quences of behavior (i.e. teleological perspective).
plish one’s objectives’’ (Hunt and Chonko, 1984, High relativists evaluate the current situation and use
p. 30). High Machiavellians manipulate more, win this as the basis for making a judgment. Low rela-
more, and are persuaded less; whereas low Machia- tivists believe that standard rules can be applied
vellians are more concerned with the interests of regardless of the issue at hand.
others and less with their personal gain. Research Many empirical studies have used Forsyth’s (1980,
found that highly Machiavellian people show little 1992) ethical ideology to explore the ethics of var-
concern for conventional morality and are more ious groups. Some of that research has used personal
likely to engage in unethical behavior when their moral philosophies to compare the ethical beliefs of
rational self-interest is involved (e.g. Erffmeyer et al., consumers from two or more countries, such as the
1999; Rawwas et al., 1995; Van Kenhove et al., U.S. and Egypt (Al-Khatib et al., 1997); the U.S.
2001). and Korea (Lee and Sirgy, 1999); Egypt and Leba-
The more importance a consumer attaches to self- non (Rawwas et al., 1994); Hong Kong and
enhancement relative to self-transcendence, i.e. Northern Ireland (Rawwas et al., 1995); the U.S.
‘‘resultant self-enhancement’’ (Feather, 1995), the and Turkey (Rawwas et al., 2005); the U.S. and
more likely the consumer is to safeguard his/her own Malaysia (Singhapakdi et al., 1999b). Other research
well-being and interests, rather than taking into has used ethical ideology to examine the ethical
account and preserving the welfare of others. beliefs of consumers from within one country or
Therefore, we hypothesize that the consumer will be culture, including Egypt (Al-Khatib et al., 1995);
more likely to evaluate ethically questionable prac- Japan (Erffmeyer et al., 1999); Belgium (Van
tices as appropriate when giving relative more priority Kenhove et al., 2001); Austria (Rawwas, 1996);
to self-enhancement compared to self-transcendence. Africa (Swaidan et al., 2003); Romania (Al-Khatib
In other words, resultant self-enhancement will be et al., 2004); and the U.S. (Vitell et al., 1991). These
congruent with an unethical disposition. studies concluded that idealism is associated with
142 Sarah Steenhaut and Patrick Van Kenhove

greater ethicality whereas relativism is associated H4: Relativism will have a negative effect on the
with lower ethicality. For example, Erffmeyer et al. judgment of unethical consumer practices.
(1999) found that Japanese consumers who were
more idealistic tended to think that ethically ques- The Hunt–Vitell theory (1986, 1993) postulated that
tionable consumer situations were more wrong, an individual’s ethical ideology is anteceded by his/
whereas relativistic consumers were more likely to her value priorities (among others). This is consistent
perceive these situations as less wrong. Similarly, with the integrative view of consumer goal structure
Rawwas et al. (1995) found that Hong Kong con- and goal-determination processes of Huffman et al.
sumers who score high on idealism were more likely (2000). They proposed a hierarchical structure with
to reject questionable practices compared to six discrete levels of goals wherein higher-level
Northern Irish consumers who scored high on rel- (versus low-level) goals are more abstract, more
ativism. In another study, Singhapakdi et al. (1999b) inclusive, and less mutable. Personal values represent
found that Malaysian consumers with a relativistic the highest level in this framework, shaping and
philosophy were more likely to have lower ethical giving meaning to all goals at the lower levels. In this
perceptions than did those with a low score on way an individual’s moral philosophy can be inter-
relativism. Swaidan et al. (2003) concluded that preted as a lower-level goal (i.e. ethical value sys-
idealism positively influences Africans’ ethical tem). Therefore we expect a consumer’s personal
beliefs. values to influence ethical beliefs directly and indi-
Although the relations between an individual’s rectly through ethical ideology.
moral philosophy and ethical beliefs have been Idealism taps whether a consumer believes that
supported in prior research, these hypotheses are acts should be judged as right or wrong, independent
explicitly formulated because these are incorporated of how they are applied, or whether the ultimate
in our research model (cfr. Figure 2). determinant of right and wrong depends upon the
outcomes produced by the action (Forsyth, 1992).
Highly idealistic individuals adhere to moral abso-
H3: Idealism will have a positive effect on the lutes and traditional norms when making ethical
judgment of unethical consumer practices. judgments. They are less willing to make exceptions

Personal values Ethical ideology Ethical beliefs

γ (1 to 4),1 Actively
Resultant benefiting from an
Conservation illegal activity (1)

γ 5,1
β (1 to 4),3 Passively
benefiting at the
γ 6,1 Idealism
expense of others (2)

β (1 to 4),4 Actively
γ 5,2 benefiting from a
Relativism
questionable
behavior (3)
γ 6,2

Resultant No harm,
Self-enhancement no foul (4)
γ (1 to 4),2

Non-mediation model: γ(1 to 4),1 – γ(1 to 4),2

Partial mediation model: γ(1 to 4),1 – γ(1 to 4),2 – γ(5-6),1 – γ(5-6),2 – β(1 to 4),3 – β(1 to 4),4
Complete mediation model: γ(5-6),1 – γ(5-6),2 – β(1 to 4),3 – β(1 to 4),4

Figure 2. Research model.

 Relationships among a Consumer’s Personal Values, Ethical Ideology and Ethical Beliefs 143

