See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/326286007

Religiosity and consumer behavior: a summarizing review

Article  in  Journal of Management Spirituality & Religion · July 2018

DOI: 10.1080/14766086.2018.1495098

CITATIONS READS

7 283

3 authors:

Ridhi Agarwala Prashant Mishra

Indian Institute of Management Calcutta Indian Institute of Management Calcutta
3 PUBLICATIONS   7 CITATIONS    62 PUBLICATIONS   100 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Ramendra Singh
Indian Institute of Management Calcutta
66 PUBLICATIONS   592 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Chapters in Books View project

Rural Marketing View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ridhi Agarwala on 22 September 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Journal of Management, Spirituality & Religion

ISSN: 1476-6086 (Print) 1942-258X (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rmsr20

Religiosity and consumer behavior: a summarizing

review

Ridhi Agarwala, Prashant Mishra & Ramendra Singh

To cite this article: Ridhi Agarwala, Prashant Mishra & Ramendra Singh (2018): Religiosity and
consumer behavior: a summarizing review, Journal of Management, Spirituality & Religion, DOI:
10.1080/14766086.2018.1495098

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/14766086.2018.1495098

Published online: 09 Jul 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 98

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rmsr20
JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, SPIRITUALITY & RELIGION
https://doi.org/10.1080/14766086.2018.1495098

Religiosity and consumer behavior: a summarizing review

Ridhi Agarwala , Prashant Mishra and Ramendra Singh
Indian Institute of Management Calcutta, Kolkata, West Bengal, India

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

This article is a summarizing review on religiosity and consumer Received 10 January 2017
behavior. Review findings from marketing literature indicate that Accepted 26 June 2018
religiosity influences consumer outcomes like materialism, intoler- KEYWORDS
ance, ethics, and risk aversion. It also impacts consumer attitude Religiosity; consumer
toward religious products and economic shopping behavior. A psychology; religious beliefs;
conceptual framework is presented to depict how certain dimen- religious values; rituals;
sions of religion can explain the psychological mechanisms under- religious community
lying these effects. Specifically, we propose prayer (religious rituals),
religious exclusivism and divine retribution (religious beliefs), frug-
ality (religious values) and religious community involvement and
religious identity (religious community) as possible antecedents
that drive the previously established differences in consumer beha-
vior. For each of these antecedents, we offer definitions and inte-
grate research findings from psychology, religion and marketing to
build testable propositions. This essay complements preceding
work and at the same time expands and broadens it by developing
theory regarding the causal linkages between religiosity and con-
sumer outcomes.

Introduction
Religion is a global phenomenon. There are multiple religions in the world, and majority of
the world’s population is religious to some extent (WIN_Gallup International 2012). It is
one of the central elements of social behavior and influences consumers and society—both
directly as well as indirectly (Mokhlis 2009). Religion directly influences consumer behavior
through its decrees and taboos. We can consider “fasting” as a simple example for under-
standing the influence of religion. Hindus fast during specific days of the week as well as on
certain auspicious days, Muslims fast during Ramadan, and Christians fast during Lent.
Clothing is also an important aspect of religion. This is evident from Muslim women
wearing the burqa (veil), and Hindu married women wearing the mangalsutra (black
necklace signifying married status), bindi (dot on the forehead), and sindoor (red powder
in their hair parting). Religion not only determines the clothing style for women, but also
for men. For instance, in Sikhism, the followers are expected to always bear the 5Ks (uncut
hair, wooden comb, metal bracelet, cotton underwear, and a curved sword) on their body.
Indirectly, religion influences society by transmitting values (Engel and Blackwell 1983) and
encourages consumers to adopt certain principles and perceptions (Wilkes, Burnett, and
Howell 1986).

CONTACT Ridhi Agarwala ridhiag@gmail.com

© 2018 Association of Management, Spirituality & Religion
2 R. AGARWALA ET AL.

Initially, the research on religion and marketing focused on religious affiliation as a

significant predictor of consumer outcomes. Affiliation is the particular faith that an
individual belongs to, for example, Hinduism, Islam, Christianity, etc. It was established
that the religious affiliation of a person impacts different aspects of consumer behavior
like lifestyle (Engel 1976), perceived risk (Delener 1990), and shopping behavior (Bailey
and Sood 1993; Sood and Nasu 1995). However, with the passage of time, researchers
started claiming that religiosity was a stronger predictor of consumer attitude and
behavior as compared to religious affiliation (McDaniel and Burnett 1990; Essoo and
Dibb 2004; Choi 2010).
Religiosity is defined as “the degree to which beliefs in specific religious values and
ideals are held and practiced by an individual” (Delener 1990, p. 27). The theoretical
premise behind the significance of this construct is that an individual can be raised with
certain values and beliefs, but the real difference is made through internalization and
pursuit of those principles (Mokhlis 2009). There is overwhelming evidence corrobor-
ating the notion that religiosity significantly impacts consumer attitudes, values, and
actions. The extant literature reveals that there is significant relationship between
religiosity and various consumption aspects like materialism (Stillman et al. 2012),
status-seeking (Essoo and Dibb 2004), impulsiveness (Yousaf and Shaukat Malik
2013), new product adoption (Mansori, Sambasivan, and Md-Sidin 2015), brand
switching (Choi 2010), ethics (Vitell 2009), risk (Delener 1990), and consumerism
(Izberk-Bilgin 2012). Furthermore, religiosity influences the manner in which consu-
mers evaluate goods and services (Mokhlis 2009), product pricing (Essoo and Dibb
2004; Mokhlis 2006, 2009), and promotions (Shyan Fam, Waller, and Erdogan 2004;
Putrevu and Swimberghek 2013; Mansour and Diab 2016).
In recent years, substantial literature has accumulated with regard to the relationship
between religiosity and consumer behavior, and it is now imperative to consider the
developments pertaining to the relationship and to discuss the future research direc-
tions. Review articles about religiosity have dealt with its relationship to outcomes like
health (Seeman, Dubin, and Seeman 2003), sexual behavior (Rostosky et al. 2004),
delinquency (Johnson et al. 2000), and ethics (Vitell 2009). However, the research on
consumer behavior has not been documented in a comprehensive manner; and with
this purpose in mind, we chose to undertake a summarizing review (MacInnis 2011) of
the literature on religiosity and consumer behavior.
We encapsulated the literature into six broad consumer-outcome categories and devel-
oped testable propositions to explain why differences in religiosity levels led to these
consumer outcomes. In order to build our propositions, we incorporated a framework
developed by Mathras et al. (2016), which examines rituals, beliefs, values, and community
as possible religious dimensions. For instance, the researchers proposed that religious
beliefs about the afterlife can explain concepts like status-seeking and materialism. While
the extant literature does provide evidence about the effect of religiosity on materialistic
tendencies (Stillman et al. 2012), this framework helps to explicate the underlying reasoning
behind it. In a similar manner, we have related each of these religious dimensions to the
aforementioned consumer outcomes (see Figure 1).
The review was conducted through a three-step process. First, we searched for
marketing papers related to the overall theme of religiosity (e.g., articles that included
words like religiosity, spirituality, religiousness, Christianity, etc.) in EBSCOhost online
 JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, SPIRITUALITY & RELIGION 3

Religious Dimensions Consumer Outcomes

Rituals Prayer Well-Being Low Materialism

Religious Exclusivism Intolerance

Beliefs
Divine Retribution Consumer Ethics

Religious Community Risk Aversion

Interdependence
Involvement
Community
Religious Group Attitude toward
Identity Religious Products

Values Frugality Economic Shopping

Behavior

Figure 1. An organizing framework connecting religious dimensions with consumer outcomes.

research databases in the period 1990–2016. Second, we scanned more than 20 top
marketing journals1 for relevant articles. And last, we examined the reference list of
articles obtained by the above two methods, for any relevant papers.
We identified the empirical studies related to religiosity and consumer behavior and
summarized them into relevant categories. Table 1 provides details of each of the categories,
their definitions, the associated outcomes, and the referred articles. For instance, studies on
conspicuous consumption, brand consciousness, fashion consciousness, attitude toward
luxury brands, etc., were combined to form the first category, i.e., “materialism” (“the
importance a consumer attaches to worldly possessions” (Belk 1984, p. 291)). Subsequently,
we identified the second group of studies that dealt with religious animosity, boycotts,
feeling offended by contentious advertisements, and displaying negative response to busi-
nesses that support conflicting religious values. Combining these papers, we created a
second category, named “intolerance”. We have defined intolerance as a lack of willingness
to accept views, beliefs, or behaviors that differ from one’s own. In the third group, we
included studies about consumers’ ethical beliefs, judgments, and behavior, and they were
placed together under the “consumer ethics” category. Consumer ethics is defined as “the
moral principles and standards that guide behavior of individuals or groups as they obtain,
use, and dispose of goods and services” (Muncy and Vitell 1992, p. 298). The fourth
consumer-outcome category was called “risk-aversion”, i.e., “a basic predisposition or
attitude toward risk” (Mandrik and Bao 2005, p. 531). This category included those studies,
which state that religious consumers perceive higher risk in purchase situations, have lower
acceptance of novel products, and show low brand or store switching behavior. In the fifth
category, we included papers, which revealed that religious consumers have greater affinity
4 R. AGARWALA ET AL.

Table 1. Categorization of empirical papers regarding religiosity and consumer outcomes.

