Product Ethicality Dilemma: Consumer Reactions to ‘Disgusting’ Recycled Products

Berna Basar and Sankar Sen, Baruch College, CUNY, USA

As the increasing attention to environmental issues led companies to introduce sustainable brands and
products to the market (Mazar and Zhong 2010), the gap between consumers’ explicit attitudes toward
sustainable products and their consumption behavior has been a major concern (Luchs et al. 2010).
Although extensive research has focused on potential reasons for the relatively low market share of
sustainable products (Newman, Gorlin, and Dhar 2014), very limited research has examined the obstacles
specific to recycled products (Linton and and Hamzaoui 2013). As green products, recycled products are
made in whole or in part from a wide range of materials recovered from the waste stream (EPA 2016). This
study examines the effect of feelings of disgust associated with recycled products on product ethicality
perceptions and product attitudes. Given that consumers usually buy recycled products mostly for social
and ethical considerations, it is especially important to examine how factors unique to those products affect
ethicality perceptions and product evaluations.

Moral judgments are founded upon approximately five moral domains, which involve discrete sets of
interrelated values and rules of how people ought to behave and what warrants punishment or sanctions
(Haidt and Graham 2007). The domain of purity involves principles directed at protecting the sanctity of
the body and soul. These values are originally related to the evolutionary challenges of avoiding the
consumption of toxins, parasites, or bacteria. From a purity standpoint, it is immoral to behave in a way
that is self-polluting, filthy, or profane (Rozin et al. 1999). The morality literature has conceptualized
disgust as a moral emotion defined by appraisals of purity and contamination (Haidt 2003). Research shows
that physical disgust and moral disgust activate overlapping brain regions and are linked through cognitive
and behavioral processes (Eskine, Kacinik and Prinz 2011). As a consequence, feelings of disgust have
been shown to increase extremity in our moral judgments (Eskine et al. 2011).

According to the consumer behavior literature, many common consumer products such as cigarettes,
diapers, and trash bags elicit disgust among consumers (Morales and Fitzsimons 2007). This suggests that
feelings of disgust are not a rare occurrence in the marketplace, and consumers are likely to experience
them on regular shopping trips. Today, many disgust-eliciting products such as cigarette butts, marine
debris, and underwear are recycled to manufacture new sustainable products (Terracycle 2017). Hence,
one can expect that feelings of disgust associated with some of those recycled materials cause consumers
to perceive the end product as disgusting as well. Driving from the morality literature showing the effect
physical disgust on negative moral judgments (Eskine et al. 2011), this study suggests that compared to
‘non-disgusting’ recycled products, ‘disgusting’ recycled products might result in lower product ethicality
perceptions, which in turn might decrease product attitudes (H1). Moral identity represents an individual’s
broadassociative cognitive network of related moral traits (e.g., being kind), feelings (e.g., concern for
others), and behaviors (e.g., helping others) (Aquino and Reed 2002). Within this associative network,
the strength of these moral associations reflects the degree to which a person’s moral identity is chronically
important (e.g., whether a person cares about being a person who has these traits, feelings, and behaviors
in general). As a result, those individual who are characterized by high moral identity might have more
thoughts, both in quantity and speed, regarding moral traits such as fairness, generosity, and helping the
society. For instance, moral identity was found to be a strong predictor of charitable giving, even when
the donation recipient was a member of an outgroup (Reed and Aquino 2003; Winterich et al. 2009).
 Given that individuals with high internalized moral identity see morality at the very core of their
being, one might expect them to be more concerned about ethical situations. For instance, compared to
individuals with low moral identity, individuals with high moral identity are less likely act unethically
(Gino et al. 2011) and more likely to engage in prosocial behaviors (Aquino and Reed 2002). However,
prior research suggests that feelings of disgust and moral judgments are interrelated through cognitive
processes (Eskine et al. 2011). Therefore, this study suggests that individuals high in moral identity
internalization are more likely to have higher product ethicality perceptions for non-disgust eliciting
products versus disgust- eliciting products. On the other hand, given individuals low in moral identity
internalization are less concerned about ethical situations, they are not expected to experience
significantly different levels of product ethicality perceptions between disgust-eliciting recycled products
and non-disgust eliciting recycled products (H2). The interactive effect of recycled product type and
individuals’ moral identity internalization on product ethicality perceptions is expected to be reflected in
product attitudes (H3).