to guidelines and are more committed to taking steps change, i.e. ‘‘resultant conservation’’ (Feather, 1995),
that produce desirable outcomes. In contrast, less the less likely the consumer is to be relativistic.
idealistic individuals are less sensitive to the welfare Whereas, the more importance a consumer attaches
of others and assume that harm will sometimes be to self-enhancement relative to self-transcendence,
necessary to produce good. i.e. ‘‘resultant self-enhancement’’ (Feather, 1995),
In a business ethics context Singhapakdi and Vitell the more likely the consumer is to be relativistic.
(1993a) related the list of values (LOV) of Kahle
(1986) to marketers’ moral philosophies and con- H6a: Resultant conservation will be negatively
cluded that idealism is positively correlated with associated with relativism.
warm relationships with others, being well respected,
security, a sense of belonging, and self-respect. H6b: Resultant self-enhancement will be posi-
Rallapalli et al. (2000) found that marketers’ deon- tively associated with relativism.
tological norms were negatively correlated with
excitement, fun and enjoyment in life and sense of The above hypotheses are summarized in Figure 2.
accomplishment. The key question in this research model is the
Therefore, the more importance the consumer influence of individual differences in value priorities
attaches to conservation relative to openness to on a consumer’s ethical judgments. Several path
change, i.e. ‘‘resultant conservation’’ (Feather, models will be examined, comparing no mediation,
1995), the more likely the consumer is to be ideal- partial and complete mediation effects of ethical
istic. Whereas, the more importance a consumer ideology.
attaches to self-enhancement relative to self-tran-
scendence, i.e. ‘‘resultant self-enhancement’’
(Feather, 1995), the less likely the consumer is to be Methodology
idealistic.
Sample and Procedure
H5a: Resultant conservation will be positively
associated with idealism. Data were collected by means of an electronic survey,
developed by using the software program Web
H5b: Resultant self-enhancement will be nega- Surveyor. The link to the survey was posted on the
tively associated with idealism. website of a nationwide newspaper. A final sample of
609 usable questionnaires was collected. Table II
Relativism taps the extent to which a consumer sees gives an overview of the characteristics of the sample.
his or her own ethical standards as context-bound
and subjective versus universal (Forsyth, 1992).
Highly relativistic individuals embrace a moral phi- Measurement of constructs
losophy based on skepticism. They generally feel that
ethical actions depend upon the nature of the situ- Ethical beliefs were measured by the Consumer
ation and the individuals involved and when judging Ethics Scale developed by Muncy and Vitell
others they weigh the circumstances more than the (1992) and validated by Vitell and Muncy (1992).
ethical principle that was violated. Less relativistic This scale investigates the extent to which con-
individuals emphasize the importance of traditions sumers believe that certain questionable behaviors
and universal standards. are either appropriate or inappropriate. These
Singhapakdi and Vitell (1993a) found that mar- consumer practices can be divided into four cat-
keters’ relativistic philosophy appeared to be posi- egories: (1) ‘‘actively benefiting from an illegal
tively correlated with excitement, and fun and activity’’, i.e. actions that are initiated by the
enjoyment in life, and negatively with self-respect. consumer and that are almost universally perceived
In line with the findings from the business ethics as illegal (e.g. changing price tags on merchandise
literature, we expect the more importance a con- in a retail store, drinking a can of soda in a
sumer attaches to conservation relative to openness to supermarket without paying for it); (2) ‘‘passively
144 Sarah Steenhaut and Patrick Van Kenhove

TABLE II To measure idealism and relativism (i.e. ethical

Sample descriptives ideology) the Ethics Position Questionnaire of For-
syth (1980) was used. Respondents were asked to
Gender % indicate their (dis)agreement with the 20 items,
Male 56.0 using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 ‘totally
Female 44.0 disagree’ to 5 ‘totally agree’.
Age Personal values were assessed using the 56-item
£ 24 27.4 Schwartz Value Survey (Schwartz, 1994). The
25–34 31.7 instructions and scoring procedure developed by
35–44 18.8
Schwartz (Schwartz and Sagiv, 1995) were employed.
45–54 15.1
Each value was rated on a 9-point importance scale,
55+ 6.9
Education ranging from )1 ‘opposed to my values’, to 0 ‘not
Primary education 4.8 important’, to 3 ‘important’, to 7 ‘supreme impor-
Secondary education 31.6 tance’. Prior to rating the values, respondents were
Higher education short-type 26.8 asked to choose and rate their most and least impor-
Higher education long-type 29.4 tant value.
Postgraduate education 7.4 For an overview of the scale items, we refer to
Occupation Appendix A.
Worker 6.0 To control for common method error variance,
Employee 52.1 the scales were randomized and multiple filler items
Executive 11.3 were included in the questionnaire.
Profession 2.2
Self-employed 3.5
House-keeping 1.5
Student 16.0
Empirical findings
Retired 4.6
Unemployed 2.4 To test the hypotheses, we developed a structural
equation model using Lisrel 8.53 (Jöreskog and
N = 609. Sörbom, 2002). The validity of the model was
assessed in a two-step procedure. First a measure-
ment model of constructs was tested for key validity
benefiting at the expense of others’’, i.e. actions dimensions (unidimensionality, convergent validity,
whereby the consumer takes advantage of a seller’s reliability and discriminant validity). Next, the
mistake (e.g. getting too much change and not hypothesized causal relationships were estimated in
saying anything, lying about a child’s age in order several structural path models, investigating which
to get a lower price); (3) ‘‘actively benefiting from model fitted the data best.
questionable behavior’’, i.e. the consumer is in-
volved in an action that may not necessarily be
perceived as illegal (e.g. using an expired coupon Measurement model
for merchandise, accidentally damaging something
and not saying anything); and (4) ‘‘no harm/no To evaluate unidimensionality and convergent
foul’’, i.e. actions perceived as doing little or no validity of the measured constructs (i.e. the 4 cate-
harm (e.g. recording an album instead of buying gories of ethical beliefs, the two dimensions of ethical
it, spending over an hour trying on different ideology and the 10 personal values), a maximum
dresses and not purchasing any). Respondents were likelihood confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was
asked to evaluate the 18 unethical situations, ran- undertaken. After several iterations, dropping various
domly ordered, using a 5-point Likert scale with items, a satisfactory 16-factor model was obtained
higher scores indicating a more intolerant judg- (v2(2157) = 4530; RMSEA = 0.043; Tucker Lewis
ment, i.e. ethical disposition (1 ‘very appropriate’ Index NNFI = 0.96; SRMR = 0.053; GFI = 0.82).
to 5 ‘very inappropriate’). The reliability of the constructs was measured by the
 Relationships among a Consumer’s Personal Values, Ethical Ideology and Ethical Beliefs 145

TABLE III
Measurement model

Latent construct Number of items Composite Items + Loading

reliability
Original Final

Ethical beliefs
Actively benefiting 5 5 0.74 Belief 1 0.61
from an illegal activity Belief 2 0.54
Belief 3 0.63
Belief 4 0.61
Belief 5 0.64
Passively benefiting at 3 2 0.63 Belief 6 0.65
the expense of others Belief 7 0.70
Actively benefiting from 5 5 0.75 Belief 9 0.55
a questionable behavior Belief 10 0.61
Belief 11 0.68
Belief 12 0.67
Belief 13 0.53
No harm, no foul 5 3 0.66 Belief 14 0.69
Belief 15 0.32
Belief 18 0.82
Ethical ideology
Idealism 10 7 0.84 Idealism 3 0.74
Idealism 4 0.68
Idealism 5 0.70
Idealism 6 0.57
Idealism 7 0.60
Idealism 8 0.56
Idealism 9 0.68
Relativism 10 5 0.78 Relativism 3 0.43
Relativism 5 0.74
Relativism 6 0.79
Relativism 7 0.60
Relativism 8 0.65
Personal values
Power 5 4 0.76 Social power (V3) 0.65
Wealth (V12) 0.54
Authority (V27) 0.82
Preserving my public image (V46) 0.63
Achievement 5 4 0.77 Ambitious (V34) 0.72
Influential (V39) 0.73
Intelligent (V48) 0.54
Successful (V55) 0.72
Hedonism 2 2 0.76 Pleasure (V4) 0.80
Enjoying life (V50) 0.76
Stimulation 3 3 0.81 An exciting life (V9) 0.76
A varied life (V25) 0.79
Daring (V37) 0.74
146 Sarah Steenhaut and Patrick Van Kenhove

