10-The role of moral emotions and individual d

ORIGINAL EMPIRICAL RESEARCHThe role of moral emotions and individual differencesin consumer responses to corporate green and non-green actionsChunyan Xie &Richard P.Bagozzi &Kjell GrønhaugReceived:30November 2012/Accepted:28May 2014/Published online:16July 2014#Academy of Marketing Science 2014Abstract We investigate the mediating role of moral emo-tions and their contingency on individual characteristics in consumer responses to corporate green and non-green actions.Two between subjects experiments were conducted to test our hypotheses on samples of adult consumers.The results show that,for corporate non-green actions,various individual dif-ference characteristics (social justice values,empathy,moral identity,self-concept)moderate the elicitation of negative moral emotions (contempt,anger,disgust),which,in turn,lead to consumer negative responses (negative word of mouth,complaint behaviors,boycotting).Moreover,for corporate green actions,empathy moderates elicitation of positive emo-tions on gratitude,which,in turn,influences consumer posi-tive responses (positive word of mouth,resistance to negative information,identification with the company,investment).This study adds to extant research by examining understudied “hot ”moral emotional processes underlying consumer reac-tions toward corporate environmental responsibility and irre-sponsibility.Implications for marketing communication and segmentation decisions are considered.Keywords Moral emotions .Green marketing .Corporate social responsibility .Contempt .Anger .Disgust .Gratitude .EmpathyIntroductionCorporate social responsibility (CSR)has been defined as a company ’s “status and activities with respect to its perceived societal obligations ”(Brown and Dacin 1997,p.68),and most firms nowadays participate in CSR initiatives and report their CSR performance to various stakeholders (KPMG 2013).Peloza and Shang (2011)identify 177studies relating CSR to such consumer stakeholder responses as attitudes toward the company or brand,purchase intentions,product or service evaluations,and word of mouth intentions (see also Vaaland et al.2008).Two shortcomings of this research can be mentioned.First,most studies to date have not considered the mechanisms transforming perceptions of CSR activities into specific responses.Second,as Peloza and Shang (2011)note,many studies examine a single outcome response and outcomes measured have been “varied and inconsistent.”The central problem we address is under what conditions perceptions of irresponsible and responsible corporate actions lead to consumer stakeholder responses.Bhattacharya et al.(2009)propose a conceptual model to answer a similar question.They hypothesize that psychological variables mediate the effects of perceptions on outcome responses.Specifically,they posit that perceptions of company CSR initiatives produce benefits for individual stakeholders,the judged benefits influence relationship quality between stakeholder and company,and then this leads to behavioral outcomes.We take a different approach to explaining consumer re-sponses to perceived CSR initiatives than do Bhattacharya et al.(2009).Their model is based strongly on reasoned orC.Xie (*)Stord/Haugesund University College,Klingenbergvegen 8,N-5414Stord,Norwaye-mail:chunyan.xie@hsh.noR.P.BagozziUniversity of Michigan,701Tappan St,48109-1234Ann Arbor,MI,USAe-mail:bagozzi@K.GrønhaugNorwegian School of Economics,Breiviksveien 40,N-5045Bergen,Norwaye-mail:kjell.gronhaug@nhh.noJ.of the Acad.Mark.Sci.(2015)43:333–356DOI 10.1007/s11747-014-0394-5deliberative processes by decision makers;at the same time, they do not explicitly incorporate judged costs.So in one sense their reasoned approach is incomplete.We feel that reasoned processes are complex to specify and may not be the first response decision makers have in moral contexts (Haidt2012;see below discussion of Haidt’s social intuitionist model).A need exists for a more parsimonious approach that better captures consumer responses,which typically occur in unexpected contexts,under low involvement conditions,and with little time to think deeply.We propose a model that is not predicated on reasoning,per se,but rather hypothesizes two broad processes.First,we claim that corporate CSR actions induce felt moral emotions,which mediate the effects of perceptions on consumer responses.Moral emotions are com-binations of inherited and learned reactions to events violating one’s ethical sensitivities.Although they are not deliberative, Haidt(2012,p.45)notes that they function as a kind of “information processing”of the moral significance of stimuli to which one is exposed.The moral emotions we examine are gratitude,contempt,anger,and disgust.We also complement moral emotions with attitudes and the basic emotions of sadness and