IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

Consideration of ethical attributes along the consumer decision-making journey


  • Christina Schamp

    () (University of Hamburg)

  • Mark Heitmann

    () (University of Hamburg)

  • Robin Katzenstein

    () (University of Hamburg)


Information about ethical strengths and weaknesses of individual products (e.g., cause-related marketing, corporate social responsibility records) is increasingly available in the marketplace. However, market shares of ethical brands are still low, even though prior research indicates that ethical attributes influence brand choice. This research broadens the perspective of prior research by investigating the role of ethical attributes during earlier stages of the decision funnel, namely, consideration set formation. Four empirical studies demonstrate that brands’ ethical strengths exert less impact on the consideration than on the choice stage. Specifically, brands that are not otherwise part of consideration sets benefit less from ethical strengths in larger assortments where consideration set formation plays a more important role. By investigating the screening rules that consumers apply, this study determines that while ethical strengths are subordinate, ethical weaknesses evoke asymmetric effects, such that misconduct exerts a stronger effect during screening processes than benefits do. To increase effects of ethical strengths on screening, firms can enhance the emotional intensity of ethical attributes and make them more salient and subjectively important.

Suggested Citation

  • Christina Schamp & Mark Heitmann & Robin Katzenstein, 2019. "Consideration of ethical attributes along the consumer decision-making journey," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 47(2), pages 328-348, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:joamsc:v:47:y:2019:i:2:d:10.1007_s11747-019-00629-x
    DOI: 10.1007/s11747-019-00629-x

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

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

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Mizerski, Richard W, 1982. "An Attribution Explanation of the Disproportionate Influence of Unfavorable Information," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 9(3), pages 301-310, December.
    2. Robin M. Hogarth & Natalia Karelaia, 2005. "Simple Models for Multiattribute Choice with Many Alternatives: When It Does and Does Not Pay to Face Trade-offs with Binary Attributes," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 51(12), pages 1860-1872, December.
    3. Gergely Nyilasy & Harsha Gangadharbatla & Angela Paladino, 2014. "Perceived Greenwashing: The Interactive Effects of Green Advertising and Corporate Environmental Performance on Consumer Reactions," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 125(4), pages 693-707, December.
    4. Kahneman, Daniel & Ritov, Ilana, 1994. "Determinants of Stated Willingness to Pay for Public Goods: A Study in the Headline Method," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 9(1), pages 5-38, July.
    5. Pracejus, John W. & Olsen, G. Douglas, 2004. "The role of brand/cause fit in the effectiveness of cause-related marketing campaigns," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 57(6), pages 635-640, June.
    6. Hauser, John R., 2014. "Consideration-set heuristics," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 67(8), pages 1688-1699.
    7. Timothy J. Gilbride & Greg M. Allenby, 2004. "A Choice Model with Conjunctive, Disjunctive, and Compensatory Screening Rules," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(3), pages 391-406, October.
    8. Auger, Pat & Devinney, Timothy M. & Louviere, Jordan J. & Burke, Paul F., 2010. "The importance of social product attributes in consumer purchasing decisions: A multi-country comparative study," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 19(2), pages 140-159, April.
    9. John T. Gourville & Dilip Soman, 2005. "Overchoice and Assortment Type: When and Why Variety Backfires," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(3), pages 382-395, July.
    10. Simonson, Itamar & Kivetz, Ran, 2000. "The Effects of Incomplete Information on Consumer Choice," Research Papers 1609, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    11. Hauser, John R & Wernerfelt, Birger, 1990. "An Evaluation Cost Model of Consideration Sets," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 16(4), pages 393-408, March.
    12. Kahneman, Daniel & Knetsch, Jack L., 1992. "Valuing public goods: The purchase of moral satisfaction," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 22(1), pages 57-70, January.
    13. Hoyer, Wayne D, 1984. "An Examination of Consumer Decision Making for a Common Repeat Purchase Product," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 11(3), pages 822-829, December.
    14. Shiv, Baba & Fedorikhin, Alexander, 1999. "Heart and Mind in Conflict: The Interplay of Affect and Cognition in Consumer Decision Making," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 26(3), pages 278-292, December.
    15. Alexander Chernev & Sean Blair, 2015. "Doing Well by Doing Good: The Benevolent Halo of Corporate Social Responsibility," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 41(6), pages 1412-1425.
    16. Strahilevitz, Michal & Myers, John G, 1998. "Donations to Charity as Purchase Incentives: How Well They Work May Depend on What You Are Trying to Sell," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 24(4), pages 434-446, March.
    17. Chakravarti, Amitav & Janiszewski, Chris, 2003. "The Influence of Macro-level Motives on Consideration Set Composition in Novel Purchase Situations," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 30(2), pages 244-258, September.
    18. Bettman, James R & Luce, Mary Frances & Payne, John W, 1998. "Constructive Consumer Choice Processes," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 25(3), pages 187-217, December.
    19. Auger, Pat & Devinney, Timothy M. & Louviere, Jordan J. & Burke, Paul F., 2008. "Do social product features have value to consumers?," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 183-191.
    20. Andreoni, James, 1990. "Impure Altruism and Donations to Public Goods: A Theory of Warm-Glow Giving?," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 100(401), pages 464-477, June.
    21. Shugan, Steven M, 1980. "The Cost of Thinking," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 7(2), pages 99-111, Se.
    22. Dale Russell & Cristel Russell, 2010. "Here or there? Consumer reactions to corporate social responsibility initiatives: Egocentric tendencies and their moderators," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 21(1), pages 65-81, March.
    23. Bettman, James R & Park, C Whan, 1980. "Effects of Prior Knowledge and Experience and Phase of the Choice Process on Consumer Decision Processes: A Protocol Analysis," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 7(3), pages 234-248, December.
    24. Neeraj Arora & Ty Henderson, 2007. "Embedded Premium Promotion: Why It Works and How to Make It More Effective," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(4), pages 514-531, 07-08.
    25. Bremer, Lucas & Heitmann, Mark & Schreiner, Thomas F., 2017. "When and how to infer heuristic consideration set rules of consumers," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 516-535.
    26. Gerald Häubl & Valerie Trifts, 2000. "Consumer Decision Making in Online Shopping Environments: The Effects of Interactive Decision Aids," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 19(1), pages 4-21, May.
    27. Campbell, Margaret C & Keller, Kevin Lane, 2003. "Brand Familiarity and Advertising Repetition Effects," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 30(2), pages 292-304, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)


    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.

    Cited by:

    1. Rebecca Hamilton & Linda L. Price, 2019. "Consumer journeys: developing consumer-based strategy," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 47(2), pages 187-191, March.


    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:spr:joamsc:v:47:y:2019:i:2:d:10.1007_s11747-019-00629-x. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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). General contact details of provider: .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.