TABLE III
(Continued)

Latent construct Number of items Composite Items + Loading

reliability
Original Final

Self-direction 6 5 0.75 Self-respect (V14) 0.59

Creativity (V16) 0.59
Independent (V31) 0.60
Choosing own goals (V41) 0.64
Curious (V53) 0.62
Universalism 9 5 0.82 Equality (V1) 0.61
A world at peace (V17) 0.68
A world of beauty (V29) 0.67
Social justice (V30) 0.77
Protecting the environment (V38) 0.69
Benevolence 9 5 0.77 Loyal (V33) 0.62
Honest (V45) 0.68
Helpful (V49) 0.69
Responsible (V52) 0.63
Forgiving (V54) 0.57
Tradition 6 5 0.73 Respect for tradition (V18) 0.66
Moderate (V32) 0.59
Humble (V36) 0.52
Accepting my portion of life (V44) 0.58
Devout (V51) 0.61
Security 7 5 0.74 Social order (V8) 0.67
National security (V13) 0.62
Reciprocation of favors (V15) 0.51
Family security (V22) 0.51
Clean (V56) 0.67
Conformity 4 4 0.76 Politeness (V11) 0.71
Self-discipline (V20) 0.61
Honoring my parents and elders (V40) 0.64
Obedient (V47) 0.71

v2 = 4530.91; df = 2157; RMSEA = 0.043; NNFI = 0.96.

‘composite reliability’ indicator of Bagozzi (1980). Table III provides an overview of the measure-
All factors exceeded the minimal value of 0.60 (Ba- ment model.
gozzi and Yi, 1988). To test the discriminant validity After establishing the measurement model, we
each of the 120 off-diagonal elements of F was fixed followed the standard procedure to compute the
to 1.0, in turn, and the model was re-estimated. higher order value domains (i.e. conservation,
Changes in v2 goodness-of-fit were statistically sig- openness to change, self-enhancement, and self-
nificant for all comparisons (Dv2 ranging from 10.68 transcendence) (Feather, 1995; Steenkamp et al.,
for actively benefiting from questionable behavior 1999). First, the mean importance of each value type
and passively benefiting at the expense of others, up was obtained by averaging the scores of the under-
to 783.70 for achievement and actively benefiting lying items. Next, an index of the importance of a
from an illegal activity, df = 1; p < 0.01), indicating value domain was computed by averaging the
discriminant validity. importances attributed to the value types within each
 Relationships among a Consumer’s Personal Values, Ethical Ideology and Ethical Beliefs 147

domain. This procedure ensures equal weighting of hypothesized. Model statistics are provided in
all value types in the construction of a particular Table IV. To compare these models we conducted
value domain (Schwartz, 1992; Steenkamp et al., v2 difference tests and also inspected the consistent
1999). Finally, a score for resultant conservation was Akaike information criterion (CAIC). Compared to
computed by subtracting the mean importance score the model without idealism and relativism (i.e. non-
for openness to change from the mean importance mediation model), the complete mediation model
score for conservation. Similarly, a score for resultant performed worse (Dv2/Ddf = +198.43/1; p < 0.01
self-enhancement was obtained by subtracting the and higher CAIC). The partial mediation model
mean importance score for self-transcendence from appeared to fit the data best (Dv2/Ddf = )113.10/7;
the mean importance score for self-enhancement. p < 0.01 and lower CAIC).

Structural model Results

To investigate the extent to which a consumer’s Table V shows the individual path estimates of the
ethical beliefs can be predicted by individual differ- direct and indirect effects.
ences in value priorities (H1 and H2), a structural path Significant positive, direct path coefficients were
model was estimated. Significant positive path coef- found between resultant conservation and the four
ficients were found between resultant conservation categories of ethically questionable types of behavior
and actively benefiting from an illegal activity (c1,1 = (c1,1 = 0.32, p < 0.01; c2,1 = 0.34, p < 0.01;
0.43, p < 0.01), passively benefiting at the expense of c3,1 = 0.30, p < 0.01; c4,1 = 0.31, p < 0.01). Resul-
others (c2,1 = 0.45, p < 0.01), actively benefiting tant self-enhancement was negatively related to
from a questionable behavior (c 3,1 = 0.40, p < 0.01) ethical beliefs, but this effect was found to be sig-
and no harm, no foul (c4,1 = 0.40, p < 0.01). nificant only for the category of actively benefiting
Negative paths were obtained between resultant from questionable behavior (c1,2 = )0.01, p > 0.05;
self-enhancement and the four categories of ethical c2,2 = )0.09, p > 0.05; c3,2 = )0.10, p < 0.05;
beliefs (c1,2 = )0.17, p < 0.01; c2,2 = ).26, p < c4,2 = )0.06, p > 0.05). Furthermore, idealism had
0.01; c3,2 = ).24, p < 0.01; c4,2 = ).19, p < 0.01). a significant positive effect on a consumer’s ethical
These results are consistent with the hypotheses. judgments (b1,1 = 0.34, p < 0.01; b2,1 = 0.36,
Next, we hypothesized the relationship between p < 0.01; b3,1 = 0.32, p < 0.01; b4,1 = 0.27,
personal values and ethical beliefs to be mediated by p < 0.01). The negative influence of relativism was
the consumer’s ethical ideology. Therefore, we ex- less pervasive compared to the effect of idealism, and
tended the previously estimated model by including was only significant for the category of actively
the complete, respectively partial, mediation effects benefiting from an illegal activity (b1,2 = )0.10,
of idealism and relativism. In the complete media- p < 0.01; b2,2 = )0.07, p > 0.05; b3,2 = )0.03,
tion model personal values were hypothesized to p > 0.05; b4,2 = )0.09, p > 0.05). The path coef-
have only an indirect effect on ethical beliefs ficient between resultant conservation and idealism
through ethical ideology. In the partial mediation was significant and, as hypothesized, positive
model both direct and indirect effects were (c5,1 = 0.27, p < 0.01); for relativism no significant