A pilot study was conducted to test whether feelings of disgust associated with end products depend
on the type of recycled materials they are made from. For this study, we recruited 199 individuals from
MTurk (Mage=33.88). Participants were asked to evaluate 24 hypothetical bags, each partly made from a
different type of recycled product (e.g., recycled seatbelt, plastic bottle, etc.) and displayed in random
order. Each participant rated all 24 bags on a scale from 1(“not at all disgusting”) to 7 (“very disgusting”).
Hierarchical cluster analysis uncovered 3 distinct clusters: (1) extremely disgusting, (2) moderately
disgusting, (3) not-disgusting. Whereas mean disgust value of the bags in the extremely disgusting cluster
(e.g., a bag made from recycled underwear) were significantly higher than the scale midpoint (M = 5.37,
t(198) = 11.87, p < .001), mean disgust value of the bags in the not-disgusting cluster were significantly
lower than the scale midpoint (M = 2.16, t(198) = -24.80, p < .001). Results of this study confirmed that
consumers can perceive products as disgusting depending on the type of recycled product they are made
from.
Study 1 had a three-factor (disgusting recycled product, non- disgusting recycled product, recycled
material) between-subjects design. For this study, 233 individuals who were recruited from MTurk (Mage
= 39.12), were randomly distributed to one of three product-type conditions. In all conditions, participants
were asked to imagine shopping on a website that sells bags. Then, participants saw a website visual
describing a bag made of recycled materials. All participants saw the same bag visual and website, but the
materials the bag was made from varied depending on their assigned condition. In order to avoid any prior
attitudes consumers might have, we used the brand name and website design of a Canadian bag company;
Mariclaro; a company that sells recycled products online. In the disgusting recycled product condition, the
bag was made from disgust-eliciting materials (e.g., recycled cigarette butts). In the non-disgusting
recycled product condition, the bag was made from non-disgust eliciting materials (e.g., recycled
seatbelts). Finally, in the recycled-material condition, the bag was made from particular fibers (e.g.,
polyester). According to the pilot study, the mean disgust rating of the recycled products in the disgust
condition (Mdisgusting = 4.36) was significantly higher than the mean disgusting rating of the recycled
products in the non-disgusting recycled product condition (Mnot-disgusting = 2.32 , t(198) = 21.43, p < .001).

We measured participants’ general attitude toward the bag using five items on a seven-point scale.
The items included “dislike/like,” “unfavorable/favorable,” “negative/positive,” “undesirable/desirable ,”
and “bad/good” (α = .98). In order to measure perceived product ethicality, participants rated their
agreements with the statements “This bag is social responsible”, “This bag is produced with high ethical
standards”, and “This bag is sustainable” on a scale ranging from 1 (“not at all”) to 7 (“very much”) (α =
.84). As adapted from previous literature (Argo, Dahl, and Morales 2006), we asked participants to report
to what extent wearing the bag would make them feel: “disgusted”, “revolted”, “unclean”, and “gross” (α
= .97). The order of the product ethicality and disgust measures was counterbalanced.

An analysis of variance (ANOVA) using product type as the independent variable and disgust index
as the dependent variable produced a significant main effect (F(2,230) = 19.35, p < .001). Participants
perceived wearing the bag more disgusting in the disgust-eliciting recycled product condition (Mdisgusting =
2.60) than in the non- disgust eliciting recycled product (Mnot-disgusting = 1.35, t(230)=5.46, p < .001 and
recycled material conditions (Mmaterial = 1.42, t(230) = 5.24, p < .001). A second ANOVA using attitude
index as the dependent variable produced a significant main effect (F(2,230) = 8.39, p < .001). Participants
had lower product attitudes in the disgust-eliciting recycled product condition (Mdisgusting = 4.52) than in
the recycled product (Mnot-disgusting = 5.42, t(230) = -3.63, p < .001 and recycled material conditions
(Mmaterial = 5.35, t(230) = -3.41, p < .001). Similarly, an ANOVA using product ethicality as the
dependent variable produced a significant main effect (F(2,230) = 4.35, p =.014). Participants had lower
product ethicality perceptions in the disgust-eliciting recycled product condition (Mdisgusting= 5.40) than
in the recycled product (Mnot- disgusting = 5.93, t(230) = -2.84, p < .01 and recycled material conditions
(Mmaterial=5.78, t(230)=-1.49, p = .04 ).

