Download marketing ethics from the consumers` perspective: a

MARKETING ETHICS FROM THE CONSUMERS’
PERSPECTIVE: A THEORETICAL VIEW
Ghensy Antoine
Lynn University
[email protected]
Robert D. Green
Lynn University
[email protected]
MARKETING ETHICS FROM THE CONSUMERS’
PERSPECTIVE: A THEORETICAL VIEW
ABSTRACT
Using the Hunt-Vitell Model, an examination of gender literature identifies factors influencing
differences in ethical evaluations. The purpose is an initial assessment of male and female
consumers’ ethical perceptions of firms’ strategy and to clarify prior, inconsistent findings of
gender differences toward marketing ethics. Conclusions are presented related to different
intensiveness levels.
MARKETING ETHICS FROM THE CONSUMERS’
PERSPECTIVE: A THEORETICAL VIEW
INTRODUCTION
In a 1961 survey of 1,700 executives, 80% responded that in their industry there were “practices
which are generally accepted and are unethical” [3, p. 160]. Unethical practices continue in
business in the 21st century as it did five decades ago. Marketing strategies are critical in creating
a positive image and trust, by establishing acceptable practices and relationships, and to meeting
or exceeding consumers’ ethical expectations.
In order to successfully implement a marketing strategy (marketing mix) and a favorable
position, firms must know consumers needs, wants and behavior as to what is acceptable or not,
including ethical considerations, with the offerings. From the positioning strategy for a target
market, those consumers make a judgment which is “typically represented as good-bad,
favourable-unfavourable” [2, p. 5] by using evaluative criteria of “standards and specifications to
compare different products and brands” [4, p. 80]. A postive, e.g., good or favorable, judgment
leads to the intention that “should always predict behavior, provided that the measure of
intention corresponds to the behavioral criteria” [1, p. 50] of consumers, e.g., the consumers’
perception of the marketing mix and the associated ethical considerations [12].
In the late 1980s Hunt and Vitell [7] developed a positive “General Theory of Marketing Ethics”
that was supported by prior empirical research. In this theory, the environment (cultural,
industry, organizational) and personal experiences influence the (1) perceived ethical problem,
alternatives and consequences, (2) deontological norms, (3) probabilities and desirability of
consequences, and (4) importance of stakeholders. Deontological norms and perceived
alternatives impact deontological evaluation, while probability and desirability of consequences
influence teleological evaluation. Deontological and/or teleological evaluations determine ethical
judgments which lead to intentions. In addition, teleological evaluation may not only lead to
ethical judgments but directly to intentions.
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
The intent of this paper is to determine the relationship differences between male and female
ethical perceptions resulting from marketing strategies. Marketing strategy, as the marketing
mix, is well established, researched and practiced for over five decades [13, 9]. Two theories are
identified and determined that establishes the relationships between gender perceptions of
marketing ethics. First is the General Theory of Marketing Ethics [7]. Second is a different view
and a new understanding of females’ psychological growth as to what is important in their lives
[5]. This theory was further developed, tested, and applied as the Selectivity Model [10].
The core relationships of the Hunt-Vitell model are the basis for this study. Therefore, the focus
is on the (1) deontological norms and deontological evaluations on ethical judgments relationship
and (2) desirability of consequences, importance of stakeholders, teleological evaluations
relationships on ethical judgments [7].
Once the consumer is exposed to and identifies an ethical issue, two ethical evaluations occur –
deontological and/or teleological evaluations. Hunt and Vitell [7] state that a consumer may use
one or both evaluations. The primary differences between the two are deontological evaluations
are based on rule norms and teleological evaluation on the situation, e.g., the consequences,
stakeholder considerations. For deontological, the rules to live by may be the “golden rule” or a
matter of a principle of justice. On the other hand, teleological is highly concerned about self,
e.g., consequences, and the affect on others, e.g., importance of stakeholders. Teleological ethics
is associated with utilitarian, “the greatest good for the greatest number”. Therefore, these
differences in the two evaluations, e.g., rule versus situation based, would likely result in
different ethical judgments.
Gilligan observes that a female’s “phrase ‘it depends’ has been repeated by many women who
also resist formulatic solutions to complex human problems” [5, p. xxi]. She has found that
development theories, e.g., by Kohlberg [8], have been viewed and built on the observations of
men’s lives, and lacked the aspects of women’s development. Gilligan finds that “masculinity is
defined through separation while femininity is defined through attachment” [5, p. 9]. On the
other hand, men use the approach that “the absolutes of truth and fairness (are) defined by the
concepts of equality” [5, p. 166]. Gilligan’s [5] finding women “with the ethic of care” would
support having teleological ethics, or “it depends”. Men with views of “separation”
(independent) would support having deontological ethics. This theory has been empirically tested
in marketing with the Selectivity Model [10].