TABLE IV
Model Statistics

v2 df CAIC NNFI GFI

Non-mediation model 1712.61 365 2231 0.91 0.84

Complete mediation model 1911.04 366 2422 0.91 0.82
Partial mediation model 1599.51 358 2170 0.91 0.85
148 Sarah Steenhaut and Patrick Van Kenhove

TABLE V
Relationships between personal values and ethical beliefs, partially mediated by ethical ideology

Path from ... to ... Load. Std. t-value

Error

H1 Resultant Conservation Actively benefiting from an illegal activity (c1,1) 0.32 0.051 6.29**
Passively benefiting at the expense of others (c2,1) 0.34 0.055 6.24**
Actively benefiting from a questionable behavior (c3,1) 0.3 0.052 5.74**
No harm, no foul (c4,1) 0.31 0.053 5.96**
H2 Resultant Self-enhancement Actively benefiting from an illegal activity (c1,2) )0.01 0.05 )0.14 ns
Passively benefiting at the expense of others (c2,2) )0.1 0.055 )1.76 ns
Actively benefiting from a questionable behavior (c3,2) )0.1 0.05 )2.01*
No harm, no foul (c4,2) )0.06 0.052 )1.12 ns
H3 Idealism Actively benefiting from an illegal activity (b1,3) 0.34 0.059 5.83**
Passively benefiting at the expense of others (b2,3) 0.36 0.063 5.70**
Actively benefiting from a questionable behavior (b3,3) 0.32 0.06 5.33**
No harm, no foul (b4,3) 0.27 0.059 4.58**
H4 Relativism Actively benefiting from an illegal activity (b1,4) )0.1 0.048 )2.07*
Passively benefiting at the expense of others (b2,4) )0.07 0.051 )1.33 ns
Actively benefiting from a questionable behavior (b3,4) )0.03 0.047 )0.69 ns
No harm, no foul (b4,4) )0.08 0.049 )1.57 ns
H5 Resultant Conservation Idealism (c5,1) 0.27 0.045 6.02**
Relativism (c6,1) 0.02 0.048 0.50 ns
H6 Resultant Self-enhancement Idealism (c5,2) )0.37 0.046 )7.97**
Relativism (c6,2) 0.2 0.052 3.91**

**p < 0.01; *p < 0.05; ns = not significant.

negative effect was obtained (c6,1 = 0.02, p > 0.05). Furthermore, we found that resultant self-enhance-
The path between resultant self-enhancement and ment has only an indirect effect on ethical judgments
idealism (c5,2 = )0.37, p < 0.01) and relativism (H2). The more importance the consumer attaches to
(c6,2 = 0.20, p < 0.01) was both significant and in self-enhancement (i.e. values such as power and
the expected direction. achievement) relative to self-transcendence (i.e. val-
These results supported our hypothesis that the ues such as universalism and benevolence), the more
effect of a consumer’s value priorities on his/her likely the consumer is to be idealistic (H6a), which in
ethical beliefs is mediated by the consumer’s ethical turn positively influences the consumer’s ethical be-
ideology. We found that a consumer’s ethical beliefs liefs (H3). The expected patterns for relativism were
were directly and indirectly influenced by resultant not observed to be consistent. The effect of relativism
conservation. For the direct effect (H1), we observed on the evaluation of ethically questionable consumer
that the more importance a consumer attaches to the behaviors was found to be rather small (H4), and this
basic human values of security, conformity and tra- dimension of ethical ideology seemed to be ante-
dition (i.e. conservation), the more likely the con- ceded by the self-enhancement versus self-transcen-
sumer is to evaluate ethically questionable practices as dence values (H6b), but not by the conservation
inappropriate; whereas the more priority to self- versus openness to change values (H5b).
direction, stimulation and hedonism (i.e. openness to
change), the more likely the consumer is to hold an
unethical disposition. This effect is partially mediated General discussion
by idealism (H3, H5a): resultant conservation is
positively associated with idealism, which in turn has This paper provides an additional partial test of the
a positive effect on a consumer’s ethical beliefs. comprehensive ethical decision-making model of
 Relationships among a Consumer’s Personal Values, Ethical Ideology and Ethical Beliefs 149

Hunt and Vitell (1986, 1993). This theory postulated Singhapakdi et al., 1999c; Vitell, 2003). Hunt and
an individual’s moral philosophy as a key factor for Vitell (1993) emphasized the unquestionable impact
differences in ethical judgments. Furthermore, Hunt of an individual’s value system in the decision pro-
and Vitell noted that this ethical orientation is cess: ‘‘In general we urge researchers to explore many
influenced by several background factors, among different values and the extent to which these values
others an individual’s personal characteristics, impact ethical decision-making’’ (p. 780). By scru-
including personal values. The present research tinizing the mediating processes in the causal model
examines the relationships among an individual’s of personal values and ethical beliefs this study sig-
value system, ethical ideology and ethical beliefs. nificantly contributes to the theoretical understand-
More specifically, using structural equation model- ing of ethical decision-making within a consumer
ing, we investigated the impact of individual dif- ethics context (cf. Hunt and Vitell, 1986, 1993).
ferences in value priorities on a consumer’s Personal values are not only significant as guiding
judgments of ethically questionable practices, and principles in life, as defined by Schwartz (1994);
whether this relationship is mediated by the con- Homer and Kahle (1988) emphasized the important
sumer’s moral philosophies. role of values in shaping attitudes and behavior.
We found that idealism is a significant mediator of Values have an indirect effect on consumer behavior
the relationship between basic human values and a through less abstract mediating factors such as
consumer’s ethical beliefs. The more importance the domain-specific attitudes, whereby the influence of
consumer attaches to tradition, conformity and values should theoretically flow from abstract values
security (i.e. conservation) relative to openness to to mid-range attitudes to specific behavior. This
change (i.e. self-direction, stimulation and hedo- sequence is called the value–attitude–behavior
nism), the more likely the consumer is to be ideal- hierarchy. Several researchers already tested this
istic, which in turn positively influences the model in different situations (e.g. Lotz et al., 2003;
consumer’s evaluation of ethically questionable Shim and Eastlick, 1998). It would be interesting to
behaviors. The more importance the consumer investigate whether this model can be applied to
attaches to self-enhancement values (i.e. power and (un)ethical consumer behavior. Evidence of such a
achievement) relative to universalism and benevo- causal flow would have important implications for
lence (i.e. self-transcendence), the less likely the strategies aimed at attitudinal and behavioral change.
consumer is to be idealistic, which again affects the Understanding what underlies people’s unethical
ethical beliefs. Furthermore, we also found a direct attitudes and behavior might enable retailers to
positive effect of conservation versus openness to positively influence appropriate consumer behavior
change values on a consumer’s ethical disposition. in a retail setting by developing strategies aimed at
Relativism, anteceded by self-enhancement versus appealing to personal values. Strutton et al. (1994)
self-transcendence values (but not by conservation suggested the use of point of purchase type displays
versus openness to change values), appeared not to offering directly worded statements such as ‘‘We’re
be a significant mediator, as the effect of relativism all hurt by shoplifting’’ or ‘‘Shoplifting is everyone’s
has only a very limited impact on a consumer’s responsibility’’ as a retailer’s measure for preventing
judgments of ethically questionable behavior. This unethical consumer practices. Taking the present
finding is in line with the results of some recent results into account retailers can also choose a less
studies (e.g. Al-Khatib et al., 2004; Swaiden et al., direct approach by focusing on basic human values
2003; Vitell et al., 2001). in in-store communication. For example, stressing
In prior consumer ethics research, personal moral the importance of universalism and benevolence
philosophies were commonly used as the determi- (e.g. equality, inner harmony, a world of peace,
nants of ethical beliefs (e.g. Erffmeyer et al., 1999; social justice, loyalty, honesty) (i.e. self-transcen-
Rawwas et al., 1995; Singhapakdi et al., 1999b; dence) in our contemporary society may positively
Swaidan et al., 2003). However, several researchers influence consumers’ ethical attitudes and intentions.
stressed the need to understand the antecedents of an Similarly, making consumers more aware of values
individual’s ethical ideology (Kleiser et al., 2003; such as tradition, conformity and security (i.e.
150 Sarah Steenhaut and Patrick Van Kenhove

