IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/jconrs/v52y2025i2p288-307..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Consumer Moral Decision Making: The Impact of Alignable Versus Nonalignable Differences

Author

Listed:
  • Sang Kyu Park
  • Young Joo Cho
  • Jungkeun Kim
  • Jin Yong Lee
  • Jongwon Park

Abstract

Consumer choice decisions often involve a tradeoff between an alignable difference (a difference along a shared attribute) and a nonalignable difference (a difference between unique attributes of each alternative). For example, Café A provides friendly service, while Café B offers unwelcoming service (an alignable difference). However, Café A occasionally makes billing errors, and Café B has comfortable seating (a nonalignable difference). Prior research shows that alignable differences tend to have a greater impact on choice than nonalignable differences (known as the “alignability effect”). Yet, little research has examined tradeoffs involving moral attributes. Contrary to the prevailing evidence, eight studies (N = 2,861) demonstrate that in moral attribute tradeoffs, nonalignable (vs. alignable) differences have a greater impact on choice (termed the “nonalignability effect”). Consequently, consumers prefer an alternative that is superior on a nonalignable moral difference but inferior on an alignable moral difference. Moreover, in moral–quality tradeoffs, where one alternative is more ethical but is of lower quality, consumers show a stronger preference for the ethical alternative when its moral superiority is represented by a nonalignable (vs. alignable) difference. The nonalignability effect is driven by consumers’ unique decision process in making moral attribute tradeoffs, characterized by categorical valence coding and attribute-by-attribute win–loss counting.

Suggested Citation

  • Sang Kyu Park & Young Joo Cho & Jungkeun Kim & Jin Yong Lee & Jongwon Park, 2025. "Consumer Moral Decision Making: The Impact of Alignable Versus Nonalignable Differences," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 52(2), pages 288-307.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:jconrs:v:52:y:2025:i:2:p:288-307.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/jcr/ucae065
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:oup:jconrs:v:52:y:2025:i:2:p:288-307.. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/jcr .

    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.