Males and females process information, e.g., marketing communications, differently [10]. Males
use selective, or discrete information processing that is heuristic, schematic. Females, however,
use more comprehensive, or continuous processing that is effortful, detailed elaboration.
Furthermore, Meyers-Levy and Maheswaran [11] confirmed that females used greater detailed
elaboration of information than males, but this difference disappeared when recognition versus
recall tasks (condition, situation factors) and/or cue incongruity (information factors) stimulated
both genders.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
The importance of marketing ethics and gender continues to be critical to firms’ success. No
longer do women shop primarily for the usual household products; nor do men shop for just the
“big ticket” items. Studies have found that “a trend for companies to target sales to women, an
increasing important group that now makes or influences at least 80 percent of buying decisions
nationwide from cars to homes to trips” [6, p. 1D]. One large automobile dealership has used the
services of WomenCertified to train and qualify about 150 sales representatives to market to
females. The owner of WomenCertified observes, “Women generally want more personalized
interaction before they buy, ….. seek to build more trust first, ….., (and) pick up more on nonverbal cues (than men)” [6, p. 2D]. On the other hand, “men want sales staff to help them locate
the product they want and pay for it” [6, p. 1D]. Marketers need to not only consider the broad
area of the behavior and this growth market perceptions of their firm’s marketing strategy but
more specifically women’s (and also differently from men’s) ethical evaluations.
A basis for gender-distinct moral reasoning has been found as related to different socialization
experiences. Men are socialized more as an individual agent [5], or an individualistic framework
of rules, justice that is deontological ethics [7]. On the other hand, women are socialized more
communally [5], or a communal framework of consequences, concern for others that is
teleological ethics [7]. These frameworks are influenced by different processing of information,
heuristic versus elaboration [10] and the varying intensity [11]. Those influence contrasting or
similar, depending on the intensity, moral reasoning for ethical issues – their deontological or
teleological evaluations – resulting in ethical judgments, leading to intentions and then on to
behavior [7]. Furthermore, when differences do occur between genders’ perceptions of
marketing ethics, the female teleological beliefs (consequences and/or care about others) appear
stronger than the male deontological beliefs (rules and/or justice), indicating that women are
more ethical than men. This supports Hunt and Vitell [7] position that people use both
deontological and teleological evaluations. Therefore, there are differences between men and
women consumers’ ethical perception of firms’ marketing strategy under the condition of certain
levels of intensiveness.
We conclude, based on the literature, that as the level of intensity increases [11], females rely
more on deontological norms and evaluation. That is, an imbalance occurs with the teleological
evaluations as the intensity increases where there is a clear preference for the individuals (norms)
than with the importance of (concern for) others (consequences and stakeholders). Hence, this
much greater differences result in an interest for self that takes on, if not actually being,
teleological norms and evaluations characteristics. This appears to be consistent, at least in part,
with Hunt and Vitell [7] position that people use both deontological and teleological evaluations.
REFERENCES
1. Ajzen, I. & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior.
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
2. Bagozzi, R.P., Gürhan-Canli, Z. & Priester, J.R. (2002). The social psychology of consumer
behavior. Buckingham, England: Open University Press.
3. Baumhart, R.C. (1961). How ethical are businessmen?. Harvard Business Review, 39(JulyAugust), 6-8.
4. Blackwell, R.D., Miniard, P.W. & Engel, J.F. (2006). Consumer behavior (10th edition).
Mason, OH: Thomson South-Western.
5. Gilligan, C. (1982/1993). In a different voice (Reprint). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
6. Hemlock, D. (2009). Female-friendly targeted sales. South Florida Sun-Sentinel, (May 3), D1D2.
7. Hunt, S.D. & Vitell, S. (1986). A general theory of marketing ethics. Journal of
Macromarketing, 8(Spring), 5-16.
8. Kohlberg, L. (1981). The philosophy of moral development. San Francisco: Harper & Row.
9. Kotler, P. & Keller, K.L. (2006). Marketing management (12th edition). Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Prentice Hall.
10. Meyers-Levy, J. (1989). Gender differences in information processing: A selectivity
interpretation. In P. Cafferata & A.M. Tybout (Eds.), Cognitive and affective responses to
advertising (pp. 219-260). Lexington, MA: Lexington Press.
11. Meyers-Levy, J. & Maheswaran, D. (1991). Exploring differences in males’ and females’
processing strategies. Journal of Consumer Research, 18(June), 63-70.
12. Smith, N.C. (1995). Marketing strategies for the ethics era. Sloan Management Review,
36(4), 85-97.
13. Smith, W.R. (1956). Product differentiation and market segmentation as alternative
marketing strategies. Journal of Marketing, 21(1), 3-8.