fear.The second mechanism we propose is also non-deliberative and rooted in individual characteristics of consumers,which regulate the moral emotional processes consumers experience when exposed to positive or negative CSR performance.That is,we hypothesize that felt moral emotions by themselves will not channel perceptions into consumer responses.Rather,the extent to which moral emotions function will be moderated by such individual characteristics as empathy in the case of perceived corporate responsibility(green actions)and social justice values,empathy,moral identity,the relational self,and the collective self in the case of corporate irresponsibility (non-green actions).Figure1summarizes the two integrative mechanisms we test for both non-green and green actions by firms.For non-green actions,the effects of perceived environmental irrespon-sibility(X)on consumer responses(Y)pass through the moral emotions(contempt,anger,disgust).The nature of this medi-ation,however,is governed by five moderators(W).We also test the mediation with basic emotions(fear,sadness)and attitudes as the mediator.For green actions,the effects of perceived environmental responsibility on consumer re-sponses pass through the moral emotion of gratitude.This pathway,however,is regulated by empathic concern of con-sumers.Attitudes are also tested as the mediator between perceived environmental responsibility and consumer responses.In the rest of the paper,we first briefly review the moral emotion literature,discuss the elicitation of moral emotions in response to CSR activities,and explain the moderating effects of consumer characteristics on the activation of moral emo-tions.Next,we discuss the effects of moral emotions on consumer responses under non-green and green actions by firms,establish the mediating role of moral emotions between corporate environmental actions and consumer responses,and specify hypotheses on mediated moderation effects.1 Thereafter,we describe the research method,followed by a presentation of our empirical results.Finally,contributions and implications of our research are discussed. Theoretical backgroundThe presentation is divided into two parts:one part concerns corporate environmental irresponsibility,and the other corpo-rate environmental responsibility.Each part is organized around the evocation of consumer emotional responses by corporate non-green or green actions,the theoretical bases for moderating effects of consumer characteristics on the elicitation of moral emotions,the effects of moral emotions on consumer responses,and presentation of specific hypoth-eses on mediated moderation.Corporate environmental irresponsibility and the triadof negative moral emotionsResearch in psychology has shown that moral transgressions by others engender negative emotional reactions in people exposed to them,and moral emotions link violations of moral standards to moral behavior(Haidt2007;Tangney et al.2007).Corporate environmental irresponsible behav-iors can be seen as one type of moral transgression.The specific moral transgression studied herein entails irrespon-sible actions taken by an offshore shipping company toward the environment(see the Method section).The public typi-cally does not perceive firms’irresponsible environmental actions as direct actions targeted to the public but rather as moral transgressions that indirectly affect people and lead us to judge them as morally wrong.To make our study man-ageable,we selected a small number of plausible efficacious moral emotions.Research to date by psychologists on other-related negative moral emotions has focused primarily on the triad of negative moral emotions contempt,anger,and disgust(CAD)(Rozin et al.1999;Haidt2003).Anger is defined as“a belief that we, or our friends,have been unfairly slighted,which causes in us both painful feelings and a desire or impulse for revenge”(Aristotle1941,p.380).Righteous anger results when we become aware that the freedom or human dignity of other people has been violated,even when these others are strangers 1One way to think about conditional indirect effects in the current study is that the moderation of perceived environmental action by the firm on felt moral emotions is mediated by the felt emotions in their effects on the outcome variables(Hayes2013).to us.Disgust refers to “something revolting,primarily in relation to the sense of taste,as actually perceived or vividly imagined;and secondly to anything which causes a similar feeling,through the sense of smell,touch,and even of eye-sight ”(Darwin 1872/Darwin 1965,p.234).Disgust is a response to both physical objects and social violations.Here we focus on social transgressions.Contempt can be argued to be a blend (Scherer 1984)or joint contribution (Lazarus 1991,p.229)of anger and disgust.Contempt involves looking down on someone and feeling morally superior (Izard 1977).Relationships among contempt,anger,and disgust CAD emo-tions can be considered distinct or non-distinct.Some researchers claim that CAD are distinct emotions (Rozin et al.1999;Hutcherson and Gross 2011).For instance,Rozin et al.