Consumer outcomes
1. Materialism Materialism/possessions as
“The importance a consumer attaches
to worldly possessions” (Belk 1984,
p. 291) Fashion consciousness,
2. Intolerance
Lack of willingness to accept views,
beliefs, or behavior that differ from
one’s own.
3. Consumer ethics
“the moral principles and standards
that guide behavior of individuals or
groups as they obtain, use, and
dispose of goods and services.”
(Muncy and Vitell 1992, p. 298)
4. Risk aversion
“basic predisposition or attitude toward Acceptance of novel
risk” (Mandrik and Bao 2005, p. 531)
5. Attitude towards religious products
Evaluative judgments concerning those
products and services which contain
religious associations
6. Economic shopping behavior
“Where the prime consideration is
price” (Essoo and Dibb 2004,
p. 692)
status symbol/brand
consciousness
brand reliance
Attitude and intention
toward luxury brands
Materialism causes value
conflicts
Conspicuous consumption
Religious animosity/boycott
Negative response toward
contentious advertising
Evaluation and response to
businesses with
conflicting religious &
ideological values
Consumers’ ethical beliefs
Ethical consumer behavior
Risk aversion/perceived risk
products, new product
adoption
Switching behavior/stability
in brand and store
preference
Attitude toward religious
compliant products and
services
Preference for halal products
Symbolic religious
associations in
advertisements
Price consciousness
Purchase goods on sale,
favor stores with low price
than variety
Low importance of credit
availability
Low impulsive shopping
Papers
(Cleveland & Chang, 2009; La Barbera
and Gürhan 1997; Lindridge, 2005;
Loroz, 2006; Minton et al. 2016)
(Essoo and Dibb 2004; Shachar et al.
2011; Yousaf and Shaukat Malik
2013)
(Arli, Cherrier, and Tjiptono 2016)
(Burroughs and Rindfleisch 2002; Veer
and Shankar 2011)
(Stillman et al. 2012)
(Abosag and Farah 2014; Ahmed et al.
2013; Al-Hyari et al. 2012; Izberk-
Bilgin 2012)
(Barnes Jr. and Dotson 1990; Cyril De
Run et al. 2010; Farah and El Samad
2014; Michell & Al-Mossawi, 1995;
Putrevu and Swimberghek 2013;
Shyan Fam, Waller, and Erdogan
2004)
(Leak, Woodham, and McNeil 2015;
Swimberghe, Flurry, and Parker 2011;
Swimberghe, Sharma, and Flurry
2009)
(Arli 2017; Vitell and Paolillo 2003; Vitell,
Paolillo, and Singh 2006; Vitell, Singh,
and Paolillo 2007)
(Schneider, Krieger, and Bayraktar 2011)
(Blau, 2017; Delener 1990)
(Essoo and Dibb 2004; Mansori,
Sambasivan, and Md-Sidin 2015;
Rehman and Shahbaz Shabbir 2010)
(Choi 2010; Choi, Paulraj, and Shin 2013;
Moschis & Ong, 2011)
(Abou-Youssef et al. 2015; Siala 2013;
Siguaw and Simpson 1997)
(Jamal and Sharifuddin 2015; Mohd Suki
and Abang Salleh 2016; Mukhtar and
Butt 2012)
(Dotson & Hyatt, 2000; Henley et al.
2009; Taylor, Halstead, and Haynes
2010)
(Mokhlis 2006; Mokhlis 2009)
(Sood and Nasu 1995)
(Essoo and Dibb 2004)
(Essoo and Dibb 2004; Mokhlis 2009;
Yousaf and Shaukat Malik 2013)

for products or brands that have certain religious associations. Some examples include
religious compliance (e.g., halal meat, Islamic banking) or use of religious symbols (e.g., a
cross) in brand communications. We named this category as “attitude toward religious
products”2 and defined it as evaluative judgments concerning those products and services
that contain religious associations. We named the sixth category as “economic shopping
 JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, SPIRITUALITY & RELIGION 5

Table 2. Isolated papers regarding religiosity and consumer behavior.

Consumer outcomes Studies
Environmental worldview Recycling and doing good deeds (Arli 2017)
(insignificant results)
Eco-centric attitude & behaviors (Martin and Bateman 2014)
(insignificant results)
Hold pro-environment views (Minton et al. 2016)
Sustainable behavior Sustainability (Leary, Minton, & Mittelstaedt, 2016; Minton
et al., 2016)
Charity Volunteering (Minton et al., 2016)
Charity/donation (Hopkins, Shanahan, & Raymond, 2014)
Trust Marketplace and relational trust (Minton, 2015)
Health and well-being Life satisfaction, self-esteem, health (Moschis & Ong, 2011; Wilkes, Burnett, and
Howell 1986)
Advertising evaluation Attitude to celebrity sponsorship in TV ads (Mansour and Diab 2016)
Preference for subtle and informative ads (Sood and Nasu 1995)
Media habits of devout evangelicals (McDaniel & Burnett, 1991)
Consumer behavior Quality consciousness (Mokhlis 2009)
Roles of spouses in family consumption (Delener, 1994)
decisions
Less likely to be opinion leaders (Wilkes, Burnett, and Howell 1986)
Forgiveness after service failure (Tsarenko & Tojib, 2012)
Religiosity toward Apple brand (Muñiz Jr. & Schau, 2005)

behavior”, “where the prime consideration is price” (Essoo and Dibb 2004, p. 692). In this
category, we included articles, which suggest that religious consumers are price conscious,
prefer buying goods on sale, and rarely indulge in impulsive shopping.
While we were able to encapsulate majority of the literature into these six categories,
there were also some papers that had to be excluded because of lack of fit or insufficient
support (Table 2). For example, some studies have explored the impact of religiosity on
an environmental worldview, but their results were inconclusive (Martin and Bateman
2014; Arli 2017). We found very limited research on other topics like sustainability,
volunteering, marketplace trust, etc., to justify making any conclusive statements.
Further, some of the studies (e.g., on advertising evaluation) had very specific outcomes;
hence, it was difficult to make any generalizations. Similarly, some articles on con-
sumption behavior (e.g., quality consciousness, family decision-making, and forgive-
ness) were excluded because they were too discrete to fit into a single category.
In the following sections of the paper, the six consumer-outcome categories, which
we have identified, are discussed and research propositions regarding each of them are
developed. The four dimensions of religion are employed to explicate the possible
psychosomatic processes that lead to the aforementioned outcomes. Specifically, we
utilized the individual aspects of rituals (prayer), beliefs (religious exclusivism and
divine retribution), community (involvement and group identity), and values (frugality)
as antecedents for explaining the outcomes. In Table 3, we define the religious ante-
cedents, list our propositions, and provide supporting literature.

Religious rituals of prayer and low materialism

It is evident from research that religious consumers display low materialistic pursuits
(Stillman et al. 2012). They do not give much importance to branded goods (Essoo and
6 R. AGARWALA ET AL.

Table 3. Proposed research avenues.

Dimensions
religious rituals
Prayer:
“a form of communication with the
divine, cosmic or some deity that
gives rise to a spiritual relationship”
(Vasconcelos 2010, p. 370).
Religious beliefs
Religious exclusivism:
“to regard one theistic system as true
and see others as false or (at least
to the believer) farther from the
truth” (Trinitapoli 2007, p. 452).
Divine retribution:
“notion of punishment with respect
to the doctrine of eternal
damnation” (Crisp 2003, p. 35)
Religious community
Religious community involvement:
active participation in one’s religious
community
Religious group identity:
“that part of an individual’s self-
concept which derives from his
knowledge of his membership in a
religious group together with the
value and emotional significance
attached to that membership”
(Adapted from Tajfel 1981, p. 255)
Religious values
Frugality:
“degree to which consumers are both
restrained in acquiring and in
resourcefully using economic goods
and services to achieve longer-term
goals” (Ellemers, Kortekaas, and
Ouwerkerk 1999, p. 88)
Propositions Supporting literature
Consumers, who participate in the (Chang and Arkin 2002; Chaplin and
religious ritual of prayer, have John 2007; McCullough, Emmons,
higher well-being, which leads to and Tsang 2002; Roberts, Manolis,
low materialism. and Tanner Jr. 2003; Weaver,
Moschis, and Davis 2011)
Consumers with stronger belief in (Altemeyer 2002; Gay and Ellison
religious exclusivism, display 1993; Iannaccone 1994; Kirkpatrick
greater intolerance (tendency to 1993; Minton et al. 2016;
take offense, boycott and Trinitapoli 2007; Woodberry and
complain) toward opposing values Smith 1998; Wuthnow 2004)
than consumers with weaker or no
belief.
Consumers with stronger belief in (Crisp 2003; Gurley, Wood, and
divine retribution will have lower Nijhawan 2007; Hegarty and Sims
intention to behave unethically, as Jr. 1978; McCabe and Trevino
compared to those with weaker or 1993; Smith 1986; Vitell and
no belief. Paolillo 2003)
(Aaker and Lee 2001; Ellison, Burr,
Consumers who are actively involved
with their religious community and McCall 1997; Gelfand et al.
display higher interdependence, 2011; Lee, Aaker, and Gardner
which leads to risk-aversion (less
2000; Mandel 2003; Markus and
experimentation, aversion to newKitayama 1991; Mitchell 1999;
products and technologies, brandMooij and De Hofstede 2010;
loyalty). Oyserman, Coon, and
Kemmelmeier 2002; Triandis 2004;
Vandello and Cohen 1999)
Consumers with stronger religious (Ashmore, Deaux, and McLaughlin-
identity have more positive Volpe 2004; Bergami and Bagozzi
attitude toward religious products 2000; Doosje, Ellemers, and Spears
than those with weaker or no 1995; Ellemers, Kortekaas, and
identity. Ouwerkerk 1999; Hogg and
Abrams 1990; Luhtanen and
Crocker 1992; Sellers et al. 1998;
Tajfel 1981; Tajfel and Turner 1979)
Consumers who have strong religious (Arruñada 2010; Belk 1983; Guiso,
values of frugality will exhibit Sapienza, and Zingales 2003;
more economic shopping behavior Lastovicka et al. 1999; Pepper,
(being price conscious, buying on Jackson, and Uzzell 2011;
sale, avoiding credit use, low Renneboog and Spaenjers 2011;
impulse purchase) as compared to Schor 1999)
consumers with weak or no
religious values.

Dibb 2004; Shachar et al. 2011) and have low conspicuous consumption (Stillman et al.
2012). Unlike the less or non-religious consumers, the increased possession of material
wealth does not lead to greater well-being for religious consumers (La Barbera and
Gürhan 1997); rather, it can lead to value conflicts (Burroughs and Rindfleisch 2002).
However, it is debated that religious consumers are not really opposed to materialism
and opt for luxury brands over utilitarian possessions (Arli, Cherrier, and Tjiptono
2016), though they may undermine the material nature of the goods and provide a just
rationale behind the purchase (Veer and Shankar 2011). Therefore, it would be erro-
neous to conclude that all religious people display low materialistic tendencies.
 JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, SPIRITUALITY & RELIGION 7

One possible explanation for the display of low materialism is that religious indivi-
duals are known to have high subjective well-being (Mockon, Norton, and Ariely 2008;
Tao 2008). Well-being is defined as “individuals’ cognitive and affective assessments
regarding their life satisfaction” (La Barbera and Gürhan 1997, p. 72). It is known to
influence the importance of material goods as well as the overall shopping experience
(Chang and Arkin 2002; Roberts, Manolis, and Tanner Jr. 2003; Chaplin and John
2007). Materialism has been treated as a coping mechanism for dealing with unpleasant
thoughts or situations (Kasser 2004; Weaver, Moschis, and Davis 2011). Materialists are
generally unhappier and more dissatisfied with life than non-materialists (Belk 1985;
Ryan and Dziurawiec 2001; Chang and Arkin 2002), and stress is strongly related to
materialistic values (Roberts, Manolis, and Tanner Jr. 2003; Kasser 2004; Weaver,
Moschis, and Davis 2011).
We posit that the ritual of praying positively influences the overall well-being of the
practicing individual, which in turn lowers materialism. Prayer has been defined as “a
form of communication with the divine, cosmic or some deity that gives rise to a
spiritual relationship” (Vasconcelos 2010, p. 370). It is one of the most widely per-
formed religious rituals (Steger and Frazier 2005) and is related to many markers of
well-being (Spilka et al. 2003). Prayer can include components like expressing gratitude,
praise, and thanks-giving (Emmons and Paloutzian 2003), which positively affect
people’s daily mood (McCullough, Emmons, and Tsang 2002) and help in energizing,
inspiring, and alleviating them (Vasconcelos 2010). This contemplative tradition of
religion helps in modulating emotional experiences and stresses on comforting passions
(Watts 1996; Schimmel 1997).
Hence, we propose that

P1: Consumers, who participate in the religious ritual of prayer, have higher well-being,
which leads to low materialism.