conservation) might discourage them from benefit- incorporate (un)ethical behavior, or at least behav-
ing at the expense of the seller. ioral intentions, into their research model. Many
An important remark has to be made along with previous consumer ethics studies used ethical beliefs
the previously made implications. Some argue that as a proxy for behavior (or behavioral intentions),
attempting to trace the effect of general human theorizing that these judgments largely determine
values on specific consumer behavior is plagued by consumers’ intentions to engage in ethically ques-
low predictive power. In early years, various studies tionable practices. However, factors other than
claimed that personality variables have failed to ethical beliefs are suspected of influencing ethical
explain more than 10% of the variance in behavior behavioral intentions and, hence, unethical con-
(e.g. Jacoby, 1971; Kassarjian et al., 1981; Wells and sumer behavior (Vitell, 2003).
Beard, 1973). However, more recently researchers
have been stressing the importance of including
personality variables such as values in consumer re- APPENDIX A: List of scale items
search (e.g. Bagozzi, 1994), as values guide, control,
and shape the foundation of all social behavior Consumer ethics scale (Muncy and Vitell, 1992)
(Burgess, 1992). This includes ‘‘virtually all kinds of Actively benefiting from an illegal activity
behavior that could be called social behavior – of
social action, attitudes and ideology, evaluations, 1. Changing price tags on merchandise in a re-
moral judgments and justification of self and others, tail store
presentation of self to others, and attempts to influ- 2. Drinking a can of soda in a supermarket
ence others’’ (Rokeach, 1973, p. 23). With the without paying for it
stream of research conducted by Schwartz and his 3. Reporting a lost item as ‘‘stolen’’ to an
colleagues (e.g. Schwartz, 1992; Schwartz and Sagiv, insurance company in order to collect the
1995) studies of the nature and implications of money
individual value differences have seen a renaissance 4. Giving misleading price information to a
in the past decade (e.g. Allen and Ng, 1999, 2003; clerk for an unpriced item
Schiffmann et al., 2003, Steenkamp et al., 1999). 5. Returning damaged merchandise when the
The primary contribution of this type of studies is to damage is your own fault
show a particular pattern of relationships, more so
than any absolute strength based on the predictive Passively benefiting at the expense of others
power (Allen and Ng, 1999).
To conclude, some avenues for further research 6. Getting too much change and not saying
may be identified. One has to recognize that for a anything
full understanding of ethical decision-making in the 7. Lying about a child’s age in order to get a
consumer context still a lot of research is needed. As lower price
mentioned, the Hunt–Vitell model (1986, 1993) 8. Not saying anything when the server mis-
contains several constructs as background factors that calculates the bill in your favor
impinge the entire decision making-process. The
overall importance of personal characteristics is well Actively benefiting from a questionable action
supported (also by other theories, e.g. Ferrell and
Gresham, 1985). However, the effects of specific 9. Stretching the truth on an income tax return
personal factors are less certain (Vitell et al., 2001). 10. Using an expired coupon for merchandise
Continued research in this area is needed, scruti- 11. Using a coupon for merchandise that you
nizing a whole host of personal and psychological did not buy
factors possibly influencing an individual’s ethical 12. Not telling the truth when negotiating the
ideology and judgments of unethical practices (e.g. price of a new automobile
optimism/pessimism, generosity, guilt proneness) 13. Returning merchandise to a store by claim-
(Vitell, 2003). Furthermore, future studies should ing that it was a gift when it was not
 Relationships among a Consumer’s Personal Values, Ethical Ideology and Ethical Beliefs 151

No harm, no foul being moral may be judged to be immoral

by another person
14. Using computer software or games that you 4. Different types of moralities cannot be
did not buy compared as to rightness
15. Recording an album instead of buying it 5. What is ethical for everyone can never be
16. Spending over an hour trying on different resolved since what is moral or immoral is
dresses and not purchasing any up to the individual
17. Recording a movie on TV 6. Moral standards are simply personal rules
18. Returning merchandise after trying it and which indicate how a person should be-
not liking it have, and are not to be applied in making
judgments of others
Ethical position questionnaire (Forsyth, 1980) 7. Ethical considerations in interpersonal rela-
Idealism tions are so complex that individuals should
be allowed to formulate their own individ-
1. A person should make certain that their
ual codes
actions never intentionally harm another
8. Rigidly codifying an ethical position that pre-
even to a small degree
vents certain types of actions stand in the way
2. Risks to another should never be tolerated,
of better human relations and adjustment
irrespective of how small the risks might be
9. No rule concerning lying can be formulated;
3. The existence of potential harm to others is
whether a lie is permissible or not permissi-
always wrong, irrespective of the benefits
ble totally depends upon the situation
gained
10. Whether a lie is judged to be immoral de-
4. One should never psychologically or physi-
pends upon the circumstances surrounding
cally harm another person
the actions
5. One should not perform an action that
might in any way threaten the dignity and
Personal Values (Schwartz, 1994)
welfare of another individual
6. If an action could harm an innocent other,
1. Equality (equal opportunity for all)
then it should not be done
2. Inner harmony (at peace with myself)
7. Deciding whether or not to perform an act
3. Social power (control over others, domi-
by balancing the positive consequences of
nance)
the act against the negative consequences of
4. Pleasure (gratification of desires)
the act is immoral
5. Freedom (freedom of action and thought)
8. The dignity and welfare of people should be
6. A spiritual life (emphasis on spiritual not
the most important concern in any society
material matters)
9. It’s never necessary to sacrifice the welfare
7. Sense of belonging (feeling that others care
of others
about me)
10. Moral actions are those which closely match
8. Social order (stability of society)
ideals of the most ‘‘perfect’’ action
9. An exciting life (stimulating experience)
10. Meaning in life (a purpose in life)
Relativism
11. Politeness (courtesy, good manners)
1. There are no ethical principles that are so 12. Wealth (material possessions, money)
important that they should be a part of any 13. National security (protection of my nation
code of ethics from enemies)
2. What is ethical varies form one situation 14. Self-respect (belief in one’s own worth)
and society to another 15. Reciprocation of favors (avoidance of
3. Moral standards should be seen as being indebtedness)
individualistic; what one person considers 16. Creativity (uniqueness, imagination)
152 Sarah Steenhaut and Patrick Van Kenhove

17. A world at peace (free of war and conflict) 49. Helpful (working for the welfare of others)
18. Respect for tradition (preservation of time- 50. Enjoying life (enjoying food, sex, leisure,
honored customs) etc.)
19. Mature love (deep emotional and spiritual 51. Devout (holding to religious faith and be-
intimacy) lief)
20. Self-discipline (self-restraint, resistance to 52. Responsible (dependable, reliable)
temptation) 53. Curious (interested in everything, explor-
21. Detachment (from worldly concerns) ing)
22. Family security (safety for loved ones) 54. Forgiving (willing to pardon others)
23. Social recognition (respect, approval by oth- 55. Successful (achieving goals)
ers) 56. Clean (neat, tidy)
24. Unity with nature (fitting into nature)
25. A varied life (filled with challenge, novelty
and change) Note
26. Wisdom (a mature understanding of life) 1
27. Authority (the right to lead or command) The position of hedonism in Schwartz’s theory is
28. True friendship (close, supportive friends) not clear. Schwartz (1992) argues that it is related to
both openness to change and self-enhancement. Past
29. A world of beauty (beauty of nature and
research (e.g. Feather, 1995; Steenkamp et al., 1999) in-
the arts) cluded hedonism within the self-enhancement domain.
30. Social justice (correcting injustice, care for However, recently Schwartz and Boehnke (2004) made
the weak) an extensive quantitative evaluation of the theory of the
31. Independent (self-reliant, self-sufficient) structure of human values. They concluded that,
32. Moderate (avoiding extremes of feeling and although hedonism values are correlated significantly
action) with both openness and self-enhancement, they are
33. Loyal (faithful to my friends, group) clearly closer to openness to change values. Therefore,
34. Ambitious (hardworking, aspiring) we included the hedonism value type within the open-
35. Broad-minded (tolerant of different ideas ness to change value domain.
and beliefs)
36. Humble (modest, self-effacing)
References
37. Daring (seeking adventure, risk)
38. Protecting the environment (preserving the
Allen, N. W. and S. H. Ng: 1999, ÔThe Direct and
nature) Indirect Influences of Human Values on Product
39. Influential (having an impact on people and OwnershipÕ, Journal of Economic Psychology 20(1), 5–39.
events) Allen, N. W. and S. H. Ng: 2003, ÔHuman Values,
40. Honoring of parents and elders (showing Utilitarian Benefits and Identification: The Case of
respect) MeatÕ, European Journal of Social Psychology 33(1), 37–
41. Choosing own goals (selecting own pur- 56.
poses) Al-Khatib, J. A., K. Dobie and S. J. Vitell: 1995,
42. Healthy (not being sick physically or men- ÔConsumer Ethics in Developing Countries: An
tally) Empirical InvestigationÕ, Journal of Euro-Marketing
43. Capable (competent, effective, efficient) 4(2), 87–109.
44. Accepting my portion of life (submitting to Al-Khatib, J. A., C. J. Robertson and D.-N. Lascu: 2004,
ÔPost-Communist Consumer Ethics: The Case of
life’s circumstances)
RomaniaÕ, Journal of Business Ethics 54, 81–95.
45. Honest (genuine, sincere) Al-Khatib, J. A., S. J. Vitell and M. Y. A. Rawwas: 1997,
46. Preserving my public image (protecting my ÔConsumer Ethics: A Cross-Cultural InvestigationÕ,
‘‘face’’) European Journal of Marketing 31(11/12), 750–767.
47. Obedient (dutiful, meeting obligations) Bagozzi, R. P.: 1980, Causal Models in Marketing (J Wiley,
48. Intelligent (logical, thinking) New York).
 Relationships among a Consumer’s Personal Values, Ethical Ideology and Ethical Beliefs 153

