07/24/2020 | 1

Today’s agenda
› Part 1: Guest lecture by Marijke Leliveld on Prosocial
Behaviour
› Part 2: Ethical Consumption
 07/24/2020 | 2

Note about assignment 2:

› How related should the strategies and behaviours be?
 07/24/2020 | 3

Ethical Consumption
 07/24/2020 | 4

› Alexanderplatz, Berlin (2015)

› https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KfANs2y_frk

› Documentary: True Cost

› Also: John Oliver segment
07/24/2020 | 5
 07/24/2020 | 6

Current issue: Ethical consumption

› Consumers: Many people say they care about ethical
consumption
› Researchers, marketers: Growing area in academia and in
the marketplace
› Marketplace: But this isn’t reflected by the
marketplace/market shares
 07/24/2020 | 7

Obstacles?
› Why aren’t people seeking out and buying more ethical
alternatives when they are available?
› What happens after people engage in ethical
consumption?

› Trade off between desired product/service/etc. and

maintaining a positive image of the self
 07/24/2020 | 8

If we know sweatshops are bad…

› …then why do we keep buying products produced by
brands that make use of sweatshops?
› Are consumers hypocrites?
 07/24/2020 | 9

The power of self-protection

› Ehrich and Irwin (2005):
• The ones who care MOST about an issue are the least
willing to request information about that issue
• Those who care will feel the most negative emotions
• Willful ignorance: Allows them to ignore information
that induce negative feelings
 07/24/2020 | 10

Request information vs. Use information

› Workmanship
› Comfort
› Price
› Wood Source
 07/24/2020 | 11

Wood source knowledge

Ironic:
The more people
care, the more
discrepant their
behaviour
 07/24/2020 | 12

Willful ignorance
› When choosing to purchase, knowing unfavourable
unethical attribute:
• Emotional, cognitive cost
• Ignore information to avoid these feelings
› Not necessarily hypocrisy
• Still care about the issue deeply
 07/24/2020 | 13

If information is provided... (no request)

› Luce, 1998:
• Tradeoffs can evoke negative emotions (e.g., price vs.
sustainability)
• To reduce these negative emotions, consumers
preferred to opt-out of making a choice
 07/24/2020 | 14

Self-image protection
› Would prefer to ignore information, avoid making choices
› Motivation: Don’t want to feel negative emotions, don’t
want to shake self-image
› But also, we don’t want to look unethical in front of others
 Moral do-gooder derogation
› Moral do-gooders elicit downward social
comparisons (Monin, 2007)
› Moral “rebels” challenge observers’ self-
concept
• Defensive processing :
• Discrediting those who do the right
thing (e.g. Monin, Sawyer &
Marquez, 2008)
 07/24/2020 | 16

Do-gooder derogation: Vegetarians

› Minson and Monin, 2011:
› Meat eaters vs. vegetarians
› 47% participants: came up with
negative word (e.g.,
malnourished, self-righteous)
 07/24/2020 | 17

Why?
› Vegetarians = bad
• Expectation: vegetarians see themselves as morally
superior than meat-eater
› More moral superiority  more negative words
› Motivation: Don’t want to be morally judged; knee-jerk
reaction
 07/24/2020 | 18

Do-gooder derogation & consequences

› Zane, Irwin, and Reczek, 2016:
• When others do good:
• Role model, admiration vs. denigration
• Depends on if the action is related to the self (e.g., you
already failed vs. you are a mere observer)
 07/24/2020 | 19

Denigrating ethical consumers

› Style
› Wash
› Price
› Child labor vs. Delivery time

› Evaluate other:
› Fashionable, attractive, odd, boring…?
 07/24/2020 | 20

Negative evaluation of others

Negative evaluation
a result only from a
comparison within
domain of morality
 07/24/2020 | 21

Downstream consequences
› What happens after you denigrate a moral other?
› Less angry over child labor
› Less willing to engage in related ethical actions (e.g.,
signing a related pledge)

› Why?
› Self-perception theory: learning about own
emotions and attitudes through own behaviour
 07/24/2020 | 22

The bright side

› Reaffirm the moral self or attribute willful ignorance to
outside the self
• Give to unrelated charity
• Attribute reason for ignoring ethical information to
external source (e.g., no time)
› Therefore: if the self isn’t threatened, then no need to
denigrate others
 07/24/2020 | 23

All in the service of self-protection

› Tradeoff between desire for a product and protecting self
image
› Valuing ethicality can result in counterintuitive behaviors:
• Ignore
• Choose not to choose
• Denigrate

› What happens after people do engage in ethical

consumption?
 07/24/2020 | 24

Rebound effects
› Reduction in cost through technological improvements,
unintended increase in consumer demand
› Kyba et al. (2017):
• LED lights: Less energy than conventional lights
• Result: Outdoor lighting increases and light pollution
increases! (bad for plants, animals, and humans)
 07/24/2020 | 25

Ironic rebound effects

› And even when price/costs aren’t involved…

 07/24/2020 | 26

Recycling gone bad

› Even the mere opportunity to be ethical can have rebound
effects

› Catlin and Wang (2013):

 07/24/2020 | 27

Recycling gone bad (continued)

› Public bathroom:
• 15 “normal” days
• 15 days with a recycling bin
 07/24/2020 | 28

Why do these negative consequences occur?

› Availability of justification

› Efficiency in energy production can justify increased use

› Ability to recycle can justify increased consumption

› Being good can justify being bad…

 07/24/2020 | 29

More extreme case…moral licensing

› Leading to negative behaviours and not just “less good”
behaviours

› Doing a good behavior (e.g., buying sustainable products)

increases your moral self-image
› Allows you (“licenses you”) to engage in a subsequent
unethical behaviour
 07/24/2020 | 30

Buying green products

› Mazar and Zhong (2010):
 07/24/2020 | 31

Negative consequences
› Established self as ethical person
› Consequently:
• Share less money with others (dictator)
• Lie, steal

› Consequences even in unrelated domains

 07/24/2020 | 32

Overall…
› Tradeoff between material goods (gaining resources) and
maintaining moral self-image
 07/24/2020 | 33

Solutions?
› Elevate status of ethical products and ethical
consumption?
› Change norms?
› Promote consistency?
 07/24/2020 | 34

Potential solution: In-group vs. out-group

› White, Simpson, and Argo
(2014):
• Computer science students
(dissociative out-group) vs.
business students (in-group)
• Best at composting
 07/24/2020 | 35

Positive side of identity threat

Out-group’s performance
threatens consumer’s
(in-)group image
 07/24/2020 | 36

Next week: Guest lecture