(1999)propose that contempt,anger,and disgust are typically elicited separately by violations of three moral codes (i.e.,community,autonomy,and divinity,respectively)and also find empirical support for this.That is,they claim that feelings of contempt are differentially linked to violations of the ethic of community (e.g.,violations of social hierarchy);feelings of anger are linked to violations of the ethic of autonomy (i.e.,individual rights viola-tions);and feelings of disgust are linked to violations of the ethic of divinity (e.g.,actions that remind us of our animal nature or involve contamination or impurity).Moreover,Hutcherson and Gross (2011)take a social-functionalist perspective and differen-tiated these three emotions in terms of antecedent appraisals and consequent actions.For instance,anger is evoked by appraisals of self-relevance and tends to promote approach tendencies,in the form of attack.Disgust is related most strongly to appraisals that a person is morally untrustworthy and leads to avoidance tendencies.And contempt seems uniquely related to the judgment that someone is incompetent which leads to an attempt to disassociate from them.By contrast,other researchers argue for commonality among contempt,anger,and disgust.For instance,IzardCorporate environmental irresponsibility (non-green actions)Corporate environmental responsibility (green actions)Note: Sadness, fear, and attitudes are tested as the rival mediators between perceived environmental irresponsibility and consumer responses; attitudes are tested as the mediator between perceived environmental responsibility and consumer responsesabFig.1Theoretical framework.a .Corporate environmental irresponsibility (non-green actions )b .Corporateenvironmental responsibility (green actions )(1977)terms these emotions the“hostility triad”and proposes that they occur as a consequence of similar appraisals,such as in response to bad things happening to“me and mine”that threaten one’s welfare.He also suggests that“disproval of others”is a typical reaction provoked by feelings of CAD in response to violation of moral standards.Shaver et al.(1987)likewise find that all three CAD emotions cluster together empirically with similar cognates in a basic emotional category labeled“anger.”Finally,Nabi(2002)claims that CAD emotions are synonyms for the same underlying negative emotional state evoked by interpersonal concerns.Recently,a growing body of empirical evidence also suggests that CAD may define a single underlying state(Hutcherson and Gross2011;Simpson et al.2006).The abovementioned interpretations of CAD as either dis-crete or overlapping emotions have important implications for measurement of CAD.The discrete emotion interpretation implies the existence of unique variance in the measure of each emotion.However,the hostility triad interpretation sup-ports the occurrence of common shared variance in measures of CAD.Those seemingly incompatible views can be recon-ciled by postulating that measures of CAD exhibit unique as well as shared variation.For example,Grappi et al.(2013) showed that respective measures of CAD load on distinct factors,thereby supporting discrete emotion interpretations, but the three emotions also shared considerable common variance such that the three factors loaded highly on a single second-order factor,supporting the hostility triad interpreta-tion.In the current study,we take a similar measurement approach as Grappi et al.(2013)did and construct a second-order factor model with three first-order CAD factors loading on it(see a more detailed discussion of measurement assess-ment in the Results section).Corporate environmental irresponsibility,CAD,and moder-ators of CAD Building on basic psychological research,we propose that irresponsible corporate environmental behaviors provoke negative moral emotions(Fig.1a).For example, corporate environmental irresponsibility involves degradation and pollution of the environment and violates the ethic of divinity;therefore,consumers should feel disgust toward the company according to Rozin et al. (1999).Moreover,consistent with Hutcherson and Gross (2011),degradation and pollution of the environment can be considered self-relevant by consumers and thus elicit anger, because their own welfare and the survival of others for whom they care are directly threatened when the environ-ment becomes contaminated.Likewise,damage to the envi-ronment by firms should elicit emotional reactions of con-tempt in the form of scorn or disdain because of the firms’disregard for community and communal values(Hutcherson