Belief in religious exclusivism and intolerance

Psychological research has established that highly religious consumers tend to be more
dogmatic (Rokeach 1969, 1979), prejudiced (Allport and Kramer 1946; Allport and Ross
1967), and rigid (Hamby 1973; Kahoe 1974) than consumers who are less religious.
Devout consumers display higher levels of religious animosity, which can influence
boycotting and other purchase behavior. An example of religious animosity is the
display of hostility owing to the publication of cartoons of Prophet Mohammad in a
Danish newspaper in 2005. In the absence of access to the offending newspaper,
protestors identified other boycotting targets, namely the Danish dairy brand, Arla
Foods, which made them incur huge losses in terms of market share and consumer
loyalty (Knight, Bradley, and Gao 2009; Al-Hyari et al. 2012; Abosag and Farah 2014).
Other examples include devout Islamic consumers displaying animosity toward
Western brands and boycotting them for oppression of the Muslim faith, and for
perpetrating a consumerist culture (Izberk-Bilgin 2012; Ahmed et al. 2013).
Moreover, store and brand policies that go against consumers’ religious beliefs are
often judged negatively. This can adversely affect brand attitude and loyalty, and
encourage intentions to boycott as well as complain. Stores supporting anti-Christian
8 R. AGARWALA ET AL.

beliefs like same-sex marriage (Swimberghe, Sharma, and Flurry 2009; Swimberghe,
Flurry, and Parker 2011) and homosexuality (Leak, Woodham, and McNeil 2015) create
negative attitudes among devout Christian consumers. However, these consumers have
positive attitudes for stores holding Christian beliefs like closed-on Sunday policy
(Siguaw and Simpson 1997).
Further, in the case of controversial advertising, religiosity affects perception about
offense (Barnes Jr. and Dotson 1990; Mallia 2009). The advertisements of gender or sex
related products, social and political groups, and addictive products are often deemed
offensive by religious consumers (Shyan Fam, Waller, and Erdogan 2004; Cyril De Run
et al. 2010; Farah and El Samad 2014). Controversial content in advertisements, like sexual
connotations (Putrevu and Swimberghek 2013) and provocative use of religious symbols
(Gineikienė, Zimaitis, and Urbonavičius 2015) are also offensive to these consumers.
Based on all of the above, we conclude that religiosity plays a crucial role in lowering
consumers’ acceptance of opinions and values opposed to theirs, thereby making them
intolerant. One factor that can help in explaining this intolerance is belief in religious
exclusivism. Those who believe in the exclusivity of their religion “regard one theistic
system as true and see others as false or (at least to the believer) farther from the truth”
(Trinitapoli 2007, p. 452). Religious people with strong exclusivist beliefs tend to be more
intolerant toward other religions and reject pluralism (Trinitapoli 2007). The exclusive and
fundamental beliefs of highly religious consumers not only define the concept of being a
follower of the faith, but also lead to dogmatism (Altemeyer 2002). Predictably, the level of
intolerance is higher among more fundamental groups that hold exclusivist views (Gay
and Ellison 1993; Kirkpatrick 1993; Woodberry and Smith 1998). An example of this is the
marketplace conflict caused by Christian fundamentalist service-providers who refuse to
provide service to the LGBTQ community in the USA (Minton et al. 2016).
It must be noted that many religions make competing claims to the exclusive truth.
Islam is based on the dominant notion that it is the true religion of God (Khalil 2012),
while claiming that other religions are false. Christianity too has long followed exclu-
sivist traditions (Wuthnow 2004), wherein the church is often strict, with a tendency for
absolutism as well as proclaiming the exclusive truth (Iannaccone 1994, 1998). For
followers who truly and literally believe in the absolutes of their religion, it would be
difficult to accept something that challenges it. Exclusivism does not encourage taking
the middle path or being inclusive. Thus, the confrontation with opposing concepts
(homosexuality, consumerism, addictive products, sexual content) provokes those with
exclusivist beliefs, and they often react with intolerance and prejudice.
Hence, we propose that

P2: Consumers with stronger belief in religious exclusivism, display greater intolerance
(tendency to take offense, boycott and complain) toward opposing values than consumers
with weaker or no belief.

Belief in divine retribution and consumer ethics

Research evidence shows that religiosity plays an important role in influencing con-
sumer ethics (Vitell, Singh, and Paolillo 2007; Vitell 2009). Some examples of unethical
consumer behavior include “drinking a can of soda in a supermarket without paying for
 JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, SPIRITUALITY & RELIGION 9

it”, “lying about a child’s age in order to get a lower price”, and “stretching the truth on
an income tax return” (Muncy and Vitell 1992; Vitell and Paolillo 2003; p. 160). While
making ethical decisions, religious individuals give added weightage to absolute moral
laws and reject situational influences (Hunt and Vitell 1993). They are highly perceptive
about ethical issues (Hunt and Vitell 1993), and hence, exhibit low intention to behave
unethically (Vitell, Paolillo, and Singh 2006; Schneider, Krieger, and Bayraktar 2011).
Further, the fear of punishment acts as a strong deterrent against unethical behavior
(Hegarty and Sims Jr. 1978; Gurley, Wood, and Nijhawan 2007). An increase in the severity
of punishment reduces the individuals’ willingness to attempt the deviant act (McCabe and
Trevino 1993). Hence, it can be proposed that the fear of divine retribution (“notion of
punishment with respect to the doctrine of eternal damnation” (Crisp 2003, p. 35)),
explains the ethical behavior of religious consumers. Vitell and Paolillo (2003) also made
a similar argument, even though they did not provide empirical evidence.
Many religions preach that a person will be judged by the moral and ethical choices he or
she makes on earth and the happiness or misery of their next life depends on their ways of
exercising this responsibility (Smith 1986). Christian eschatology includes the concept of
judgment day, wherein everybody needs to present an account of their deeds before Jesus
(Matthew, 2008). The day of qayamat (Sharma, Newaz, and Fam 2016) is one of the central
beliefs of Islam too (Bailey and Sood 1993, p. 334). The Quran says that one’s future life could
be in the gardens of heaven or in an inferno of hell depending on one’s actions in this world
(Haleem 2005, p. 316). The concept of punishment is invoked in Buddhism and Hinduism
through the concept of karma, which literally translates into “one will reap, what one sows”.
So, virtuous conduct will be rewarded in future incarnations, while bad conduct will lead to
retribution (Bailey and Sood 1993; Singh and Singh 2012).
Thus, it is proposed that

P3: Consumers with stronger belief in divine retribution will have lower intention to
behave unethically, as compared to those with weaker or no belief.

Religious community involvement and risk aversion

Consumers vary according to the amount of risk they are willing to incur in a given
situation. Risk-averse consumers are generally reluctant in trying new products, tend to
continue with known brands and avoid switching behavior (Matzler, Grabner-Kräuter,
and Bidmon 2008). A review of literature indicates that consumers’ religiosity levels are
positively related to risk aversion. Religious consumers are sensitive to risk perception in
purchase situations (Delener 1990) and tend to be less impulsive and experimental while
shopping (Essoo and Dibb 2004; Mokhlis 2006, 2009; Yousaf and Shaukat Malik 2013).
They have low inclination to adopt new products (Azam et al. 2011; Mansori,
Sambasivan, and Md-Sidin 2015) or switch brands (Choi 2010; Choi, Paulraj, and Shin
2013). Further, it has been found that religiosity is inversely related to attitude toward
innovations, new ideas, and technologies (Rehman and Shahbaz Shabbir 2010; Azam
et al. 2011; Mansori, Sambasivan, and Md-Sidin 2015).
Our proposal is that active participation in one’s religious community can explain
consumers’ risk aversion. We argue that deep involvement of religious consumers in the
norms and activities of their religious group can create collectivistic tendencies or
10 R. AGARWALA ET AL.

interdependence. “Experiencing interdependence entails seeing oneself as part of an

encompassing social relationship and recognizing that one’s behavior is determined, con-
tingent on, and, to a large extent organized by what the actor perceives to be the thoughts,
feelings, and actions of others in the relationship” (Markus and Kitayama 1991, p. 227).
Since the focus of this research is at the individual consumer level, we use the terms
independence and interdependence (Markus and Kitayama 1991; Oyserman, Coon, and
Kemmelmeier 2002) to describe the self-related aspects of individualism and collectivism
respectively (Hofstede 1980; Weber and Hsee 1998; Mooij and De Hofstede 2010).
In collectivistic subcultures, members have a concern for belonging (Singelis and
Brown 1995; Miyahara 2004) and give priority to group norms rather than personal
attitudes (Triandis 2004), leading to interdependence. Interdependence is also related to
the tightness of the subcultures that one belongs to (Carpenter 2000). A tight cultural
group is one that advocates many rules and norms to its followers and expects high
standards of correct behavior (Triandis 2004; Gelfand et al. 2011).
We propose that deep involvement in the communal activities of religious groups
promotes interdependence among its members. Literature shows that church members
with high levels of participation in formal activities tend to be more interdependent
(McClain 1970; Hamby 1973) and have more collective coping styles (Constantine et al.
2000) than those who are less involved with the church. Vandello and Cohen (1999) explain
that the prominence of religion in daily life promotes interdependence because communal
events like camp meetings and church organizations encourage strong group ties. Moreover,
religion as an institution promotes social integration through community activities and
rituals (Ellison, Burr, and McCall 1997) and therefore, it can be expected that actively
involved group members display higher interdependence and collectivistic tendencies
(Vandello and Cohen 1999).
Moreover, an individual’s cognitive style is an important predictor of attitude toward
risk (Cox 1967), and research shows that self-sufficiency and independence are positively
related to the pro-risk attitude of individuals (Kogan and Wallach 1964; Mitchell 1999).
Independent people are more likely to focus on achieving gains, whereas interdependent
individuals will focus on the prevention of losses (Lee, Aaker, and Gardner 2000; Aaker and
Lee 2001). The latter emphasize on avoiding a loss of face (Mooij and De Hofstede 2010)
and are sensitive to embarrassment (Sharkey and Singelis 1995; Singelis and Sharkey 1995;
Singelis et al. 1999). Thus, individuals who are primed to think about friends and family are
less likely to take a social risk (e.g., wearing a flashy T-shirt) because it intensifies the
chances of embarrassment in the case of negative social outcome (Mandel 2003).
Taking the above into consideration, we propose that

P4: Consumers who are actively involved with their religious community display higher
interdependence, which leads to risk-aversion (less experimentation, aversion to new
products and technologies, brand loyalty).

Religious group identity and attitude toward religious products

The evidence gathered from research shows that religious consumers have a positive
attitude toward those products and services that contain religious associations (henceforth
called religious products). These associations may be normative or symbolic in nature.
 JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, SPIRITUALITY & RELIGION 11

Normative associations can deal with certain rules regarding food, clothing, and other
consumption behavior, which are obeyed by religious followers. For example, research
shows that devout Muslim consumers show preference for products with normative
associations, like halal meat (Mukhtar and Butt 2012; Jamal and Sharifuddin 2015; Mohd
Suki and Abang Salleh 2016), Islamic banking (Abou-Youssef et al. 2015), and Takaful
services (religious compliance for indemnity services) (Siala 2013). Furthermore, religious
Catholics and Protestants prefer stores that are closed on Sunday, as those stores follow the
norm of discouraging work on the Sabbath, the day of rest (Siguaw and Simpson 1997).
Symbolic religious associations can include the use of sacred signs, imagery, or words in
advertising, nomenclature, etc. The extant literature shows that a brand’s association with
Christian religious symbols generates higher purchase intention among religious people
(Henley et al. 2009; Lumpkins 2010). Religious consumers associate quality, honesty,
credibility, and trustworthiness to these brands, whereas, non-religious consumers react
with skepticism regarding the commercial use of religion (Taylor, Halstead, and Haynes
2010). Recently, the brand Patanjali has seen unparalleled success in India because of its
spiritual association (Kumar et al. 2014). Overall, the evidence implies that devout con-
sumers have a positive attitude toward relevant religious products.
Social identity theory (Tajfel and Turner 1979; Tajfel 1981) helps in explaining this
phenomenon. Social identity is “that part of an individual’s self-concept which derives from
his knowledge of his membership in a social group together with the value and emotional
significance attached to that membership” (Tajfel 1981, p. 255). In the case of religious
identity, the social group is the individual’s religious group. Social identity has been
conceptualized under three dimensions—cognitive, affective, and evaluative (Ellemers,
Kortekaas, and Ouwerkerk 1999).
The cognitive identity of a consumer, related to his/her religious group, plays the
primary role in forming attitude toward religious products, especially the normative
kind. The halal certification of a product is of no matter to a Sikh or a Christian because
their respective religious group memberships do not expect it from them. However, the
cognitive awareness that the Islamic community entails certain consumption norms
compels Muslims to prefer halal products.
The affective component of social identity is seen to play a vital role in pro-member-
ship behaviors (Doosje, Ellemers, and Spears 1995; Ellemers and Van Rijswijk 1997;
Bergami and Bagozzi 2000). Thus, a consumer who is emotionally committed to his or
her religious community can be expected to display more positive inclination toward
religious products and services.
Further, the evaluative dimension of social identity (called collective self-esteem (CSE))
(Luhtanen and Crocker 1992; Ellemers, Kortekaas, and Ouwerkerk 1999) plays a critical role
in consumers’ attempt to enhance their in-group’s status (Hogg and Abrams 1990; Long and
Spears 1997; Bergami and Bagozzi 2000). Private CSE is related to the feelings of gladness,
pride and satisfaction about one’s social group, as opposed to the feeling of regret (Luhtanen
and Crocker 1992; Sellers et al. 1998; Ashmore, Deaux, and McLaughlin-Volpe 2004). The
association with religious products would make consumers feel that they are worthy and
cooperative members of their religious group, which would further reinforce their self-
esteem. Consumers who admire and feel proud about their religious group show more
positive attitude toward religious products, whereas, a person who regrets belonging to a
particular religion would show reluctance toward those products.
12 R. AGARWALA ET AL.

Thus, it is proposed that

P5: Consumers with stronger religious identity have more positive attitude toward
religious products than those with weaker or no identity.

Religious value of frugality and economic shopping behavior

With regard to shopping behavior, previous research shows that highly religious consumers
tend to be “economic shoppers” (Sood and Nasu 1995; Essoo and Dibb 2004), and their
prime consideration while making a purchase decision is the price of the products and
services (Mokhlis 2006, 2009). They purchase goods on sale (Sood and Nasu 1995), favor
stores with low price than variety (Sood and Nasu 1995), and prefer making cash purchases
instead of using credit (Essoo and Dibb 2004). The fact that religious consumers are less
impulsive while shopping (Mokhlis 2006, 2009; Yousaf and Shaukat Malik 2013) gives
further credence to the fact that they make economic purchase decisions.
We propose that the religious value of frugality provides the rationale behind such
economic shopping behavior. Frugality is defined as “the degree to which consumers
are both restrained in acquiring and in resourcefully using economic goods and services
to achieve longer-term goals” (Lastovicka et al. 1999, p. 88). Frugal consumption
behavior is influenced by religious values (Pepper, Jackson, and Uzzell 2011).
Different religions focus on the sacredness of sufficiency and frugality, and these are
considered positive life statements (Schor 1999), while greed and waste are considered
profane (Belk 1983). Religiosity gives higher emphasis on savings, on being thrifty, and
having a greater sense of individual responsibility (Guiso, Sapienza, and Zingales 2003).
Further, religious households are reported to be more inclined toward saving money
than non-religious households (Renneboog and Spaenjers 2011).
Moreover, different religions of the world discourage excess acquisition and value frugality
and restraint (Lastovicka et al. 1999). Christianity has clear instructions regarding money and
consumption. Jesus Christ spoke more about money than any other subject (Dayton Jr. 2011)
and considered frugality, stewardship (being responsible for one’s resources), simplicity, and
contentment as valued traits. From earlier research, it is observed that devout Catholics
strongly believe in frugality and consider it to be a value that should be taught to children
(Guiso, Sapienza, and Zingales 2003). The studies of Protestants (Arruñada 2010), Amish and
Mennonites (Dana 2007; Dana and Dana 2008) also show that their religions propagate the
values of frugality and thrift and disapprove excess consumption.
Hence, it is proposed that

P6: Consumers who have strong religious values of frugality will exhibit more economic
shopping behavior (being price conscious, buying on sale, avoiding credit use, low impulse
purchase) as compared to consumers with weak or no religious values.

Discussion
An individual’s religiosity level plays a fundamental role in influencing his or her
attitudes, values, and consumption decisions. Over the past few decades, religiosity
has become an important variable in consumer research studies and sufficient research
has been conducted in the field. However, this literature only provides evidence for
 JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, SPIRITUALITY & RELIGION 13

relationships between religiosity and certain consumer outcomes, but it fails to explain
the psychological processes that underlie these outcomes. While the claims regarding
the impact of religiosity on consumer behavior are of great importance, it is also crucial
to ascertain the reasons behind the varying outcomes caused by differences in religiosity
levels. Instead of simply exploring the differences among consumers with different
religiosity levels, it is vital to know the rationale behind the existence of such
differences.
On the basis of this premise, we built a framework to summarize and explain the
literature on religiosity and consumer behavior. First, we drew conclusions regarding
the impact of religiosity on the different aspects of consumer behavior. A review of
literature led us to infer that religiosity is related to low-materialism, intolerance,
consumer ethics, and risk aversion. Further, religious consumers tend to display
positive attitude toward religious products and are also more economic in their shop-
ping behavior. Subsequently, we applied the four dimensions of religion (rituals, beliefs,
community and values) on these relationships to develop potential explanations. These
religious dimensions are a recent development (Mathras et al. 2016) and provide a fresh
perspective to the aforementioned relationships.
Specifically, we used examples of each dimension to explain these relationships
between religiosity and consumer outcomes. For instance, we proposed that the reli-
gious ritual of prayer positively impacts people’s daily moods and helps calm them,
leading to greater well-being. Since materialism is often equated with stress and
dissatisfaction, we argued that the well-being created by prayer led to lower materialistic
tendencies. Where religious beliefs were concerned, we posited that religious exclusi-
vism and religious retribution influenced consumer behavior. The exclusive religious
beliefs of consumers encourages fundamentalism, which gets translated into market-
place intolerance. Moreover, the fear of eternal damnation acts as a strong deterrent
against immoral deeds, leading to higher consumer ethics. We proposed that the
influence of religious community can be seen on consumers’ risk aversion and attitude
toward religious products. Our argument was that active members of religious groups
tend to be more interdependent, which leads to higher risk aversion. Further, con-
sumers with strong religious identities are emotionally committed to their faith and feel
proud to belong to it, and therefore, they can be expected to have positive attitude
toward religious products. Our final proposition was regarding the religious value of
frugality, which influences consumers’ shopping behavior, leading to economic pur-
chase decisions.
This paper complements preceding work and at the same time helps in expanding it
by developing research priorities. It contributes to theory by answering questions about
the causal linkages between religiosity and consumer outcomes. The paper has implica-
tions for marketing and consumer psychology researchers because a) it explains the
psychological reasons behind the behavior of a particular group of consumers, b) it
propels religiosity from being a simple grouping variable to an important construct in
its own right, and c) it opens new avenues for research.
The article has significant managerial contributions for targeting and positioning
strategies. It is imperative that store and brand managers know their customers well,
and this article informs about the behavior of one such segment. For instance, con-
sumer deviant behavior in the form of dishonesty and immorality (e.g., shoplifting or
14 R. AGARWALA ET AL.