We conducted mediation analysis (PROCESS model 4; Hayes 2017) with product type manipulation
as the categorical independent variable; product ethicality perceptions as the mediator, and product attitude
as the dependent variable. The bootstrap analysis confirmed an indirect effect both for the disgusting
recycled vs. non-disgusting recycled product comparison (β = .33, 95% CI: [.11, .60]) and dis-gusting
recycled product vs. recycled material condition comparison (β = .23, 95% CI: [.01, .50]).

Study 2 was conducted to test our findings in Study 1 with undergraduate students to examine the
effect of moral identity internalization as a moderator, and to rule out alternative explanations. Participants
in the study included 139 undergraduate students (Mage= 22.03). We randomly assigned them to one of the
two conditions: non-disgusting recycled product condition vs. disgusting recycled product condition. Study
2 was very similar to Study 1 with some exceptions. First, in order to rule out alternative explanations,
participants rated the bag on various dimensions (stylish, lightweight, multifunctional, waterproof, creative,
and innovative) using scales from 1(“not at all”) to 7(“very much”). We also asked participants how easy
or difficult it is to make the bag (1 = very difficult to make, 7 = very easy to make) and how common or
uncommon the bag is (1 = very uncommon, 7 = very common). Additionally, in order to test whether
perceived fit between the identity of the bag and recycled products differs across conditions, an identity
overlap scale, drawn from Bergami and Bagozzi’s (2000) paper, was adapted. In a series of differentially
overlapping pair of circles, participants picked the circle pair which best reflects the overlap between the
bag and each of the recycled product the bag was made from. Finally, participants rated how representative
they found the website visual using three items (α = .86).

In this study, after evaluating the bag on provided dimensions, participants completed Aquino and
Reed’s (2002) moral identity internalization scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). Consistent
with prior research (Aquino and Reed 2002), the five items that measure this scale were averaged to
create a moral identity index (α = .86).
 An analysis of variance (ANOVA) using product type as the independent variable and disgust index
as the dependent variable showed that participants perceived wearing the bag more disgusting in the
disgusting condition than in the non-disgusting condition (Mdis- gusting = 3.21, Mnot-disgusting = 3.21; F(1,137)
= 18.08, p < .001). A second ANOVA using attitude index as the dependent variable showed that
participants had significantly lower product attitudes in the disgusting condition than in the not-disgusting
condition (Mdisgusting = 3.60, Mnot-disgusting = 4.24; F(1,137) = 4.90, p = .029). Similarly, an ANOVA using
product ethicality as the dependent variable showed that participants had significantly lower product
ethicality perceptions in the disgusting condition than in the not-disgusting condition (Mdisgusting = 4.75,
Mnot-disgusting = 5.52; F(1,137) = 4.90, p < .01). Additionally, none of the product-related measures used to
test alternative explanations differed between two product-type conditions.

We conducted a moderated mediation analysis using (10,000 resamples) PROCESS (Model 8,

Hayes 2017). In the model estimated by this analysis, recycled product type (disgusting = 0, not-
disgusting = 1) was the manipulated independent variable, perceived product ethicality was the mediator,
attitude toward the product was the dependent variable, and moral identity internalization was the
measured moderator variable. Mediated moderation was supported because the indirect effect of the two-
way interaction on attitude toward the product through perceived product ethicality was significant
(indirect effect = .36, SE = .18; 95% CI: [.0303, .7584]). For participants with high moral identity
internalization, the conditional indirect effect of product type was significant (β = .69, 95% CI: [.31,
1.12]) whereas for participants with low moral identity internalization, the conditional indirect effect of
product type was not significant (β = -.90, 95% CI: [-31, .56]).

