Antecedent Conditions for Unethical Judgments
The literature on factors associated with corrupt consumer behavior and the ethical judgment thereof points to a plethora of potentially relevant causal antecedents. Based on a literature review in the disciplines of criminology, socio-psychology, and business research on shoplifting, and fare dodging, as well as consumer misbehavior and consumer ethics in general, this article sheds light on four major sets of antecedent conditions to explain attitudes toward corrupt behaviors. The sets of antecedent conditions reflect diverse theoretical viewpoints and include (1) deterrence factors (i.e., perceived likeliness of detecting shoplifting and fare dodging), (2) personality factors (i.e., chronic attitudes of opportunism and ruthlessness, and bribery and corruption), (3) norm factors (i.e., obedience to law), and (4) sociodemographic factors (i.e., gender, age, and household income).
Prior work indicates that
deterrence factors may serve as useful explanations for consumers’ judgments of corrupt behaviors (e.g., Cole
1989; Kallis and Vanier
1985; Kraut
1976). Deterrence research concerns “the process by which a society coerces individuals into conformity through legal sanctions” (Cole
1989, p. 108). Deterrence factors influence the teleological evaluation of acts (Hunt and Vitell
2006) by signalizing threat of punishment. Such threat comes from the perceived level of certainty of being detected and severity of punishment. Deterrence research provides contradictory findings and opinions about the effects of certainty versus severity of punishment in inhibiting criminal acts. However, criminology literature indicates that the probability of being caught has a greater deterrent impact on crime rates than does the severity of punishment (Cook
1980; Nagin
2013). In this respect, this article focuses on perceptions of the likeliness of detection for the two types of corrupt behaviors under investigation.
Research into consumer misbehavior and consumer ethics has also mentioned the critical role of
personality characteristics in accounting for how people judge misbehaviors (e.g., Daunt and Harris
2011; Erffmeyer et al.
1999; Reynolds and Harris
2009; Rawwas et al.
2005; Wirtz and Kum
2004). Prior research shows that consumers’ level of morality relates negatively to consumers’ cheating inclinations (Wirtz and Kum
2004). People hold a magnitude range of dishonesty within which they cheat without feeling pressure to update their self-concept due to behavior-induced negative self-signals (Mazar et al.
2008). In addition to that, studies demonstrate that obstructive personality traits, such as Machiavellianism, influence consumers’ ethics (Rawwas
1996) and consumer misbehavior (Daunt and Harris
2011). Such personality traits, which are facets of the more comprehensive concept of psychological obstructionism, exist before, during, and after an (dysfunctional) exchange and impact the manner in which consumers judge the severity of dysfunctional behaviors (Reynolds and Harris
2009). This article considers two personality traits that reflect individuals’ predispositions about how to achieve a high social status: opportunism and ruthlessness, and bribery and corruption. These concepts reflect chronic dispositions and have the potential to shape individuals’ interpretations of fraudulent acts. Moreover, these personality traits capture individual differences in personal competitiveness, which has been emphasized as a relevant predictor of consumer misbehavior (Weigel et al.
1987).
Besides deterrence and personality factors,
norms have been shown to impact consumers’ judgments of misbehavior (e.g., Fullerton and Punj
1993,
2004; Hunt and Vitell
2006; Moschis and Cox
1989). Norms reflect standards of acceptable behavior and guide individuals by posing expectations about how to act in a particular manner in a specific situation. Behavioral expectations can emerge from personal norms that follow from an individual’s internalized values, enforced by the anticipation of self-enhancement or self-deprecation (Schwartz
1973), as well as social standards that follow from an individual’s perception of common behaviors among members of a reference group in a particular setting (descriptive social norms) and/or perceptions of common (dis-)approval of acceptable behaviors (injunctive social norms) (Cialdini et al.
1990). The collective norms of a society are often mirrored in its actual law which enforces acceptable behavior by legal sanctions (Posner
1997). Legal rules add “to the force of a specific obligational norm, the force of the general norm of obedience to law, which is one of the most powerful norms of society” (Eisenberg
1999, p. 1257). Previous work shows that obedience to law influences individuals’ compliance with rules and standards (e.g., Tyler
2001; Weigel et al.
1987). In this respect, this article includes obedience to law into the analysis.
A considerable body of previous work on consumer misbehavior and unethical judgments concentrates on
sociodemographic attributes to differentiate between honest and dishonest consumers or to assess effects on consumer ethics (e.g., Babin and Griffin
1995; Cox et al.
1990; Rawwas
1996; Vitell et al.
1991). The findings of these studies indicate that misbehaving consumers cover the entire socioeconomic spectrum (Dawson
1993; Fullerton and Punj
2004). However, studies point to consistent patterns of results for some forms of misbehavior. With regard to shoplifting, studies show that younger students judge shoplifting significantly less wrong than older students or adults (Babin and Griffin
1995). The findings for shoplifting correspond to results with regard to fare dodging. For fare dodging, self-report studies show that this type of corrupt behavior is relatively more common among youth (Weerman
2007) and males (Hauber
1980).
A Complexity Theoretical Perspective on Ethical Judgments
According to Jones (
1991, p. 367), “an ethical decision is defined as a decision that is both legal and morally acceptable to the larger community. Conversely, an unethical decision is either illegal or morally unacceptable to the larger community.” The process how individuals make (un)ethical decisions, the factors that influence these decisions, and the behavioral implications that derive from individuals’ (un)ethical decisions have been approached from different viewpoints including psychological perspectives (e.g., Hunt and Vitell
1986; Kohlberg
1984; Rest
1986), interpersonal perspectives (e.g., Albert and Horowitz
2009; Albert et al.
