IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/jbuset/v189y2024i2d10.1007_s10551-023-05369-1.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Approach versus Avoidance: A Self-Regulatory Perspective on Hypocrisy Induction in Anti-Cyberbullying CSR Campaigns

Author

Listed:
  • Yuhosua Ryoo

    (Southern Illinois University)

  • WooJin Kim

    (University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign)

Abstract

Governments, institutions, and brands try various intervention strategies for countering growing cyberbullying, but with questionable effectiveness. The authors use hypocrisy induction, a technique for subtly reminding consumers that they have acted contrary to their moral values, to see whether it makes consumers more willing to support brand-sponsored anti-cyberbullying CSR campaigns. Findings demonstrate that hypocrisy induction evokes varying reactions depending on regulatory focus, mediated by guilt and shame. Specifically, consumers who have a dominant promotion (prevention) focus feel guilt (shame), which motivates them to overcome their discomfort by supporting (avoiding) an anti-cyberbullying campaign. Moral regulation is drawn as a theoretical underpinning to explain various consumer reactions to hypocrisy induction, the moderating role of regulatory focus, and mediating role of guilt and shame. The research contributes to the literature and provides practical implications by explaining when and why brands can use hypocrisy induction to persuade consumers to support social causes through the lens of moral regulation theory.

Suggested Citation

  • Yuhosua Ryoo & WooJin Kim, 2024. "Approach versus Avoidance: A Self-Regulatory Perspective on Hypocrisy Induction in Anti-Cyberbullying CSR Campaigns," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 189(2), pages 345-364, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:kap:jbuset:v:189:y:2024:i:2:d:10.1007_s10551-023-05369-1
    DOI: 10.1007/s10551-023-05369-1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10551-023-05369-1
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10551-023-05369-1?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Olga Gómez-Ortiz & Eva M. Romera & Rosario Ortega-Ruiz & Rosario Del Rey, 2018. "Parenting Practices as Risk or Preventive Factors for Adolescent Involvement in Cyberbullying: Contribution of Children and Parent Gender," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(12), pages 1-23, November.
    2. Michelle Greenwood & R. Edward Freeman, 2017. "Focusing on Ethics and Broadening our Intellectual Base," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 140(1), pages 1-3, January.
    3. Karoline Gamma & Robert Mai & Moritz Loock, 2020. "The Double-Edged Sword of Ethical Nudges: Does Inducing Hypocrisy Help or Hinder the Adoption of Pro-environmental Behaviors?," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 161(2), pages 351-373, January.
    4. Jae-Eun Kim & Kim Johnson, 2013. "The Impact of Moral Emotions on Cause-Related Marketing Campaigns: A Cross-Cultural Examination," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 112(1), pages 79-90, January.
    5. Paul Benjamin Lowry & Jun Zhang & Chuang Wang & Mikko Siponen, 2016. "Why Do Adults Engage in Cyberbullying on Social Media? An Integration of Online Disinhibition and Deindividuation Effects with the Social Structure and Social Learning Model," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 27(4), pages 962-986, December.
    6. Ryoo, Yuhosua & Sung, Yongjun & Chechelnytska, Inna, 2020. "What makes materialistic consumers more ethical? Self-benefit vs. other-benefit appeals," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 173-183.
    7. Yanyan Chen & Dirk C. Moosmayer, 2020. "When Guilt is Not Enough: Interdependent Self-Construal as Moderator of the Relationship Between Guilt and Ethical Consumption in a Confucian Context," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 161(3), pages 551-572, January.
    8. Gazi Islam & Michelle Greenwood, 2021. "Reconnecting to the Social in Business Ethics," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 170(1), pages 1-4, April.
    9. Aaker, Jennifer L & Lee, Angela Y, 2001. ""I" Seek Pleasures and "We" Avoid Pains: The Role of Self-Regulatory Goals in Information Processing and Persuasion," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 28(1), pages 33-49, June.
    10. Aronson, E. & Fried, C. & Stone, J., 1991. "Overcoming denial and increasing the intention to use condoms through the induction of hypocrisy," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 81(12), pages 1636-1638.
    11. Steven D. Levitt & John A. List, 2007. "What Do Laboratory Experiments Measuring Social Preferences Reveal About the Real World?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 21(2), pages 153-174, Spring.
    12. Joseph Henrich & Steven J. Heine & Ara Norenzayan, 2010. "Most people are not WEIRD," Nature, Nature, vol. 466(7302), pages 29-29, July.