Bagozzi, R. P.: 1994, ÔACR Fellow SpeechÕ, Advances in Grunert, S. C. and H. J. Juhl: 1995, ÔValues, Environ-
Consumer Research 21(1), 8–11. mental Attitudes, and Buying of Organic FoodsÕ,
Bagozzi, R. P. and Y. Yi: 1998, ÔOn the Evaluation of Journal of Economic Psychology 16(1), 39–62.
Structural Equation ModelsÕ, Journal of Personality and Homer, P. M. and L. R. Kahle: 1988, ÔA Structural
Social Psychology 16, 74–94. Equation Test of the Value Attitude Behavior Hier-
Brangule-Vlagsma, K., R. G. M. Pieters and M. Wedel: archyÕ, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 54(4),
2002, ÔThe Dynamics of Value Segments: Modeling 638–646.
Framework and Empirical IllustrationÕ, International Huffman, C., S. Ratneshwar and D. G. Mick: 2000,
Journal of Research in Marketing 19, 267–285. ÔConsumer Goal Structures and Goal-Determina-
Burgess, S. M.: 1992, ÔPersonal Values and Consumer tion Processes: An Integrative FrameworkÕ, in S.
Research: An Historical PerspectiveÕ, Research in Mar- Ratneshwar, D. G. Mick and C. Huffman (eds.),
keting 11, 35–79. The Why of Consumption (Routledge, London), pp.
Douglas, P. C., R. A. Davidson and B. N. Schwartz: 9–35.
2001, ÔThe Effect of Organizational Culture and Hunt, S. D. and L. Chonko: 1984, ‘Marketing and
Ethical Orientation on Accountants’ Ethical Judg- Machiavellianism’, Journal of Marketing, 48(3), 30–42.
mentsÕ, Journal of Business Ethics 34, 101–121. Hunt, S. D. and S. J. Vitell: 1986, ÔA General Theory of
Ellen, P. S.: 1994, ÔDo We Know What We Need To Marketing EthicsÕ, Journal of Macromarketing 8, 5–16.
Know? Objective and Subjective Knowledge Effects Hunt, S. D. and S. J. Vitell: 1993, ÔThe General Theory
on Pro-Ecological BehaviorsÕ, Journal of Business of Marketing Ethics: A Retrospective and RevisionÕ,
Research 30(1), 43–52. in N. C. Smith and J. A. Quelch (eds.), Ethics in
Erffmeyer, R., B. Keillor and D. T. LeClair: 1999, ÔAn Marketing (Homewood, Irwin Inc.), pp. 775–784.
Empirical Investigation of Japanese Consumer EthicsÕ, Jacoby, J.: 1971, ÔMultiple-indicant Approaches for
Journal of Business Ethics 18(1), 35–50. Studying New Product AdoptersÕ, Journal of Applied
Feather, N. T.: 1995, ÔValues, Valences, and Choice: The Psychology 55, 384–388.
Influence of Values on the Perceived Attractiveness Jöreskog, K. and D. Sörbom: 2002, Lisrel 8.53: Structural
and Choice of AlternativesÕ, Journal of Personality and Equation Modeling with the SIMPLIS Command Language
Social Psychology 68(6), 1135–1151. (SSI Scientific Software International Inc, Chicago).
Ferrell, O. C. and L. G. Gresham: 1985, ÔA Contingency Kahle L.R.: 1983, Social values and social change Adaptation
Framework for Understanding Ethical Decision to life in America. Praeger Publishers, New York.
Making in MarketingÕ, Journal of Marketing 49, 87–96. Kassarjian, R., J. G. Olsen and L. Sims: 1981, ÔToward
Finegan, J.: 1994, ÔThe Impact of Personal Values on Conceptualizing and Measuring Cognitive StructuresÕ,
Judgments of Ethical Behavior in the WorkplaceÕ, Advances in Consumer Research 8(1), 122–128.
Journal of Business Ethics 13, 747–755. Kleiser, S. B., E. Sivadas, J. J. Kellaris and R. F. Dahl-
Forsyth, D. R.: 1980, ÔA Taxonomy of Ethical Ideolo- strom: 2003, ÔEthical Ideologies: Efficient Assessment
giesÕ, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 39, 175– and Influence on Ethical Judgments of Marketing
184. PracticesÕ, Psychology and Marketing 20(1), 1–21.
Forsyth, D. R.: 1992, ÔJudging the Morality of Busi- Kruglanski, A. W.: 1989, Lay Epistemics and Human
ness Practices – The Influence of Personal Moral Knowledge: Cognitive and Motivational Bases (Plenum
PhilosophiesÕ, Journal of Business Ethics 11(5–6), 461– Press, New York).
470. Lee, D-J. and M. J. Sirgy: 1999, ÔThe Effect of Moral
Fritzsche, D. J.: 1995, ÔPersonal Values: Potential Keys to Philosophy and Ethnocentrism on Quality-of-Life
Ethical Decision MakingÕ, Journal of Business Ethics 14, Orientation in International Marketing: A Cross-
909–922. Cultural ComparisonÕ, Journal of Business Ethics 18,
Giacalone, R. A. and C. L. Jurkiewicz: 2003, ÔRight from 7–89.
Wrong: The Influence of Spirituality on Perceptions Lotz, S. L., S. Shim and K. C. Gehrt: 2003, ÔA Study of
of Unethical Business ActivitiesÕ, Journal of Business Japanese Consumers’ Cognitive Hierarchies in Formal
Ethics 46, 85–97. and Informal Gift-Giving SituationsÕ, Psychology and
Grube, J. W., I. L. Weir, S. Getslaf and M. Rokeach: Marketing 20(1), 59–85.
1984, ÔOwn Value System, Value Images, and Madrigal, R. and L. R. Kahle: 1994, ÔPredicting Vacation
Cigarette SmokingÕ, Personality and Social Psychology Activity Preferences on the Basis of Value System
Bulletin 10(3), 306–313. SegmentationÕ, Journal of Travel Research 32(3), 22–28.
154 Sarah Steenhaut and Patrick Van Kenhove