and Gross2011).Therefore,we argue that consumers will feel CAD emo-tions when companies act in environmentally irresponsible ways.However,the capacity to experience negative and pos-itive moral emotions should vary,depending on certain indi-vidual cognitions and differences.A substantial body of research shows that stable individual characteristics influ-ence moral behaviors.For instance,a variety of individual characteristics has been found to be associated with moral behaviors to varying degrees,including moral reasoning (Kohlberg1969),moral maturity(Walker and Pitts1998), moral commitment(Colby and Damon1992),moral person-ality(Walker and Frimer2007),and moral character(Blasi 2005).In the current study,we expect that moral identity will influence consumer emotional responses upon corporate environmental actions.Moral identity is a specific kind of identity that revolves around the ethical aspects of one’s self and functions to regulate one’s reactions to corporate wrong-doing(Bergman2002).It has been studied extensively in moral contexts different than green actions by marketing and business researchers(e.g.,Aquino et al.2009;Aquino and Reed2002).Moreover,research on CSR shows consumers’other-orientation is an important factor influencing their reaction toward CSR activities.For instance,Schuler and Cording (2006)categorize normative frameworks as being either self-oriented(self-enhancement)or other-oriented(self-transcendent).Consumers with self-enhancement goals carry a strong egoistic view of the world,while self-transcendent consumers are concerned relatively more with the welfare of others and nature.Golob et al.(2008)further find that self-transcendent consumers have higher expectations for the le-gal,ethical,and philanthropic dimensions of Carroll’s(1979) CSR typology than self-enhancement consumers do.This is consistent with recent research that shows other-regarding virtues(e.g.,justice,beneficence,equality,and communal cooperation)moderate elicitation of CAD(Grappi et al. 2013);capacity for gratitude is also associated positively with empathy or perspective taking(McCullough et al.2002)and altruistic values(Romani et al.2013).We expect that individ-ual characteristics relating to consumer other-orientation(e.g., social justice values,empathy,relational self,and collective self)will interact with perception of corporate environmental irresponsibility to impact the extent to which consumers ex-perience CAD.We chose social justice values because these reflect other-directed moral virtues which should be related to self-regulatory-like responses to moral malfeasance and fit with the social consequences of non-green actions.Previous stud-ies have employed social justice values as moderators of the effects of emotions on consumer responses in the CSR litera-ture(Grappi et al.2013;Romani et al.2013).Empathy is such a basic human response making one sensitive to negative and positive happenings to other persons,and by implication to the environment,that we used it as a moderator in both experi-mental conditions.We suggest that people who show moreversus less concern for others and are motivated to protect others should experience greater emotional resonance with perceived good or bad green behaviors.To our knowledge, this hypothesis has not been tested before in the CSR context. The relational and collective selves are directly related to felt responsibility to communal outcomes,so we adapted impli-cations from research on the self-concept to our context in this respect(e.g.,Johnson et al.2006).Below we discuss in more detail the moderating effects of individual characteristics in elicitation of CAD.We begin with the moderating effect of social justice values on elicitation of negative moral emotions CAD.A value is“a desirable trans-situational goal varying in impor-tance,which serves as a guiding principle in the life of a person or other social entity”(Schwartz1992,p.21).Social justice values emphasize caring for disadvantaged persons and in general correcting social injustice,and they belong to the category of universalistic values that emphasize under-standing,accepting,and showing concern for the welfare of all human beings(Schwartz1992,1994).Moreover,univer-salistic values are a type of self-transcendence value that stresses other-regarding social interests(Schwartz1994). Previous research supports the argument that values serve to regulate ethical behavior(Rokeach1973;Schwartz1992). For instance,self-transcendence values have been shown to explain high levels of engagement in different forms of cooperative,pro-environmental,and pro-social behaviors (e.g.,Fukukawa et al.2007;Schultz2001;Stern et al. 1995).Grappi et al.(2013)also found that other-regarding virtues,including social justice,moderate activation of nega-tive moral emotions upon perception of corporate social transgressions.This suggests that those who have a strong sense of social justice are more likely to help or protect others and to try to stop moral violations.Hence,we expect that those who are high in social justice values will be more likely to experience CAD when exposed to corporate environmen-tally irresponsible actions than those who are low in social justice values.Thus,H1a:The perception of a corporate environmental transgres-sion will influence felt contempt,anger,and disgust,the stronger the felt social justice values.Empathy has at least two aspects:“first,as the cognitive awareness of another person’s internal states…this awareness is a hot rather than cold cognition;and second,as a vicarious affective response to another person,which emphasizes put-ting oneself in the position of another and experiencing that person’s emotion”(Lazarus1991,p.288).These aspects correspond roughly to the two aspects of empathy suggested by other researchers(Losoya and Eisenberg2001;Tangney et al.2007):cognitive empathy(i.e.,perspective taking)and affective empathy(feelings of compassion or caring).In our study,because of its motivational implications,we focus on affective empathy,defined as“a state of emotional arousal that stems from the apprehension or comprehension of another’s affective state”(Losoya and Eisenberg2001,p.22).As Lazarus suggested(1991,p.288),empathy“is not an emotion but either an ability or disposition to share another’s emotions, and a process whereby this sharing occurs.”Affective empa-thy has been identified as central to the human moral affective system(Eisenberg et al.2004),because“empathic reactions to others’distress often elicit feelings of concern for the distress-ed other”;such empathic concern often“prompts helping behavior aimed at helping the distressed other”(Tangney et al.2007,pp.18–19).Consistent with extant research (Lazarus1991),we argue that empathy is an important pro-social capability.Since empathy expresses the variable capac-ity to care about other people in distress,we expect that an empathic person will be more likely to understand and feel anticipated distress and suffering of other people caused by corporate environmental irresponsibility,which,in turn,influ-ences the felt degree of CAD toward the company.Therefore, we hypothesize that affective empathy will interact with per-ception of corporate environmental irresponsibility to elicit CAD emotions:H1b:The perception of a corporate environmental transgres-sion will influence felt contempt,anger,and disgust,the greater the empathy.Moral identity is conceptualized as the cognitive schema a person holds about his or her moral character(Aquino et al. 2009).Aquino and Reed(2002)argued from a social-cognitive perspective that a person’s moral identity is stored in memory as a complex knowledge structure consisting of moral values,goals,traits,and behavioral scripts.Since knowledge structures are acquired through life experiences that vary across persons,the importance of this moral self-schema to one’s overall self-conception also differs across individuals(Aquino and Reed2002).Moral identity is a powerful source of moral motivation because people generally desire to maintain self-consistency(Blasi1993,2004).Thus,a person who has a highly central moral identity should feel obligated to adhere to the behavioral prescriptions associated with his or her moral self-schema to avoid self-condemnation and maintain a consistent self-image.Moreover,Aquino et al. (2009)argue that the greater the centrality of moral identity, the more readily accessible one’s moral identity and the stron-ger its ability to affect information processing and moral behavior.Because green behavior constitutes a kind of ethical action by firms,we think the magnitude of felt moral emotions by consumers should be conditioned on the strength of their own moral identity.Motivational qualities of moral identity also appear tailor-made to our context because CAD re-sponses to negative green behaviors should occur to the extentthat one desires to maintain self-consistency with one’s moral identity.Hence,H1c:The perception of a corporate environmental transgres-sion will influence felt contempt,anger,and disgust,the more central one’s moral identity.The self-concept is a multifaceted cognitive schema that houses information relevant to the self(Lord and Brown 2004).Recent theory distinguishes among three levels of the self-concept,the individual,relational,and collective levels (Brewer and Gardner1996;Johnson et al.2006).There are theoretical streams dedicated to each level of the self-concept in the literature(see Johnson et al.2006).The individual self-concept involves interpersonal comparisons where one’s sense of uniqueness and self-worth are derived from perceived similarities with and differences from other