This study reveals that recycled products can be perceived as disgusting which in turn, might
decrease product ethicality perceptions and overall product evaluations. Additionally, this research shows
that although individuals high in moral identity internalization perceive ‘non-disgusting’ recycled
products as more ethical than ‘disgusting’ recycled products, individuals low in moral identity
internalization perceive ‘non-disgusting’ recycled product and ‘disgusting’ recycled products as equally
ethical. The purchase of recycled products is one way by which consumers satisfy their desire to protect
the environment. Although recent research has focused on green products, little is known about the role
of recycled-product features on consumers’ product attitudes and ethicality judgments. The current study
contributes to the recycled product literature by showing that perceived ethicality of recycled products
and their overall evaluations might vary depending on the type of recycled materials used for the
manufacturing of the final product. In terms of managerial implications, this study shows that marketers
need to take into account the type of feelings associated with recycled materials that are used to
manufacture new products.
 REFERENCES

Aaker, Jennifer L. (1997), “Dimensions of Brand Personality,” Journal of Marketing Research, 34(3), 347-
356.
Aaker, Jennifer, Susan Fournier, and S. Adam Brasel, “When Good Brands Do Bad,” Journal of Consumer
Research, 31(1), 1-16.
Aquino, Karl and Americus Reed (2002), “The Self-Importance of Moral Identity,” Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 83(6), 1423-40.
Argo, Jennifer J., Darren W. Dahl, and Andrea C. Morales (2006), “Consumer Contamination: How
Consumers React to Products Touched By Others,” Journal of Marketing, 70(2), 81-94.
Bergami, Massimo, and Richard 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.
Ekman, Paul, and Wallace V. Friesen (1975), Unmasking The Face: A Guide to Recognizing Emotions
From Facial Cues, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2016), “Reduce, Reuse, Recycle, Buy Recycled,” June 27,
https://www3.epa.gov/ region9/waste/solid/reduce.html.
Eskine, Kendall J., Natalie A. Kacinik, and Jesse J. Prinz (2011), “A Bad Taste in The Mouth: Gustatory
Disgust Influences Moral Judgment,” Psychological Science, 22(3), 295-299.
Gino, Francesca, Maurice E. Schweitzer, Nicole L. Mead, and Dan Ariely (2011), “Unable to Resist
Temptation: How Self-Control Depletion Promotes Unethical Behavior,” Organizational Behavior
and Human Decision Processes, 115(2), 191-203.
Haidt, Jonathan (2003), “The Moral Emotions”, in Handbook of Affective Sciences, ed. R. J. Davidson, K.
R. Scherer, and H.
H. Goldsmith, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 852-870. Haidt, Jonathan, and Jesse Graham (2007),
“When Morality
Opposes Justice: Conservatives Have Moral iIntuitions That Liberals ay not recognize,” Social Justice
Research, 20(1), 98-116.
Hayes, Andrew F. (2017), Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis. A
Regression-Based Approach, New York: Guilford Press.
Linton, Jonathan and Leila Hamzaoui (2013) ,”Brand Name Effect on Consumers’ Willingness-To-Pay For
New Versus Recycled Or Remanufactured Products “, in E - European Advances in Consumer
Research Volume 10, ed. Gert Cornelissen, Elena Reutskaja, and Ana Valenzuela, Duluth, MN :
Association for Consumer Research, Pages: 327-328.
Luchs, Michael G., Rebecca Walker Naylor, Julie R. Irwin, and Rajagopal Raghunathan (2010), “The
Sustainability
Liability: Potential Negative Effects of Ethicality on Product Preference,” Journal of Marketing, 74(5), 18-
31.
Morales, A. & Wu, E. (2013), “Disgust and Identity,” in The Routledge Companion to Identity and
Consumption, ed. Ruvio,
A. A., and Belk, R. W., New York: Routledge, 72-79. Mazar, Nina, and Chen-Bo Zhong (2010), “Do
Green Products
Make Us Better People?” Psychological Science, 21(4), 494- 498.
Rozin et al. (1999), “The CAD Triad Hypothesis: A Mapping Between Three Moral Emotions (Contempt,
Anger, Disgust) and Three Moral Codes (Community,
Autonomy, Divinity),” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(4), 574-586.
Terracycle (2017), “Zero Waste Boxes,” https://www.terracycle. com/en-US/zero_waste_boxes.
Xie, Chunyan, Richard P. Bagozzi, and Kjell Grønhaug (2015), “The Role of Moral Emotions and
Individual Differences in Consumer Responses to Corporate Green and Non-Green Actions,” Journal
of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(3), 333-356.