McCarty, J. A. and L. J. Schrum: 1994, ÔThe Recycling of Schwartz, S. H. and A. Bardi: 2001, ÔValue Hierarchies
Solid Wastes: Personal Values, Value Orientations, and across Cultures: Taking a Similarities PerspectiveÕ,
Attitudes about Recycling as Antecedents of Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 26, 92–116.
Recycling BehaviorÕ, Journal of Business Research 30(1), Schwartz, S. H. and W. Bilsky: 1987, ÔToward a Universal
53–62. Psychological Structure of Human ValuesÕ, Journal of
Muncy, J. A. and S. J. Vitell: 1992, ÔConsumer Ethics: An Personality and Social Psychology 53(3), 550–562.
Investigation of the Ethical Beliefs of the Final Con- Schwartz, S. H. and K. Boehnke: 2004, ÔEvaluating the
sumerÕ, Journal of Business Research 24, 297–311. Structure of Human Values with Confirmatory Factor
Rallapalli, K. C., S. J. Vitell and S. Szenbach: 2000, AnalysisÕ, Journal of Research in Personality 38, 230–255.
ÔMarketers’ Norms and Personal Values: An Empirical Schwartz, S. H. and L. Sagiv: 1995, ÔIdentifying Culture
Study of Marketing ProfessionalsÕ, Journal of Business Specifics in the Content and Structure of ValuesÕ,
Ethics 24, 65–75. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 26, 92–116.
Rallapalli, K. C., S. J. Vitell, F. A. Wiebe and J. H. Shim, S. and M. A. Eastlick: 1998, ÔThe Hierarchical
Barnes: 1994, ÔConsumer Ethical Beliefs and Person- Influence of Personal Values on Mall Shopping Atti-
ality Traits: An Exploratory AnalysisÕ, Journal of Business tude and BehaviorÕ, Journal of Retailing 41(1), 139–160.
Ethics 13, 487–495. Singhapakdi, A., N. Higgs-Kleyn and C.P. Rao: 1999a,
Rawwas, M. Y. A.: 1996, ÔConsumer Ethics: An Empir- ÔSelected Antecedents and Components of Ethical
ical Investigation of the Ethical Beliefs of Austrian Decision-Making Processes of American and South
ConsumersÕ, Journal of Business Ethics 15, 1009–1019. African MarketersÕ, International Marketing Review
Rawwas, M. Y. A., J. A. Al-Khatib and S. J. Vitell: 2004, 16(6), 458–475.
ÔAcademic Dishonesty: A Cross-Cultural Comparison Singhapakdi, A., K. C. Rallapalli, C. P. Rao and S. J.
of U.S. and Chinese Marketing StudentsÕ, Journal of Vitell: 1995, ÔPersonal and Professional Values
Marketing Education 26(1), 89–100. Underlying Ethical Decisions: a Comparison of
Rawwas, M. Y. A. and H. R. Isakson: 2000, ‘Ethics of American and Thai MarketersÕ, International Marketing
Tomorrow’s Business Managers: The Influence of Review 12(4), 65–76.
Personal Beliefs and Values, Individual Characteristics, Singhapakdi, A., M. Y. A. Rawwas, J. Marta and M. I.
and Situational Factors’, Journal of Education for Business, Ahmed: 1999b, ÔA Cross-Cultural Study of Consumer
75(6), 321–330. Perceptions about Marketing EthicsÕ, Journal of Con-
Rawwas, M. Y. A., G. Patzer and M. Klassen: 1995, sumer Marketing 16(3), 257–272.
ÔConsumer Ethics in Cross Cultural SettingsÕ, European Singhapakdi, A. and S. J. Vitell: 1993a, ÔPersonal Values
Journal of Marketing 29(7), 62–78. Underlying the Moral Philosophies of Marketing
Rawwas, M. Y. A., Z. Swaidan and M. Oyman: 2005, ProfessionalsÕ, Business and Professional Ethics Journal
ÔConsumer Ethics: A Cross-Cultural Study of the 12(1), 91–106.
Ethical Beliefs of Turkish and American ConsumersÕ, Singhapakdi, A. and S. J. Vitell: 1993b, ÔPersonal and
Journal of Business Ethics 57, 183–195. Professional Values Underlying the Ethical Judg-
Rawwas, M. Y. A., S. J. Vitell and J. A. Al-Khatib: 1994, ments of MarketersÕ, Journal of Business Ethics 12,
ÔConsumer Ethics: The Possible Effects of Terrorism 525–533.
and Civil Unrest on the Ethical Values of ConsumersÕ, Singhapakdi, A., S. J. Vitell and G. R. Franke: 1999c,
Journal of Business Ethics 13, 223–231. ÔAntecedents, Consequences, and Mediating Effects of
Rokeach, M.: 1973, The Nature of Human Values (The Perceived Moral Intensity and Personal Moral Phi-
Free Press, New York). losophiesÕ, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science
Schiffman, L. G., E. Sherman and M. M. Long: 2003, 27(1), 19–36.
ÔToward a Better Understanding of the Interplay of Steenkamp, J.-B. E. M., F. Ter Hofstede and M. Wedel:
Personal Values and the InternetÕ, Psychology and Mar- 1999, ÔA Cross-National Investigation into the Indi-
keting 20(2), 169–186. vidual and Cultural Antecedents of Consumer Inno-
Schwartz, S. H.: 1992, ÔUniversals in the Content and vativenessÕ, Journal of Marketing 63(2), 55–69.
Structure of Values: Theoretical Advances and Strutton, D., S. J. Vitell and L. E. Pelton: 1994, ÔHow
Empirical Tests in 20 CountriesÕ, in M. P. Zanna Consumers May Justify Inappropriate Behavior in
(eds.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 25 Market Settings: An Application on the Techniques of
(Academic Press, Orlando), pp. 1–65. NeutralizationÕ, Journal of Business Research 30, 253–
Schwartz, S. H.: 1994, ÔAre there Universal Aspects in the 260.
Content and Structure of Values?Õ, Journal of Social Swaiden, Z., S. J. Vitell and M. Y. A. Rawwas: 2003,
Issues 50, 19–45. ÔConsumer Ethics: Determinants of Ethical Beliefs of
 Relationships among a Consumer’s Personal Values, Ethical Ideology and Ethical Beliefs 155

African AmericansÕ, Journal of Business Ethics 46, 175– Judgments of the Final ConsumerÕ, Journal of Business
186. Ethics 11, 585–597.
Ter Hofstede, F., J.-B. E. M. Steenkamp and M. Wedel: Vitell, S. J., A. Singhapakdi and J. Thomas: 2001,
1999, ÔInternational Market Segmentation based on ÔConsumer Ethics: An Application and Empirical
Consumer-Product RelationsÕ, Journal of Marketing Testing of the Hunt-Vitell Theory of EthicsÕ, The
Research 36(1), 1–17. Journal of Consumer Marketing 18(2), 153–178.
Van Kenhove, P., I. Vermeir and S. Verniers: 2001, ÔAn Wells, W. D. and A. D. Beard: 1973, ÔPersonality and
Empirical Investigation of the Relationships between Consumer BehaviorÕ, in S. Ward and T. S. Robertson
Ethical Beliefs, Ethical Ideology, Political Preference (eds.), Consumer Behavior: Theoretical Sources. (Prentice
and Need for ClosureÕ, Journal of Business Ethics 32, Hall, New Jersey), pp. 141–199.
347–361.
Vitell, S. J.: 2003, ÔConsumer Ethics Research: Review, Sarah Steenhaut
Synthesis, and Suggestions for the FutureÕ, Journal of Faculty of Economics and Business Administration,
Business Ethics 43, 33–47. Ghent University,
Vitell, S. J., J. R. Lumpkin and M. Y. A. Rawwas: 1991, Hoveniersberg 24,
ÔConsumer Ethics: An Investigation of the Ethical 9000, Gent,
Beliefs of Elderly ConsumersÕ, Journal of Business Ethics
Belgium
10, 365–375.
[email protected]
Vitell, S. J. and J. A. Muncy: 1992, ÔConsumer Ethics: An
Empirical Investigation of Factors Influencing Ethical