individuals. Because behavior is driven by self-interest at the individual level(Brewer and Gardner1996;Markus and Kitayama 1991),people with an individual self-concept will experience less other-focused emotions.We expect that the individual self-concept will be less relevant in our current context;thus we focus on communal and relational aspects of the self, hypothesizing that perceptions of non-green behavior will violate moral sensibilities,and hence felt CAD,to the extent that a person has a communal and relational self-conception.At the relational level,individuals are motivated by the welfare of specific others,and appropriate role behavior de-termines self-worth(Brewer and Gardner1996;Markus and Kitayama1991).We draw upon Johnson et al.(2006)and define relational self-concept as the extent individuals define themselves in terms of the reactions of others in their dyadic relationships.People with a strong relational self-concept “have a heightened capacity for the experience and expression of those emotions that derive primarily from focusing on the other”(Markus and Kitayama1991,p.237),such as other-focused CAD.Environmental transgressions by corporations affect the health and safety of self and others,and have implications for one’s relationships with others.Therefore, H1d:The perception of a corporate environmental transgres-sion will influence felt contempt,anger,and disgust,the stronger the relational self-concept.At the collective level of the self-concept,individuals are motivated by the welfare of the groups to which they belong (Brewer and Gardner1996;Tajfel and Turner1979).In the current study,we also adopt Johnson et al.’s(2006)definition of collective self-concept as a self-definition based on one’s social group memberships,where favorable intergroup com-parisons give rise to self-worth.We expect that those with strong collective self-concepts will be more likely to see all human beings as a collective category to which they belong to one degree or another and will show concern for the welfare of this group,which is similar to universalistic values proposed by Schwartz(1992,1994).Since pollution and damage of the environment threaten the welfare of human beings,persons with a strong collective self-concept are more likely to expe-rience negative moral emotions when corporations perform irresponsible acts damaging the environment.Thus,H1e:The perception of a corporate environmental transgres-sion will influence felt contempt,anger,and disgust,the stronger the collective self-concept.The impact of CAD on consumer responses Corporate envi-ronmental irresponsible behaviors provoke CAD emotions. Such emotional experiences can further lead consumers to act in ways that harm firms,thus functioning as mediators of the impact of corporate environmental behavior on consumer responses.The role of emotions operates as follows.When we feel an emotion,we are compelled to cope with and do something about it.There are two ways that we act in response to felt emotions:automatically and deliberatively.Automatic reactions to our emotions are sometimes called,“action ten-dencies,”which are“biological urges to act”and are largely non-deliberative(Lazarus1991p.114;Frijda et al.1989). Deliberative reactions draw upon explicit appraisals of the situation and outcomes we find ourselves in when we feel emotional.Moreover,Haidt(2012)claims that moral emotions reflect automatic-like moral judgments to perceptions of moral trans-gressions.He contrasts moral emotions with moral reasoning which he asserts depends on moral emotions.The origins of moral emotions are socially learned in psychological devel-opment processes early in life but at an age later than when basic emotions became elaborated.So Haidt claims that for most everyday moral judgments,these are reflected in“gut”feelings.This is not to deny that people sometimes react more cognitively with moral reasoning,but he is clear that this is often post hoc and involves rationalizations for socially, learned moral emotional reactions.The core of Haidt’s (2012,p.47)“social intuitionist model”posits the following sequence of effects:triggering event→intuitive response (moral emotion)→judgment→reasoning.We adapt Haidt’s general moral model to the CSR context in the current study and argue that moral emotions mediate the impact of consumer perceptions of triggering events(i.e.,corporate non-green/green actions)on their responses toward the company.In the current study,we argue that exposure to corporate irresponsible environmental actions evokes negative moral emotions of CAD in consumers,and their action tendencies are urges to attack,reject,or avoid contact(Lazarus1991). Such negative emotions lead to a focus on punishing the offender or getting them to change their specific behavior (Fredrickson1998;Fredrickson and Branigan2005).We。