2015), and contingency perspectives (e.g., Ferrell and Gresham
1985; Jones
1991; Trevino
1986) among others.
One of the most common approaches used to examine ethical decision making is the cognitive approach (e.g., Hunt and Vitell
1986,
2006; Kohlberg
1984; Rest
1986). Studies adopting this perspective reveal that ethical decision making involves a multi-stage process in which an individual recognizes an ethical issue, makes an ethical judgment, develops an intention to act ethically, and acts on ethical concerns and engages in ethical behavior (Rest
1986). Ethical judgment has been considered as the most critical element in ethical decision making (Albert et al.
2015; Kohlberg
1984) and research into ethical judgment points to two important frameworks that individuals rely on when they make ethical decisions: consequentialism and formalism. Consequentialism refers to end-based decision making, involves teleological evaluations, and focuses on the consequences of an act (Albert et al.
2015; Reynolds
2006). A particular act or behavior is considered as ethical if the evaluation process indicates greater goodness than badness over alternatives (Hunt and Vitell
2006). Formalism refers to obligation-based decision making, involves deontological evaluations, and focuses on the means (i.e., norms and principles) to determine ethicality of an act (Albert et al.
2015; Reynolds
2006). From this perspective, a particular act or behavior is considered as ethical if the evaluation process indicates rightness rather than wrongness (Hunt and Vitell
2006). In many situations, both approaches to ethical judgment will yield similar results (DeGeorge
1999), which is attributable to their inherent complementary nature. For example, Brady (
1985) suggests a Janus-headed model of ethical theory, with consequentialism (looking into the future) and formalism (looking into the past) representing the two faces that pose simultaneous interests to be addressed by a decision maker.
Besides individuals’ ethical predisposition, situational factors, social forces, and opportunity have been identified as relevant contingencies of ethical decision making (Ferrell and Gresham
1985; Trevino
1986). In addition, the ethical issue itself affects ethical judgment and overall decision making. Individuals’ responses to ethical issues differ based on the nature of the issue they encounter, especially its moral intensity (Jones
1991). The recently developed Integrated Ethical Decision Making (I-EDM) model by Schwartz (
2016) synthesizes these notions and suggests an integrative framework outlining the ethical decision making process, antecedents and subsequences of the process, and factors affecting these processes. It indicates that ethical decision making, and ethical judgment in particular, involves complex processes whose outcome depends on the interplay among a number of factors residing within the individual as well as the situational context.
The central argument of this article is that an enhanced understanding of individuals’ ethical judgments may benefit from the analysis of complex causality (Ragin
2008). Rather than asking how much a single antecedent condition such as, for example, a person’s obedience to law matters, the study here asks how multiple antecedent conditions work together and combine to configurational causes to matter. This position implies a complexity turn in theorizing and testing and involves examination of complex causality. The primary theoretical lens in this study is that of complexity theory (Byrne and Callaghan
2013; Urry
2005; Woodside
2017), which consists of a set of tenets that concern how elements of a system work together to bringing about an outcome.
Complexity theory holds that causal factors through their interplay develop collective properties or patterns (Urry
2005). Thus, an outcome typically depends on multiple causal factors whose patterning affects the occurrence and nature of the outcome. Conceptually, the patterns of causal factors are viewable as configurations that share a common theme. It follows from this that single causal factors are likely insufficient to bring about an outcome, such as an unethical judgment. What is more important is the recipe, that is, configurational causes to explain unethical judgments. Prior work adopting a contingency perspective lends support for this assumption and indicates that it is the interplay among various factors which influences ethical decision making, with single factors reinforcing or weakening the effects of others, (e.g., Ferrell and Gresham
1985; Jones
1991; Schwartz
2016; Trevino
1986). Proposition 1 is a testable proposition that derives from this perspective.
A further tenet of complexity theory is equifinality, that is, alternative configurations of causal factors can produce an outcome. The configurations may differ in their particular compositions, but they eventually lead to the same outcome. Previous work on shoplifting and fare dodging reveals alternative profiles of misbehaving consumers that differ to the extent in which consumers perceive deterrence, hold personal standards, and comply with norms. For example, Cameron (
1964), Moore (
1984), and Schlueter et al. (
1989) describe different profiles of shoplifters and Hauber (
1980) reveals different profiles of fare dodgers. Thus, rather than searching for one all-encompassing model that explains the majority of the variation in an outcome, complexity theory and the equifinality notion suggest the occurrence of different configurational causes for attitudes toward corrupt behaviors. Hence, the second proposition reads as follows:
Complexity theory proposes also the occurrence of asymmetry. Relationships among causal factors “[…] can be non-linear with abrupt switches occurring, so the same ‘cause’ can, in specific circumstances, produce different effects” (Urry
2005, p. 4). The basic premise underlying this idea is the existence of so-called tipping points (Gladwell
2002), that is, moments when a system passes particular thresholds due to minor changes in its underlying elements, tips, and substantially changes in scope (escalation) and/or composition (alteration of form) (Andersson and Pearson
1999). The cumulative effect of configurational causes of an outcome can emerge from configurations in which single conditions can take opposite roles or turn out as irrelevant. Thus, the third proposition reads as follows: