Skip to main content
Log in

The Relationships of Empathy, Moral Identity and Cynicism with Consumers’ Ethical Beliefs: The Mediating Role of Moral Disengagement

  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study examines the relationships of empathy, moral identity and cynicism with the following dimensions of consumer ethics: the passive dimension (passively benefiting at the expense of the seller), the active/legal dimension (benefiting from questionable but legal actions), the ‘no harm, no foul’ dimension (actions that do not harm anyone directly but are considered unethical by some) and the ‘doing-good’/recycling dimension (pro-social actions). A survey of six hundred Australian consumers revealed that both empathy and moral identity were related to negative beliefs regarding the passive and the active/legal dimensions of consumer ethics and were related to positive beliefs regarding the ‘doing-good’/recycling dimension. Cynicism was related to positive beliefs regarding the passive dimension of consumer ethics and was related to negative beliefs regarding the ‘doing-good’/recycling dimension. The role of moral disengagement in mediating these relationships was examined. Empathy and moral identity were only indirectly negatively related to the ‘no harm, no foul’ dimension of consumer ethics through moral disengagement, while cynicism was indirectly positively related to this dimension through moral disengagement. Theoretical and practical implications of these findings are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adams, C., & Zutshi, A. (2005). Corporate disclosure and auditing. In R. Harrison, T. Newholm, & D. Shaw (Eds.), The ethical consumer (pp. 207–217). London, UK: Sage.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, W. T., & Cunningham, W. H. (1972). The socially conscious consumer. Journal of Marketing, 36(3), 23–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aquino, K., & Freeman, D. (2009). Moral identity in business situations: A social-cognitive framework for understanding moral functioning. In D. Narvaez & D. K. Lapsley (Eds.), Personality, identity and character (pp. 375–395). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Aquino, K., & Reed II, A. (2002). The self-importance of moral identity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(6), 1423–1440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aquino, K., Reed II, A., Thau, S., & Freeman, D. (2007). A grotesque and dark beauty: How moral identity and mechanisms of moral disengagement influence cognitive and emotional reactions to war. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 385–392.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aristotle (2004). Nicomachean ethics, trans. by J. A. K. Thomson. London, England: Penguin Books.