insurance fraud) can be dealt by invoking thoughts of religious retribution. Social

marketing programs regarding consumerism and addictive shopping can urge the
practice of prayer in their promotional material.
This article takes the first step of scientific enquiry by developing research proposi-
tions and leaves the field open for the academic community to empirically test them. In
Table 3, we have provided some papers of interest to start research projects based on
the propositions. While developing our framework and research propositions, we
realize that certain boundaries must be drawn for the sake of conciseness and economy.
We acknowledge that religiosity and behavioral outcomes can be linked through more
than one route. For example, ethical behavior of a consumer could also be explained
through religious moral values or positive influences from the members of one’s
religious community. We intentionally ignore multiple explanations behind a particular
consumer outcome for the sake of brevity. Moreover, studies related to religious
affiliation and consumer behavior were precluded from this review and we invite future
researchers to explore them through the dimensions of religion.
Further, we accede that employing a culturally-sensitive approach to religiosity would
contribute to a more robust understanding of devout consumers’ marketplace behavior.
The relation between religiosity and culture is symbiotic (Trommsdorff 2012) and thus, it is
essential to take into account cross-cultural and intra-cultural differences while analyzing
universal religious processes. For example, research on the celebration of Christmas in
Japan reveals that the religious aspect of the holiday is largely missing and secular icons like
Santa Claus and Christmas trees are predominant (Kimura and Belk 2005). Conceiving
religiosity in a broader manner has helped researchers elaborate on religious conflicts
(Witkowski 2010; Jafari et al. 2015), reinterpretation of religious guidelines in consumption
practices (Jafari and Süerdem 2012), and substitution of traditional religious-based rela-
tionships with commercial ones (Palmer and Gallagher 2007). Moreover, commenting on
its cultural and social aspects will also aid the research field to overcome the dominant
individualistic focus on religion.
The knowledge on religion and its dimensions is at a preliminary stage, showing the
need for more systematic research attention in the future. These entities can be of vital
importance in marketing and hence, we urge scholars to make future research efforts in
a concerted manner for maintaining the growing momentum of the field.

Notes
1. We used the ABDC (Australian Business Deans Council) Journal Quality list to identify
journals from the A and A* categories. More journals were added in a subjective manner
based on whether we had found any articles from that journal, while conducting web-
based searches. See Appendix A for a list of all the journals that were finally referred to.
2. We define religious products as those market offerings that contain normative or symbolic
religious associations. We have not included products that are used for the practice of
religion (e.g., candles, flowers, incense sticks, etc.) in this definition.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
 JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, SPIRITUALITY & RELIGION 15

ORCID
Ridhi Agarwala http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3763-1714

References
Aaker, J. L., and A. Y. Lee. 2001. ““I” Seek Pleasures and “We” Avoid Pains: The Role of Self-
Regulatory Goals in Information Processing and Persuasion.” Journal of Consumer Research 28
(1): 33–49. doi:10.1086/321946.
Abosag, I., and M. F. Farah. 2014. “The Influence of Religiously Motivated Consumer Boycotts
on Brand Image, Loyalty and Product Judgment.” European Journal of Marketing 48 (11/12):
2262–2283. doi:10.1108/EJM-12-2013-0737.
Abou-Youssef, M. M. H., W. Kortam, E. Abou-Aish, and N. El-Bassiouny. 2015. “Effects of
Religiosity on Consumer Attitudes toward Islamic Banking in Egypt.” International Journal of
Bank Marketing 33 (6): 786–807. doi:10.1108/IJBM-02-2015-0024.
Ahmed, Z., R. Anang, N. Othman, M. and Sambasivan, 2013. “To Purchase or Not to Purchase
US Products: Role of Religiosity, Animosity, and Ethno-Centrism among Malaysian
Consumers.” Journal of Services Marketing 27 (7): 551–563. doi:10.1108/JSM-01-2012-0023.
Al-Hyari, K., M. Alnsour, G. Al-Weshah, and M. Haffar. 2012. “Religious Beliefs and Consumer
Behaviour: From Loyalty to Boycotts.” Journal of Islamic Marketing 3 (2): 155–174.
doi:10.1108/17590831211232564.
Allport, G. W., and B. M. Kramer. 1946. “Some Roots of Prejudice.” The Journal of Psychology 22:
9–39. doi:10.1080/00223980.1946.9917293.
Allport, G. W., and M. J. Ross. 1967. “Personal Religious Orientation and Prejudice.” Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology 5 (4): 432–443. doi:10.1037/h0021212.
Altemeyer, B. 2002. “Dogmatic Behavior among Students: Testing a New Measure of Dogmatism.”
The Journal of Social Psychology 142 (6): 713–721. doi:10.1080/00224540209603931.
Arli, D. 2017. “Does Ethics Need Religion? Evaluating the Importance of Religiosity in Consumer
Ethics.” Marketing Intelligence & Planning 35 (2): 1–33. doi:10.1108/MIP-06-2016-0096.
Arli, D., H. Cherrier, and F. Tjiptono. 2016. “God Blesses Those Who Wear Prada: Exploring the
Impact of Religiousness on Attitudes toward Luxury among the Youth of Indonesia.”
Marketing Intelligence & Planning 34 (1): 61–79. doi:10.1108/02634501011078138.
Arruñada, B. 2010. “Protestants and Catholics: Similar Work Ethic, Different Social Ethic.” The
Economic Journal 120 (547): 890–918. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0297.2009.02325.x.
Ashmore, R. D., K. Deaux, and T. McLaughlin-Volpe. 2004. “An Organizing Framework for
Collective Identity: Articulation and Significance of Multidimensionality.” Psychological
Bulletin 130 (1): 80–114. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.130.1.80.
Azam, A., F. Qiang, M. I. Abdullah, and S. A. Abbas. 2011. “Impact of 5-D of Religiosity on
Diffusion Rate of Innovation.” International Journal of Business and Social Science 2 (17): 177–
185.
Bailey, J., and J. Sood. 1993. “The Effect of Religious Affiliation on Consumer Behaviour: A
Preliminary Investigation.” Journal of Managerial Issues 5 (3): 328–352.
Barnes Jr., J. H., and M. J. Dotson. 1990. “An Exploratory Investigation into the Nature of
Offensive Television Advertising.” Journal of Advertising 19 (3): 61–69. doi:10.2307/4188771.
Belk, R. W. 1983. “Worldly Possessions: Issues and Criticisms.” Advances in Consumer Research
10: 514–519.
Belk, R. W. 1984. “Three Scales to Measure Constructs Related to Materialism: Reliability,
Validity, and Relationships to Measures of Happiness.” In NA - Advances in Consumer
Research Volume 11, eds. Thomas C. Kinnear, Provo, UT : Association for Consumer
Research, Pages: 291-297.ACR North American Advances.
Belk, R. W. 1985. “Materialism: Trait Aspects of Living in the Material World.” Journal of
Consumer Research 12 (3): 265–280. doi:10.1086/jcr.1985.12.issue-3.
16 R. AGARWALA ET AL.

Bergami, M., and R. P. Bagozzi. 2000. “Self-Categorization, Affective Commitment and Group
Self-Esteem as Distinct Aspects of Social Identity in the Organization.” British Journal of Social
Psychology 39 (4): 555–577. doi:10.1348/014466600164633.
Blau, B M. 2017. “Religiosity and The Volatility Of Stock Prices: a Cross-country Analysis.”
Journal Of Business Ethics 144 (3): 609-621. doi:10.1007/s10551-015-2842-7.
Burroughs, J. E., and A. Rindfleisch. 2002. “Materialism and Well-Being: A Conflicting Values
Perspective.” Journal of Consumer Research 29 (3): 348–370. doi:10.1086/344429.
Carpenter, S. 2000. “Effects of Cultural Tightness and Collectivism on Self-Concept and Causal
Attributions.” Cross-Cultural Research 34 (1): 38–56. doi:10.1177/106939710003400103.
Chang, L., and R. M. Arkin. 2002. “Materialism as an Attempt to Cope with Uncertainty.”
Psychology and Marketing 19 (5): 389–406. doi:10.1002/(ISSN)1520-6793.
Chaplin, L. N., and D. R. John. 2007. “Growing up in a Material World: Age Differences in
Materialism in Children and Adolescents.” Journal of Consumer Research 34 (4): 480–493.
doi:10.1086/518546.
Choi, Y. 2010. “Religion, Religiosity, and South Korean Consumer Switching Behaviours.”
Journal of Consumer Behaviour 9: 157–171. doi:10.1002/cb.
Choi, Y., A. Paulraj, and J. Shin. 2013. “Religion or Religiosity: Which Is the Culprit for
Consumer Switching Behavior ?” Journal of International Consumer Marketing 24 (4): 262–
280. doi:10.1080/08961530.2013.803901.
Cleveland, Mark, and William Chang. 2009. “Migration and Materialism: The Roles Of Ethnic
Identity, Religiosity, and Generation.” Journal Of Business Research 62 (10): 963-971.
doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2008.05.022.
Constantine, M.G., E. L. Lewis, L. C Conner, and D. Sanchez. 2000. “Addressing Spiritual and
Religious Issues in Counseling African Americans: Implications for Counselor Training and
Practice.” Counseling and Values 45 (1): 28–38. DOI:10.1002/j.2161-007X.2000.tb00180.x.
Cox, D.F. ed. 1967. “Risk handling in consumer behaviour – an intensive study of two cases.” In
Risk-Taking and Information-Handling in Consumer Behaviour, 34-81. Harvard University
Press, Boston, MA.
Crisp, O. D. 2003. “Divine Retribution: A Defence.” Sophia 42 (2): 35–52. doi:10.1007/
BF02782398.
Cyril De Run, E., M. Mohsin Butt, K. S. Fam, and H. Yin Jong. 2010. “Attitudes Towards
Offensive Advertising: Malaysian Muslims’ Views.” Journal of Islamic Marketing 1 (1): 25–36.
DOI:10.1108/17590831011026204.
Dana, L.-P. 2007. “Humility-Based Economic Development and Entrepreneurship among the Amish.”
Journal of Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy 1 (2): 142–154.
Dana, L.-P., and T. E. Dana. 2008. “Collective Entrepreneurship in a Mennonite Community in
Paraguay.” Latin American Business Review 8 (4): 82–96. doi:10.1080/10978520802114730.
Dayton Jr., H. L. 2011. Your Money Counts: The Biblical Guide to Earning, Spending, Saving,
Investing, Giving, and Getting Out of Debt. Tyndale House Publishers,Carol Stream, Illinois.
Delener, N. 1990. “The Effects of Religious Factors on Perceived Risk in Durable Goods Purchase
Decisions.” Journal of Consumer Marketing 7 (3): 27–38. doi:10.1108/EUM0000000002580.
Delener, Nejdet. 1994. “Religious Contrasts in Consumer Decision Behaviour Patterns: Their
Dimensions and Marketing Implications.” European Journal Of Marketing 28 (5): 36-53.
doi:10.1108/03090569410062023.
Doosje, B., N. Ellemers, and R. Spears. 1995. “Perceived Intragroup Variability as a Function of
Group Status and Identification.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 31 (5): 410–436.
doi:10.1006/jesp.1995.1018.
Dotson, M J.., and E M. Hyatt. 2000. “Religious Symbols as Peripheral Cues in Advertising: a
Replication Of The Elaboration Likelihood Model.” Journal Of Business Research 48 (1): 63-68.
doi:10.1016/S0148-2963(98)00076-9.
Ellemers, N., P. Kortekaas, and J. W. Ouwerkerk. 1999. “Self-Categorisation, Commitment to the
Group and Group Self-Esteem as Related but Distinct Aspects of Social Identity.” European
Journal of Social Psychology 29: 371–389. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-0992(199903/05)29:2/3<371::
AID-EJSP932>3.0.CO;2-U.
 JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, SPIRITUALITY & RELIGION 17

Ellemers, N., and W. Van Rijswijk. 1997. “Identity Needs versus Social Opportunities: The Use of
Group-Level and Individual-Level Identity Management Strategies.” Social Psychology
Quarterly 52–65. doi:10.2307/2787011.
Ellison, C. G., J. A. Burr, and P. L. McCall. 1997. “Religious Homogeneity and Metropolitan
Suicide Rates.” Social Forces 76: 273–299. doi:10.1093/sf/76.1.273.
Emmons, R. A., and R. F. Paloutzian. 2003. “The Psychology of Religion.” Annual Review of
Psychology 54 (1): 377–402. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.54.101601.145024.
Engel, J. F. 1976. “Psychographic Research in a Cross Cultural Nonproduct Setting.” Advances in
Consumer Research 3 (April): 98–101.
Engel, J. F., and R. D. Blackwell. 1983. Consumer Behavior. 4theditio. ed. Chicago: Dryden Press.
Essoo, N., and S. Dibb. 2004. “Religious Influences on Shopping Behavior: An Exploratory
Study.” Journal of Marketing Management 20: 683–712. doi:10.1362/0267257041838728.
Farah, M. F., and L. El Samad. 2014. “The Effects of Religion and Religiosity on Advertisement
Assessment among Lebanese Consumers.” Journal of International Consumer Marketing 26
(4): 344–369. doi:10.1080/08961530.2014.919126.
Gay, D. A., and C. G. Ellison. 1993. “Religious Subcultures and Political Tolerance: Do
Denominations Still Matter?” Review of Religious Research 34 (4): 311–332. doi:10.2307/
3511970.
Gelfand, M.J., J. L. Raver, L. Nishii, L. M. Leslie, J. Lun, B. C. Lim, L. Duan, A. Almaliach, S. Ang,
J. Arnadottir. and Z. Aycan. 2011. “Differences between Tight and Loose Cultures: A 33-
Nation Study.” Science 332 (6033): 1100–1104. doi:10.1126/science.1197754.
Gineikienė, J., I. Zimaitis, and S. Urbonavičius. 2015. “Controversial Use of Religious Symbols in
Advertising.” In Ideas in Marketing: Finding the New and Polishing the Old. Springer
International Publishing. 47-50. Springer, Cham.
Matthew 2008. Matthew's Gospel (King James Version). Trinitarian Bible Society, London,
England.
Guiso, L., P. Sapienza, and L. Zingales. 2003. “People’s Opium? Religion and Economic
Attitudes.” Journal of Monetary Economics. doi:10.1016/S0304-3932(02)00202-7.
Gurley, K., P. Wood, and I. Nijhawan. 2007. “The Effect of Punishment on Ethical Behavior
When Personal Gain Is Involved.” Journal of Legal, Ethical & Regulatory Issues 10 (1): 91–104.
Available at http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=
27465572&site=ehost-live
Haleem, M. A. S. A. S. A. 2005. The Qur’an. New York: Oxford University Press.
Hamby, J. (1973) Some Personality Correlates of Four Religious Orientations., Dissertation Abstract
International. University of Tennessee.
Hegarty, W. H., and H. P. Sims Jr. 1978. “Some Determinants of Unethical Decision Behavior: An
Experiment.” Journal of Applied Psychology 63 (4): 451–457. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.63.4.451.
Henley Jr, W. H., M. Philhours, S. K. Ranganathan, and A. J. Bush. 2009. “The Effects of Symbol
Product Relevance and Religiosity on Consumer Perceptions of Christian Symbols in
Advertising.” Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising 31 (1): 89–103.
doi:10.1080/10641734.2009.10505259.
Hofstede, G. 1980. Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values.
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Hogg, M. A., and D. Abrams. 1990. “Social Motivation, Self-Esteem and Social Identity.” Social
Identity Theory: Constructive and Critical Advances 28: 47.
Hopkins, C D.., K J. Shanahan, and M A. Raymond. 2014. “The Moderating Role Of Religiosity
on Nonprofit Advertising.” Journal Of Business Research 67 (2): 23-31. doi:10.1016/j.
jbusres.2013.03.008.
Hunt, S. D., and S. J. Vitell. 1993. “The General Theory of Marketing Ethics: A Retrospective and
Revision.” In Ethics in Marketing, eds S. N. Craig and J. A. Quelch, 775–784, Irwin,
Homewood, IL.
Iannaccone, L. R. 1994. “Why Strict Churches are Strong.” American Journal of Sociology 99 (5):
1180–1211. doi:10.1086/230409.
18 R. AGARWALA ET AL.

Iannaccone, L. R. 1998. “Introduction to the Economics of Religion.” Journal of Economic

Literature 36 (3): 1465–1495. doi:10.1016/j.religion.2008.01.006.
Izberk-Bilgin, E. 2012. “Infidel Brands: Unveiling Alternative Meanings of Global Brands at the
Nexus of Globalization, Consumer Culture, and Islamism.” Journal of Consumer Research 39
(4): 663–687. doi:10.1086/665413.
Jafari, A., A.Ö. Dedeoğlu, F. Regany, E. Üstündağli, W. and Batat. 2015. “Rethinking Religion in
the Context of Ethnicity and Well-Being.” Marketing Theory 15 (2): 287–295. doi:10.1177/
1470593114553329.
Jafari, A., and A. Süerdem. 2012. “An Analysis of Material Consumption Culture in the Muslim
World.” Marketing Theory 12 (1): 61–79. doi:10.1177/1470593111424184.
Jamal, A., and J. Sharifuddin. 2015. “Perceived Value and Perceived Usefulness of Halal Labeling:
The Role of Religion and Culture.” Journal of Business Research 68 (5): 933–941. doi:10.1016/j.
jbusres.2014.09.020.
Johnson, B.R., S. De Li, D. B. Larson, and M. McCullough. 2000. “A Systematic Review of the
Religiosity and Delinquency Literature.” Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice 16 (1): 32–
52. doi:10.1177/1043986200016001003.
Kahoe, R. 1974. “Personality and Achievement Correlates of Intrinsic and Extrinsic Religious
Orientations.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 29: 812–818. doi:10.1037/h0036222.
Kasser, T. 2004. “Materialistic Values: Their Causes and Consequences.” In Psychology and
Consumer Culture: The Struggle for a Good Life in a Materialistic World, eds Kasser, T. and
Kanner, A. D., 11–28. Washington, DC: APA Press.
Khalil, M. H. 2012. Islam and the Fate of Others: The Salvation Question. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Kimura, J., and R. W. Belk. 2005. “Christmas in Japan: Globalization versus Localization.”
Consumption Markets & Culture 8 (3): 325–338. doi:10.1080/10253860500160361.
Kirkpatrick, L. A. 1993. “Fundamentalism, Christian Orthodoxy, and Intrinsic Religious
Orientation as Predictors of Discriminatory Attitudes.” Journal for the Scientific Study of
Religion 256–268. doi:10.2307/1386664.
Knight, J., S. Bradley, and H. Gao. 2009. “Riding Out the Muhammad Cartoons Crisis:
Contrasting Strategies and Outcomes.” Long Range Planning 42 (1): 6–22. doi:10.1016/j.
lrp.2008.11.002.
Kogan, N., and M. A. Wallach. 1964. Risk Taking: A Study in Cognition and Personality.New
York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Kumar, V., A. Jain, Z. Rahman, and A. Jain. 2014. “Marketing through Spirituality: A Case of
Patanjali Yogpeeth”. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 133: 481–490. doi: 10.1016/j.
sbspro.2014.04.215.
La Barbera, P. A., and Z. Gürhan. 1997. “The Role of Materialism, Religiosity, and Demographics
in Subjective Well-Being.” Psychology & Marketing 14(1):71–97. AID-MAR5>3.0.CO;2-L. doi:
10.1002/(SICI)1520-6793(199701)14:1<71::.
Lastovicka, J.L., L. A. Bettencourt, R. S. Hughner, R.S. and R. J. Kuntze. 1999. “Lifestyle of the
Tight and Frugal: Theory and Measurement.” Journal of Consumer Research 26 (1): 85–98.
doi:10.1086/209552.
Leak, R. L., O. P. Woodham, and K. R. McNeil. 2015. “Speaking Candidly: How Managers’
Political Stances Affect Consumers’ Brand Attitudes.” Journal of Product & Brand
Management 24: 5. doi:10.1108/JPBM-08-2014-0693.
Leary, R B., E A. Minton, and J D. Mittelstaedt. 2016. “Thou Shall Not? The Influence Of
Religion on Beliefs Of Stewardship and Dominion, Sustainable Behaviors, and Marketing
Systems.” Journal Of Macromarketing 36 (4): 457-470. doi:10.1177/0276146715626219.
Lee, A. Y., J. L. Aaker, and W. L. Gardner. 2000. “The Pleasures and Pains of Distinct Self-
Construals: The Role of Interdependence in Regulatory Focus.” Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology 78 (6): 1122–1134. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.78.6.1122.
Lindridge, Andrew. 2005. “Religiosity and The Construction Of a Cultural-consumption
Identity.” Journal Of Consumer Marketing 22 (3): 142-151. doi:10.1108/07363760510595968.
 JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, SPIRITUALITY & RELIGION 19

Long, K., and R. Spears 1997. The self-esteem hypothesis revisited: Differentiation and the
disaffected. In R. Spears, P. J. Oakes, N. Ellemers, & S. A. Haslam (Eds.), The social psychology
of stereotyping and group life (pp. 296-317). Malden, : Blackwell Publishing.”
Loroz, Peggy Sue. 2006 "The generation gap: A Baby Boomer vs. Gen Y comparison of religiosity,
consumer values, and advertising appeal effectiveness". ACR North American Advances.
Luhtanen, R., and J. Crocker. 1992. “A Collective Self-Esteem Scale: Self-Evaluation of One’s
Social Identity.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 18 (3): 302–318. doi:10.1177/
0146167292183006.
Lumpkins, C. Y. 2010. “Sacred Symbols as a Peripheral Cue in Health Advertisements: An
Assessment of Using Religion to Appeal to African American Women about Breast Cancer
Screening.” Journal of Media and Religion 9 (4): 181–201. doi:10.1080/15348423.2010.521083.
MacInnis, D. J. 2011. “A Framework for Conceptual Contributions in Marketing.” Journal of
Marketing 75 (4): 136–154. doi:10.1509/jmkg.75.4.136.
Mallia, K. L. 2009. “From the Sacred to the Profane: A Critical Analysis of the Changing Nature
of Religious Imagery in Advertising.” Journal of Media and Religion 8 (3): 172–190.
doi:10.1080/15348420903091162.
Mandel, N. 2003. “Shifting Selves and Decision Making: The Effects of Self-Construal Priming on
Consumer Risk-Taking.” Journal of Consumer Research 30 (1): 30–40. doi:10.1086/374700.
Mandrik, C. A., and Y. Bao. 2005. “Exploring the Concept and Measurement of General Risk
Aversion.” Advances in Consumer Research 32: 531–539. doi:10.1080/19388160903382533.
Mansori, S., M. Sambasivan, and S. Md-Sidin. 2015. “Acceptance of Novel Products: The Role of
Religiosity, Ethnicity and Values.” Marketing Intelligence & Planning 33 (1): 39–66.
doi:10.1108/02634501011078138.
Mansour, I. H. F., and D. A. Diab. 2016. “The Relationship between Celebrities’ Credibility and
Advertising Effectiveness: The Mediation Role of Religiosity.” Journal of Islamic Marketing 7
(2): 148–166. doi:10.1108/MRR-09-2015-0216.
Markus, H. R., and S. Kitayama. 1991. “Culture and the Self: Implications for Cognition,
Emotion, and Motivation.” Psychological Review 98 (2): 224–253. doi:10.1037/0033-
295X.98.2.224.
Martin, W. C., and C. R. Bateman. 2014. “Consumer Religious Commitment’s Influence on
Ecocentric Attitudes and Behavior.” Journal of Business Research Elsevier Inc. 67 (2): 5–11.
Mathras, D., A. B. Cohen, N. Mandel, and D. G. Mick. 2016. “The Effects of Religion on
Consumer Behavior: A Conceptual Framework and Research Agenda.” Journal of Consumer
Psychology 26 (2): 298–311. doi:10.1016/j.jcps.2015.08.001.
Matzler, K., S. Grabner-Kräuter, and S. Bidmon. 2008. “Risk Aversion and Brand Loyalty: The
Mediating Role of Brand Trust and Brand Affect.” Journal of Product & Brand Management 17
(3): 154–162. doi:10.1108/10610420810875070.
McCabe, D. L., and L. K. Trevino. 1993. “Academic Dishonesty: Honor Codes and Other
Contextual Influences.” Journal of Higher Education 64 (5): 522–538.
McClain, E. W. 1970. “Personality Correlates of Church Attendance.” Journal of College Student
Personnel, 11(5), 360–365.
McCullough, M. E., R. A. Emmons, and J.-A. Tsang. 2002. “The Grateful Disposition: A
Conceptual and Empirical Topography.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 82 (1):
112–127. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.82.1.112.
McDaniel, S. W., and J. J. Burnett. 1990. “Consumer Religiosity and Retail Store Evaluative
Criteria.” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 18 (2): 101–112. doi:10.1007/
BF02726426.
McDaniel, Stephen W., and John J Burnett. 1991. “Targeting The Evangelical Market Segment.”
Journal Of Advertising Research 31 (4): 26-33.
Michell, Paul CN, and Mohammed Al-Mossawi. 1995. “The Mediating Effect Of Religiosity on
Advertising Effectiveness.” Journal Of Marketing Communications 1 (3): 151-162. doi:10.1080/
13527269500000015.
Minton, E A. 2015. “In Advertising We Trust: Religiosity's Influence on Marketplace and
Relational Trust.” Journal Of Advertising 44 (4): 403-414. doi:10.1080/00913367.2015.1033572.
20 R. AGARWALA ET AL.

Minton, E A.., L R. Kahle, T S. Jiuan, and S K. Tambyah. 2016. “Addressing Criticisms Of Global
Religion Research: a Consumption-based Exploration Of Status and Materialism,
Sustainability, and Volunteering Behavior.” Journal for The Scientific Study Of Religion 55
(2): 365-383. doi:10.1111/jssr.2016.55.issue-2.
Mitchell, V. 1999. “Consumer Perceived Risk: Conceptualisations and Models.” European Journal
of Marketing 33 (1/2): 163–195. doi:10.1108/03090569910249229.
Miyahara, A. 2004. “Toward Theorizing Japanese Interpersonal Communication Competence
from a non-Western Perspective.” In Intercultural Communication, ed. F. E. Jandt, 283.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Mockon, D., M. I. Norton, and D. Ariely. 2008. “Getting off the Hedonic Treadmill, One Step at
a Time: The Impact of Regular Religious Practice and Exercise on Well-Being.” Journal of
Economic Psychology 29 (5): 632–642. doi:10.1016/j.joep.2007.10.004.
Mohd Suki, N., and A. S. Abang Salleh. 2016. “Does Halal Image Strengthen Consumer Intention
to Patronize Halal Stores? Some Insights from Malaysia.” Journal of Islamic Marketing 7: 1.
doi:10.1108/JIMA-12-2014-0079.
Mokhlis, S. 2006. “The Effect of Religiosity on Shopping Orientation : An Exploratory Study in
Malaysia.” Journal of American Academy of Business 9 (1): 64–74.
Mokhlis, S. 2009. “Relevancy and Measurement of Religiosity in Consumer Behavior Research.”
International Business Research 2 (3): 75–84. doi:10.5539/ibr.v2n3p75.
Mooij, M., and G. De Hofstede. 2010. “The Hofstede Model: Applications to Global Branding
and Advertising Stratgey and Research.” International Journal of Advertising 29 (1): 85–110.
doi:10.2501/S026504870920104X.
Moschis, G P.., and F S. Ong. 2011. “Religiosity and Consumer Behavior Of Older Adults: a
Study Of Subcultural Influences in Malaysia.” Journal Of Consumer Behaviour 10 (1): 8-17.
doi:10.1002/cb.v10.1.
Mukhtar, A., and M. M. Butt. 2012. “Intention to Choose Halal Products: The Role of Religiosity.”
Journal of Islamic Marketing 3 (2): 108–120. doi:10.1108/17590831211232519.
Muncy, J. A., and S. J. Vitell. 1992. “Consumer Ethics: An Investigation of the Ethical Beliefs of
the Final Consumer.” Journal of Business Research 24 (4): 297–311. doi:10.1016/0148-2963(92)
90036-B.
Muñiz Jr, A.., and Hope Jensen Schau. 2005. “Religiosity in The Abandoned Apple Newton
Brand Community.” Journal Of Consumer Research 31 (4): 737-747. doi:10.1086/jcr.2005.31.
issue-4.
Oyserman, D., H. M. Coon, and M. Kemmelmeier. 2002. “Rethinking Individualism and
Collectivism: Evaluation of Theoretical Assumptions and Meta-Analyses.” Psychological
Bulletin 128 (1): 3–72. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.128.1.3.
Palmer, A., and D. Gallagher. 2007. “Religiosity, Relationships and Consumption: A Study of
Church Going in Ireland.” Consumption Markets & Culture 10 (1): 31–49. doi:10.1080/
10253860601116494.
Pepper, M., T. Jackson, and D. Uzzell. 2011. “An Examination of Christianity and Socially
Conscious and Frugal Consumer Behaviors.” Environment and Behavior 43 (2): 274–290.
doi:10.1177/0013916510361573.
Putrevu, S., and K. Swimberghek. 2013. “The Influence of Religiosity on Consumer Ethical
Judgments and Responses toward Sexual Appeals.” Journal of Business Ethics 115 (2): 351–
365. doi:10.1007/s10551-012-1399-y.
Rehman, A., and M. Shahbaz Shabbir. 2010. “The Relationship between Religiosity and New
Product Adoption.” Journal of Islamic Marketing 1 (1): 63–69. doi:10.1108/
17590831011026231.
Renneboog, L., and C. Spaenjers. 2011. “Religion, Economic Attitudes, and Household Finance.”
Oxford Economic Papers 64 (1): 103–127. doi:10.1093/oep/gpr025.
Roberts, J. A., C. Manolis, and J. F. Tanner Jr. 2003. “Family Structure, Materialism, and
Compulsive Buying: A Reinquiry and Extension.” Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science 31 (3): 300–311. doi:10.1177/0092070303031003007.
 JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, SPIRITUALITY & RELIGION 21

