2024/05/04 by Robyn McCormack, Rafi M. M. I. Chowdhury
Business, Management and Accounting · Decision Sciences · Neuroscience · Psychology · #Consumer Behavior in Brand Consumption and Identification #Consumer behaviour #Consumption (sociology) #Context (archaeology) #Cynicism #Disengagement theory #Ethics in Business and Education #Law #Locus of control #Moral disengagement #Morality #Political science #Psychology #Psychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment #Social psychology #Sociology #Trait
paper · pdf · doi:10.1111/joca.12575
crossref issued 2024/05/04 · crossref published 2024/05/04 · crossref published-online 2024/05/04 · openalex publication_date 2024/05/04 · crossref created 2024/05/04 · crossref published-print 2024/06/01 · crossref deposited 2024/06/11 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · openalex updated_date 2026/08/01 · crossref indexed 2026/08/01
Abstract Ethical consumption is important for both consumers and social welfare. However, many consumers avoid or ignore ethical consumption practices. An explanation of the psychological processes that impede ethical behavior is important research. A survey of 436 American consumers reveals that various types of moral disengagement (behavior and victim loci) and neutralization techniques sequentially explain unethical consumer behavior. From a theoretical perspective, both these constructs are relevant in this context, yet prior research utilizes these constructs separately or conflates them. Moreover, findings show that a particular type of moral disengagement, the agency locus, paradoxically promotes ethical consumer behavior. This research also examines locus of control (chance) and trait cynicism as antecedents of unethical consumer behavior. Locus of control (chance), not trait cynicism, leads to less ethical consumer behavior through moral disengagement and neutralization techniques. Insights benefit consumers, marketers, and policymakers in promoting ethical consumption that enhances consumer well‐being.