  • Aronson, E. (2004). Reducing hostility and building compassion: Lessons from the jigsaw classroom. In A. G. Miller (Ed.), The social psychology of good and evil (pp. 469–488). New York: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Auger, P., & Devinney, T. M. (2007). Do what consumers say matter? The misalignment of preferences with unconstrained ethical intentions. Journal of Business Ethics, 76, 361–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balderjahn, I. (1988). Personality variables and environmental attitudes as predictors of ecologically-responsible consumption patterns. Journal of Business Research, 17, 51–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (1999). Moral disengagement in the perpetration of inhumanities. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3(3), 193–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A., Barbaranelli, C., Caprara, G. V., & Pastorelli, C. (1996). Mechanisms of moral disengagement in the exercise of moral agency. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(2), 364–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barnett, C., Cafaro, P., & Newholm, T. (2005). Philosophy and ethical consumption. In R. Harrison, T. Newholm, & D. Shaw (Eds.), The ethical consumer (pp. 11–24). London, UK: Sage.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1171–1182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baron-Cohen, S. (2012). Zero degrees of empathy: A new theory of human cruelty and kindness. London, England: Penguin Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Batson, C. D. (2011). Altruism in humans. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Batson, C. D., & Ahmad, N. Y. (2009). Using empathy to improve intergroup attitudes and relations. Social Issues and Public Policy, 3(1), 141–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blasi, A. (1983). Moral cognition and moral action: A theoretical perspective. Developmental Review, 3(2), 178–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bray, J., Johns, N., & Kilburn, D. (2010). An exploratory study into the factors impeding ethical consumption. Journal of Business Ethics, 98, 597–608.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, T. A., Sautter, J. A., Levente, L., Sautter, A. C., & Bearnes, B. (2010). Ethics and personality: Empathy and narcissism as moderators of ethical decision making in business students. Journal of Education for Business, 85, 203–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chowdhury, R. M. M. I., & Fernando, M. (2013). The role of spiritual well-being and materialism in determining consumers’ ethical beliefs: An empirical study with Australian consumers. Journal of Business Ethics, 113, 61–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chylinski, M., & Chu, A. (2010). Consumer cynicism: Antecedents and consequences. European Journal of Marketing, 44(6), 796–837.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, T. R. (2010). Moral emotions and unethical bargaining: The differential effects of empathy and perspective taking in deterring deceitful negotiation. Journal of Business Ethics, 94, 569–579.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crane, A. (2001). Unpacking the ethical product. Journal of Business Ethics, 30, 361–373.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crane, A. (2005). Meeting the ethical gaze: Challenges for orienting to the ethical market. In R. Harrison, T. Newholm, & D. Shaw (Eds.), The ethical consumer (pp. 219–232). London, UK: Sage.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Crane, A., & Matten, D. (2004). Business ethics. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, M. H. (1980). A multidimensional approach to individual differences in empathy. JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 10, 85.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Bock, T., & Van Kenhove, P. (2010). Consumer ethics: The role of self-regulatory focus. Journal of Business Ethics, 97, 241–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Detert, J. R., Trevino, L. K., & Sweitzer, V. L. (2008). Moral disengagement in ethical decision making: A study of antecedents and outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(2), 374–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeVellis, R. F. (2003). Scale development: Theory and applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenberg, N., & Miller, P. A. (1987). The relation of empathy to prosocial and related behaviors. Psychological Bulletin, 101(1), 91–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenberg, N., Valiente, C., & Champion, C. (2004). Empathy related responding: Moral, social and socialization correlates. In A. G. Miller (Ed.), The social psychology of good and evil (pp. 386–415). New York, NY: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erffmeyer, R., Keillor, B., & Le Clair, D. T. (1999). An empirical investigation of Japanese consumer ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 18, 35–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erikson, E. H. (1964). Insight and responsibility. New York, NY: Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fukukawa, K. (2002). Developing a framework for ethically questionable behaviour in consumption. Journal of Business Ethics, 41, 99–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gordon, M. (2005). Roots of empathy: Changing the world child by child. Markham, ON: Thomas, Allen and Son.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hardy, S. A. (2006). Identity, reasoning and emotion: An empirical comparison of three sources of moral motivation. Motivation and Emotion, 30, 207–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hardy, S. A., & Carlo, G. (2005). Identity as a source of moral motivation. Human Development, 48(4), 232–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, R., Newholm, T., & Shaw, D. (2005). The ethical consumer. London, UK: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Helm, A. (2004). Cynics and skeptics: Consumer dispositional trust. In B. E. Kahn & M. F. Luce (Eds.), Advances in consumer research (Vol. 31, pp. 345–351). Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hochwarter, W. A., James, M., Johnson, D., & Ferris, G. R. (2004). The interactive effects of politics perceptions and trait cynicism on work outcomes. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 10(4), 44–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman, M. L. (1984). The interaction of cognition and affect in empathy. In C. E. Izard, J. Kagan, & R. B. Zajonc (Eds.), Emotions, cognitions and behaviour (pp. 103–131). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman, M. L. (1987). The contribution of empathy to justice and moral judgement. In N. Eisenberg & J. Strayer (Eds.), Empathy and its development (pp. 47–80). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hunt, S. D., & Vitell, S. J. (1986). A general theory of marketing ethics. Journal of Macromarketing, 6(1), 5–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hutchings, K. (2010). Global ethics: an introduction. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jansen, P., Gossling, T., & Bullens, T. (2011). Towards shared social responsibility: A study of consumers’ willingness to donate micro-insurances when taking out their own insurance. Journal of Business Ethics, 100, 175–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, J. L., & O’Leary-Kelly, A. M. (2003). The effects of psychological contract breach and organizational cynicism: Not all social exchanges are created equal. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 24, 627–647.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mencl, J., & May, D. R. (2009). The effects of proximity and empathy on ethical decision-making: An exploratory investigation. Journal of Business Ethics, 85, 201–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyers, L. S., Gamst, G., & Guarino, A. J. (2006). Applied multivariate research: Design and interpretation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, P. A., & Eisenberg, N. (1988). The relation of empathy to aggressive and externalizing/antisocial behaviour. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 324–344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muncy, J. A., & Vitell, S. J. (1992). Consumer ethics: An investigation of the ethical beliefs of the final consumer. Journal of Business Research, 24, 297–311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, P. E., Laczniak, G. R., & Wood, G. (2007). An ethical basis for relationship marketing: A virtue ethics perspective. European Journal of Marketing, 41(1/2), 37–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Narvaez, D. (2006). Integrative ethical education. In M. Killen & J. Smetana (Eds.), Handbook of moral development (pp. 703–733). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rawwas, M. Y. A. (1996). Consumer ethics: An empirical investigation of the ethical beliefs of Austrian consumers. Journal of Business Ethics, 15, 1009–1019.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rawwas, M. Y. A., & Singhapakdi, A. (1998). Do consumers’ ethical beliefs vary with age? A substantiation of Kohlberg’s typology in marketing. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 6(2), 26–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reed II, A., & Aquino, K. (2003). Moral identity and the expanding circle of moral regard toward out-groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(6), 1270–1286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenbaum, M. S., Kuntze, R., & Wooldridge, B. R. (2011). Understanding unethical retail disposition practice and restraint from the consumer perspective. Psychology and Marketing, 28(1), 29–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rotter, J. B. (1980). Interpersonal trust, trustworthiness and gullibility. American Psychologist, 35(1), 1–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schlegelmilch, B. B., & Oberseder, M. (2010). Half a century of marketing ethics: Shifting perspectives and emerging trends. Journal of Business Ethics, 93, 1–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of human values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 1–65). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaw, D., Grehan, E., Shiu, E., Hassan, L., & Thomson, J. (2005). An exploration of values in ethical consumer decision making. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 4(3), 185–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shaw, D., & Shiu, E. (2003). Ethics in consumer choice: A multivariate modelling approach. European Journal of Marketing, 37(10), 1485–1498.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singh, J. J., Iglesias, O., & Batista-Fouget, J. M. (2012). Does having an ethical brand matter? The influence of consumer perceived ethicality on trust affect and loyalty. Journal of Business Ethics, 111, 541–549.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, A. (1759/2009). The theory of moral sentiments (p. 11). New York: Penguin Group.

  • Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models. In S. Leinhart (Ed.), Sociological methodology (pp. 290–312). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steenhaut, S., & Van Kenhove, P. (2006). An empirical investigation of the relationship among a consumer’s personal values, ethical ideology and ethical beliefs. Journal of Business Ethics, 64, 137–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turner, J. H., & Valentine, S. R. (2001). Cynicism as a fundamental dimension of moral decision-making: A scale development. Journal of Business Ethics, 34, 123–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vice, S. (2011). Cynicism and morality. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 14(2), 169–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vitell, S. J. (2003). Consumer ethics research: Review, synthesis and suggestions for the future. Journal of Business Ethics, 43, 33–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vitell, S. J., Keith, M., & Mathur, M. (2011). Antecedents to the justification of norm violating behaviour among business practitioners. Journal of Business Ethics, 101, 163–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vitell, S. J., & Muncy, J. A. (1992). Consumer ethics: An empirical investigation of factors influencing ethical judgments of the final consumer. Journal of Business Ethics, 11, 585–597.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vitell, S. J., & Muncy, J. A. (2005). The Muncy-Vitell consumer ethics scale: A modification and application. Journal of Business Ethics, 62, 267–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vitell, S. J., Singhapakdi, A., & Thomas, J. (2001). Consumer ethics: An application and empirical testing of the Hunt-Vitell theory of ethics. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 18(2), 153–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weaver, G. R. (2006). Virtue in organizations: Moral identity as a foundation for moral agency. Organizational Studies, 27(3), 341–368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilkes, R. E. (1978). Fraudulent behaviour by consumers. Journal of Marketing, 42(4), 67–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, J., & Musick, M. (1999). The effects of volunteering on the volunteer. Law and Contemporary Problems, 62(4), 141–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wowra, S. A. (2007). Moral identities, social anxiety and academic dishonesty among American college students. Ethics and Behavior, 17(3), 302–321.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wrightsman, L. S. (1991). Interpersonal trust and attitudes toward human nature. In J. P. Robinson, P. R. Shaver, & L. S. Wrightsman (Eds.), Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes (pp. 373–412). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Youniss, J., & Yates, M. (1999). Youth service and moral-civic identity: A case for everyday morality. Educational Psychology Review, 11(4), 361–376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rafi M. M. I. Chowdhury.

Appendices

Appendices

Appendix 1

Empathy Scale (Adapted from Davis 1980)

  1. 1.

    I believe that there are two sides to every question and try to look at them both.

  2. 2.

    I sometimes find it difficult to see things from the “other person’s” point of view.*

  3. 3.

    I try to look at everybody’s side of a disagreement before I make a decision.

  4. 4.

    When I’m upset at someone, I usually try to “put myself in his or her shoes” for a while.

  5. 5.

    I often have tender, concerned feelings for people less fortunate than me.

  6. 6.

    I would describe myself as a pretty soft-hearted person.

  7. 7.

    Other people’s misfortunes do not usually disturb me a great deal.*

  8. 8.

    I am often quite touched by things that I see happen.

*Reverse-coded.

Appendix 2

Moral Identity Scale (Aquino and Reed 2002)

Listed below are some characteristics that might describe a person: Caring, Compassionate, Fair, Friendly, Generous, Helpful, Hardworking, Honest, and Kind.

The person with these characteristics could be you or it could be someone else. For a moment, visualize in your mind the kind of person who has these characteristics. Imagine how that person would think, feel, and act. When you have a clear image of what this person would be like, please indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with each of the following statements.

  1. 1.

    It would make me feel good to be a person who has these characteristics.

  2. 2.

    Being someone who has these characteristics is an important part of who I am.

  3. 3.

    I would be ashamed to be a person who had these characteristics.*

  4. 4.

    Having these characteristics is not really important to me.*

  5. 5.

    I strongly desire to have these characteristics.

*Reverse-coded.

Appendix 3

Cynicism Scale (Adapted from Wrightsman 1991)

  1. 1.

    If most people could get into a movie without paying and be sure that they would not be seen, they would do it.

  2. 2.

    Most people would tell a lie if they could gain by it.

  3. 3.

    People claim that they have ethical standards regarding honesty and morality, but few people stick to them when the chips are down.

  4. 4.

    People pretend to care more about one another than they really do.

  5. 5.

    Most people are not really honest for a desirable reason; they are afraid of getting caught.

Appendix 4

Moral Disengagement Scale (Detert et al. 2008 adapted from Bandura et al. 1996)

Moral Justification

  1. 1.

    It is alright to fight to protect your friends.

  2. 2.

    It is ok to steal to take care of your family’s needs.

  3. 3.

    It is ok to attack someone who threatens your family’s honour.

Euphemistic Labelling

  1. 4.

    Sharing test questions is just a way of helping your friends.

  2. 5.

    Talking about people behind their backs is just part of the game.

  3. 6.

    Looking at a friend’s homework without permission is just “borrowing it”.

Advantageous Comparison

  1. 7.

    Damaging some property is no big deal when you consider that others are beating up people.

  2. 8.

    Stealing some money is not too serious compared to those who steal a lot of money.

  3. 9.

    Compared to other illegal things people do, taking some things from a store without paying for them is not very serious.

Displacement of Responsibility

  1. 10.

    If people are living under bad conditions, they cannot be blamed for behaving aggressively.

  2. 11.

    If someone is pressured into doing something, they shouldn’t be blamed for it.

  3. 12.

    People cannot be blamed for misbehaving if their friends pressured them to do it.

Diffusion of Responsibility

  1. 13.

    A member of a group or team should not be blamed for the trouble the team caused.

  2. 14.

    If a group decides together to do something harmful, it is unfair to blame any one member of the group for it.

  3. 15.

    You can’t blame a person who plays only a small part in the harm caused by a group.

Distortion of Consequences

  1. 16.

    People don’t mind being teased because it shows interest in them.

  2. 17.

    Teasing someone does not really hurt them.

  3. 18.

    Insults don’t really hurt anyone.

Attribution of Blame

  1. 19.

    If someone leaves something lying around, it’s their own fault if it gets stolen.

  2. 20.

    People who are mistreated have usually done things to deserve it.

  3. 21.

    People are not at fault for misbehaving at work if their managers mistreat them.

Dehumanization

  1. 22.

    Some people deserve to be treated like animals.

  2. 23.

    It is OK to treat badly someone who behaved like a ‘worm’.

  3. 24.

    Someone who is obnoxious does not deserve to be treated like a human being.

Appendix 5

Consumer Ethics Scale (Muncy and Vitell 1992; Vitell and Muncy 1992, 2005)

Active/Illegal Dimension

  1. 1.

    Giving misleading price information to a clerk for an unpriced item.

  2. 2.

    Using a long distance telephone access code that does not belong to you.

  3. 3.

    Drinking a can of soda in a store without paying for it.

  4. 4.

    Reporting a lost item as ‘stolen’ to an insurance company in order to collect the insurance money.

  5. 5.

    Changing price tags on merchandise in a retail store.

  6. 6.

    Returning damaged goods when the damage was your own fault.

Passive Dimension

  1. 1.

    Moving into a residence, finding that the cable (pay) TV is still hooked up, and using it without paying for it.

  2. 2.

    Lying about a child’s age to get a lower price.

  3. 3.

    Not saying anything when the waiter or waitress miscalculates a bill in your favour.

  4. 4.

    Getting too much change and not saying anything.

Active/Legal Dimension

  1. 1.

    Using an expired coupon for merchandise.

  2. 2.

    Returning merchandise to a store by claiming it was a gift when it was not.

  3. 3.

    Not telling the truth when negotiating the price of a new automobile.

  4. 4.

    Stretching the truth on an income tax return.

  5. 5.

    Using a coupon for merchandise you did not buy.

‘No Harm, No Foul’ Dimension

  1. 1.

    ‘Burning’ a CD rather than buying it.

  2. 2.

    Returning merchandise after buying it and not liking it.

  3. 3.

    Recording a movie off the television.

  4. 4.

    Spending over an hour trying on clothing and not buying anything.

  5. 5.

    Installing software on your computer without buying it.

‘Doing-good’/Recycling Dimension

  1. 1.

    Buying products labelled as “environmentally friendly” even if they don’t work as well as competing products.

  2. 2.

    Purchasing something made of recycled materials even though it is more expensive.

  3. 3.

    Buying only from companies that have a strong record of protecting the environment.

  4. 4.

    Recycling materials such as cans, bottles, newspapers etc.

  5. 5.

    Returning to the store and paying for an item that the cashier mistakenly did not charge you for.

  6. 6.

    Correcting a bill that has been miscalculated in your favour.

  7. 7.

    Giving a larger than expected tip to a waiter or waitress.

  8. 8.

    Not purchasing products from companies that you believe don’t treat their employees fairly.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Chowdhury, R.M.M.I., Fernando, M. The Relationships of Empathy, Moral Identity and Cynicism with Consumers’ Ethical Beliefs: The Mediating Role of Moral Disengagement. J Bus Ethics 124, 677–694 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1896-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1896-7

Keywords

Navigation