    13. Pham, Michel Tuan & Avnet, Tamar, 2004. "Ideals and Oughts and the Reliance on Affect versus Substance in Persuasion," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 30(4), pages 503-518, March.
    14. Aaker, Jennifer L. & Lee, Angela Y., 2006. "Understanding Regulatory Fit," Research Papers 1910, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Dayuan Li & Jialin Jiang & Lu Zhang & Chen Huang & Ding Wang, 2023. "Do CEOs with Sent-Down Movement Experience Foster Corporate Environmental Responsibility?," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 185(1), pages 147-168, June.
    2. Zhang, Jason Q. & Craciun, Georgiana & Shin, Dongwoo, 2010. "When does electronic word-of-mouth matter? A study of consumer product reviews," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 63(12), pages 1336-1341, December.
    3. Leder, Susanne & Mannetti, Lucia & Hölzl, Erik & Kirchler, Erich, 2010. "Regulatory fit effects on perceived fiscal exchange and tax compliance," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 39(2), pages 271-277, April.
    4. John A. List, 2024. "Optimally generate policy-based evidence before scaling," Nature, Nature, vol. 626(7999), pages 491-499, February.
    5. Bouma, J.A. & Nguyen, Binh & van der Heijden, Eline & Dijk, J.J., 2018. "Analysing Group Contract Design Using a Lab and a Lab-in-the-Field Threshold Public Good Experiment," Discussion Paper 2018-049, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    6. Zou, Lili Wenli & Chan, Ricky Y.K., 2019. "Why and when do consumers perform green behaviors? An examination of regulatory focus and ethical ideology," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 113-127.
    7. Adams, Leen & Faseur, Tineke & Geuens, Maggie, 2010. "The Influence of the Self-Regulatory Focus on the Effectiveness of Stop-Smoking Campaigns for Young Smokers," Working Papers 2010/38, Hogeschool-Universiteit Brussel, Faculteit Economie en Management.
    8. Ahn, T.K. & Ostrom, Elinor & Walker, James, 2010. "A common-pool resource experiment with postgraduate subjects from 41 countries," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(12), pages 2624-2633, October.
    9. Nguyen, Trang & de Brauw, Alan & van den Berg, Marrit, 2022. "Sweet or not: Using information and cognitive dissonance to nudge children toward healthier food choices," Economics & Human Biology, Elsevier, vol. 47(C).
    10. Lucia Mannetti & Ambra Brizi & Mauro Giacomantonio & E Tory Higgins, 2013. "Framing Political Messages to Fit the Audience’s Regulatory Orientation: How to Improve the Efficacy of the Same Message Content," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(10), pages 1-1, October.
    11. Cheng, Yin-Hui & Yen, HsiuJu Rebecca & Chuang, Shih-Chieh & Chang, Chia-Jung, 2013. "Product option framing under the influence of a promotion versus prevention focus," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 402-413.
    12. Florack, Arnd & Keller, Johannes & Palcu, Johanna, 2013. "Regulatory focus in economic contexts," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 127-137.
    13. Das, Gopal & Mukherjee, Amaradri & Smith, Ronn J., 2018. "The Perfect Fit: The Moderating Role of Selling Cues on Hedonic and Utilitarian Product Types," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 94(2), pages 203-216.
    14. Luo, Yong (Eddie) & Wong, Veronica & Chou, Ting-Jui, 2016. "The role of product newness in activating consumer regulatory goals," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 600-611.
    15. Poels, Karolien & Dewitte, Siegfried, 2008. "Hope and self-regulatory goals applied to an advertising context: Promoting prevention stimulates goal-directed behavior," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 61(10), pages 1030-1040, October.
    16. Chung-Chau Chang & Bo-Chi Lin & Shin-Shin Chang, 2011. "The relative advantages of benefit overlap versus category similarity in brand extension evaluation: The moderating role of self-regulatory focus," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 22(4), pages 391-404, November.
    17. Aaker, Jennifer L. & Lee, Angela Y., 2006. "Understanding Regulatory Fit," Research Papers 1910, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    18. Li, Andrew & Evans, Joel & Christian, Michael S. & Gilliland, Stephen W. & Kausel, Edgar E. & Stein, Jordan H., 2011. "The effects of managerial regulatory fit priming on reactions to explanations," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 115(2), pages 268-282, July.
    19. Ying Hua & Shuang (Sara) Ma & Yonggui Wang & Qimeng Wan, 2017. "To reward or develop identification in online brand communities: evidence from emerging markets," Information Technology for Development, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(3), pages 579-596, July.
    20. Som, Anirban & Lee, Yih Hwai, 2012. "The joint effects of choice assortment and regulatory focus on choice behavior," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 202-209.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:jbuset:v:189:y:2024:i:2:d:10.1007_s10551-023-05369-1. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.