Rokeach, M. 1969. “Value Systems in Religion.” Review of Religious Research 11: 3–23. doi:10.2307/
3510550.
Rokeach, M. 1979. Understanding Human Values: Individual and Societal. New York: Free Press.
Rostosky, S.S., B. L. Wilcox, M. L. C. Wright. and B. A. Randall. 2004. “‘The Impact of Religiosity
on Adolescent Sexual Behavior’:.” Journal of Adolescent Research 19 (6): 677–697. doi:10.1177/
0743558403260019.
Ryan, L., and S. Dziurawiec. 2001. “Materialism and Its Relationship to Life Satisfaction.” Social
Indicators Research 55 (2): 185–197. doi:10.1023/A:1011002123169.
Schimmel, S. 1997. The Seven Deadly Sins: Jewish, Christian, and Classical Reflections on Human
Psychology. New York: Oxford University Press.
Schneider, H., J. Krieger, and A. Bayraktar. 2011. “The Impact of Intrinsic Religiosity on
Consumers’ Ethical Beliefs: Does It Depend on the Type of Religion? A Comparison of
Christian and Moslem Consumers in Germany and Turkey.” Journal of Business Ethics 102
(2): 319–332. doi:10.1007/s10551-011-0816-y.
Schor, J. B. 1999. The Overspent American: Why We Want What We Don’t Need. New York:
HarperPerennial.
Seeman, T. E., L. F. Dubin, and M. Seeman. 2003. “Religiosity/Spirituality and Health: A Critical
Review of the Evidence for Biological Pathways.” American Psychologist 58 (1): 53–63.
doi:10.1037/0003-066X.58.1.53.
Sellers, R.M., M. A. Smith, J. N. Shelton, S. A. Rowley, and T. M. Chavous. 1998.
“Multidimensional Model of Racial Identity: A Reconceptualization of African American
Racial Identity.” Personality and Social Psychology Review 2 (1): 18–39. doi:10.1207/
s15327957pspr0201.
Shachar, R., T. Erdem, K. M. Cutright, and G. J. Fitzsimons. 2011. “Brands: The Opiate of the
Nonreligious Masses?” Marketing Science 30 (1): 92–110. DOI:10.1287/mksc.1100.0591.
Sharkey, W. F., and T. M. Singelis. 1995. “Embarrassability and Self-Construal: A Theoretical
Integration.” Personality and Individual Differences 19 (6): 919–926. doi:10.1016/S0191-8869
(95)00125-5.
Sharma, -R.-R., F. T. Newaz, and K.-S. Fam. 2016. “Muslim Religiosity, Generational Cohorts
and Buying Behaviour of Islamic Financial Products.” Australian Journal of Management, no.
June: 1–20. doi:10.1177/0312896216659530.
Shyan Fam, K., D. S. Waller, and B. Z. Erdogan. 2004. “The Influence of Religion on Attitudes
Towards the Advertising of Controversial Products.” European Journal of Marketing 38 (5/6):
537–555. doi:10.1108/03090560410529204.
Siala, H. 2013. “Religious Influences on Consumers’ High-Involvement Purchasing Decisions.”
Journal of Services Marketing 27 (7): 579–589. doi:10.1108/JSM-02-2012-0046.
Siguaw, J. A., and P. M. Simpson. 1997. “Effects of Religiousness on Sunday Shopping and
Outshopping Behaviours: A Study of Shopper Attitudes and Behaviours in the American
South.” International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research 7 (1): 23–40.
doi:10.1080/095939697343111.
Singelis, T., and W. Brown. 1995. “Culture, Self, and Collectivist Communication.” Human
Communication Research 21 (3): 354–389. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.1995.tb00351.x.
Singelis, T.M., M. H. Bond, W. F. Sharkey, and C. S. Y. Lai. 1999. “Unpackaging Culture’s
Influence on Self-Esteem and Embarrassability.” Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 30 (3):
315–341. doi:10.1177/0022022199030003003.
Singelis, T. M., and W. F. Sharkey. 1995. “Culture, Self-Construal, and Embarrassability.” Journal
of Cross-Cultural Psychology 26 (6): 622–644. doi:10.1177/002202219502600607.
Singh, R., and R. Singh. 2012. “Karma Orientation in Boundary Spanning Sales Employees: A
Conceptual Framework and Research Propositions.” Journal of Indian Business Research 4 (3):
140–157. doi:10.1108/17554191211252662.
Smith, H. 1986. The Religions of Man.Oxford, England: Harper
Sood, J., and Y. Nasu. 1995. “Religiosity and Nationality an Exploratory Study of Their Effect on
Consumer Behavior in Japan and the United States.” Journal of Business Research 34: 1–9.
doi:10.1016/0148-2963(94)00015-7.
22 R. AGARWALA ET AL.

Spilka, B., R. W. Hood, B. Hunsberger, and R. Gorsuch. 2003. The Psychology of Religion: An
Empirical Approach. 3rd ed. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Steger, M. F., and P. Frazier. 2005. “Meaning in Life: One Link in the Chain from Religiousness
to Well-Being.” Journal of Counseling Psychology 52 (4): 574–582. doi:10.1037/0022-
0167.52.4.574.
Stillman, T.F., F. D. Fincham, K. D. Vohs, N. M. Lambert, and C. A. Phillips. 2012. “The Material
and Immaterial in Conflict: Spirituality Reduces Conspicuous Consumption.” Journal of
Economic Psychology Elsevier B.V. 33 (1): 1–7. doi:10.1016/j.joep.2011.08.012.
Swimberghe, K., D. Sharma, and L. Flurry. 2009. “An Exploratory Investigation of the Consumer
Religious Commitment and Its Influence on Store Loyalty and Consumer Complaint
Intentions.” Journal of Consumer Marketing 26 (5): 340–347. doi:10.1108/07363760910976592.
Swimberghe, K., L. Flurry, and J. M. Parker. 2011. “Consumer Religiosity: Consequences for
Consumer Activism in the United States.” Journal of Business Ethics 103 (3): 453–467.
doi:10.1007/s10551-011-0873-2.
Tajfel, H. 1981. Human Groups and Social Categories: Studies in Social Psychology. .Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge
Tajfel, H., and J. Turner. 1979. “An Integrative Theory of Intergroup Conflict.” The Social
Psychology of Intergroup Relations 33 (47): 74.
Tao, H. L. 2008. “What Makes Devout Christians Happier? Evidence from Taiwan.” Applied
Economics 40 (7): 905–919. doi:10.1080/00036840600749839.
Taylor, V. A., D. Halstead, and P. J. Haynes. 2010. “Consumer Responses to Christian Religious
Symbols in Advertising.” Journal of Advertising 39 (2): 79–92. doi:10.2753/JOA0091-
3367390206.
Triandis, H. C. 2004. “The Many Dimensions of Culture.” The Academy of Management
Executive 18 (1): 88–93. doi:10.5465/AME.2004.12689599.
Trinitapoli, J. 2007. “I Know This Isn’t PC but . . .”: Religious Exclusivism among U.S.
Adolescents’.” The Sociological Quarterly 48 (3): 451–483. doi:10.1111/j.1533-
8525.2007.00085.x.
Trommsdorff, G. 2012. “Cultural Perspectives on Values and Religion in Adolescent
Development: A Conceptual Overview and Synthesis.” In Values, Religion, and Culture in
Adolescent Development, eds G. Trommsdorff and X. Chen, 3–45. New York: Cambridge
University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139013659.003.
Tsarenko, Yelena, and Dewi Tojib. 2012. “The Role Of Personality Characteristics and Service
Failure Severity in Consumer Forgiveness and Service Outcomes.” Journal Of Marketing
Management 28 (9-10): 1217–1239. doi:10.1080/0267257X.2011.619150.
Vandello, J. A., and D. Cohen. 1999. “Patterns of Individualism and Collectivism across the
United States.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 77 (2): 279–292. doi:10.1037/0022-
3514.77.2.279.
Vasconcelos, A. F. 2010. “The Effects of Prayer on Organizational Life: A Phenomenological
Study.” Journal of Management and Organization 16 (3): 369–381. doi:10.5172/jmo.16.3.369.
Veer, E., and A. Shankar. 2011. “Forgive Me, Father, for I Did Not Give Full Justification for My
Sins: How Religious Consumers Justify the Acquisition of Material Wealth.” Journal of
Marketing Management 27 (5–6): 547–560. doi:10.1080/0267257X.2010.517707.
Vitell, S. J. 2009. “The Role of Religiosity in Business and Consumer Ethics: A Review of the
Literature.” Journal of Business Ethics Available at doi:10.1007/s10551-010-0382-8 90: 155–167.
doi:10.1007/s10551-010-0382-8.
Vitell, S. J., and J. G. P. Paolillo. 2003. “Consumer Ethics: The Role of Religiosity.” Journal of
Business Ethics 46 (2): 151–162. doi:10.1023/A:1025081005272.
Vitell, S. J., J. G. P. Paolillo, and J. J. Singh. 2006. “The Role of Money and Religiosity in
Determining Consumers’ Ethical Beliefs.” Journal of Business Ethics 64 (2): 117–124.
doi:10.1007/s10551-005-1901-x.
Vitell, S. J., J. J. Singh, and J. G. P. Paolillo. 2007. “Consumers’ Ethical Beliefs: The Roles of
Money, Religiosity and Attitude toward Business.” Journal of Business Ethics 73 (4): 369–379.
doi:10.1007/s10551-006-9212-4.
 JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, SPIRITUALITY & RELIGION 23

Watts, F. N. 1996. “Psychological and Religious Perspectives on Emotion.” The International

Journal for the Psychology of Religion 6 (2): 71–87. doi:10.1207/s15327582ijpr0602_1.
Weaver, S. T., G. P. Moschis, and T. Davis. 2011. “‘Antecedents of Materialism and Compulsive
Buying: A Life Course Study in Australia’, Australasian Marketing Journal.” Australian and
New Zealand Marketing Academy. 19 (4): 247–256. doi:10.1016/j.ausmj.2011.04.007.
Weber, E. U., and C. Hsee. 1998. “Cross-Cultural Differences in Risk Perception, but Cross-
Cultural Similarities in Attitudes Towards Perceived Risk.” Management Science 44 (9): 1205–
1217. doi:10.1287/mnsc.44.9.1205.
Wilkes, R. E., J. J. Burnett, and R. D. Howell. 1986. “On the Meaning and Measurement of
Religiosity in Consumer Research.” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 14 (1): 47–56.
doi:10.1007/BF02722112.
WIN_Gallup International. 2012. Global Index of Religiosity and Atheism.Gallup International.
Witkowski, T. H. 2010. “A Brief History of Frugality Discourses in the United States.”
Consumption Markets and Culture 13 (3): 235–258. doi:10.1080/10253861003786975.
Woodberry, R. D., and C. S. Smith. 1998. “Fundamentalism Et Al: Conservative Protestants in
America.” Annual Review of Sociology 24 (1): 25–56. doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.24.1.25.
Wuthnow, R. 2004. “Presidential Address 2003: The Challenge of Diversity.” Journal for the
Scientific Study of Religion 43: 159–170. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5906.2004.00225.x.
Yousaf, S., and M. Shaukat Malik. 2013. “Evaluating the Influences of Religiosity and Product
Involvement Level on the Consumers.” Journal of Islamic Marketing 4 (2): 163–186. doi:10.1108/
17590831311329296.

Appendix A
List of journals referred (in alphabetical order)
Academy of Management Review, European Journal of Marketing, International Business
Research, International Journal of Bank Marketing, International Review of Retail, Distribution
and Consumer Research, Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, Journal of Academy of
Marketing Science, Journal of American Academy of Business, Journal of Advertising, Journal
of Advertising Research, Journal of Business Ethics, Journal of Business Research, Journal of
Consumer Behaviour, Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Journal
of Current Issues & Research in Advertising, Journal of Economic Psychology, Journal of
International Consumer Marketing, Journal of Islamic Marketing, Journal of Macromarketing,
Journal of Marketing Communications, Journal of Marketing Management, Journal of Product &
Brand Management, Journal of Services Marketing, Market Intelligence and Planning
Marketing Science, Psychology and Marketing

View publication stats