The Impact of Intrinsic Religiosity

Ó Springer 2011
Journal of Business Ethics
DOI 10.1007/s10551-011-0816-y
The Impact of Intrinsic Religiosity
on Consumers’ Ethical Beliefs: Does
It Depend on the Type of Religion?
A Comparison of Christian and Moslem
Consumers in Germany and Turkey
ABSTRACT. Intrinsic religiosity drives ethical consumer behavior; however, previous studies regarding this
connection are limited solely to a Christian cultural
context. This comparative study instead includes Christian Consumers from Germany and Moslem Consumers
from Turkey to determine if a specific religious community moderates the connection between intrinsic
religiosity and consumer ethics. The results show that
Consumers in the Turkish, Moslem subsample, exhibit an
even stronger connection between religiosity and ethical
consumer behavior than Consumers from the German,
Christian subsample.
KEY WORDS: religiosity, consumer ethics, Islam, religion, Christianity
Introduction
Starting with initial works by Vitell and Muncy
(1992; Muncy and Vitell, 1992), the concept of
consumer ethics has been central to studies of ethical
economic behavior (Vitell, 2003). Among the many
drivers of ethical consumer behavior that prior literature has identified, including self-concepts (Kavak
et al., 2009), socioeconomic circumstances (Rawwas,
1996), and anticipated guilt (Steenhaut and van
Kenhove, 2006), we note the persistent impact of
the intrinsic religiosity of a consumer (Vitell and
Paolillo, 2003; Vitell et al., 2005, 2006, 2007).
Furthermore, some comparative research results
pertain to the interreligious ethical behaviors of
managers (Arslan, 2001; Oumlil and Balloun, 2009);
however, no such analyses address the ethical
Helmut Schneider
John Krieger
Azra Bayraktar
behavior of consumers. Various intercultural comparative research on consumer ethics (Al-Khatib
et al., 1997, 2005; Belk et al., 2005; Chan et al.,
1998; Polonsky et al., 2001; Rawwas, 2001; Rawwas
et al., 2005; Schlegelmilch, 1998; Singhapakdi et al.,
1999) sometimes includes religion (Cornwell et al.,
2005), but the field lacks an explicit consideration of
the extent to which the positive connection between
religiosity and ethical consumer convictions, as
identified for Christianity, is valid for other religious
communities.
We undertake an interreligious comparison of the
influence of intrinsic religiosity on the ethical convictions of consumers, with a focus on Christianity
and Islam. Christianity provides a reference point, in
that previous research on the influence of religiosity
on ethical consumer convictions only includes this
religious community. Islam joins our study because
approximately one-quarter of people in the world
belong to this religious community, and the number
of direct investments in Moslem countries is
increasing. Many of Moslem countries also exhibit a
strong orientation toward religiously determined
values (Saeed et al., 2001).
The principal object of our study is the question
to what extend the positive influence of Christian
religiosity on ethical consumer behavior, as identified in literature, also applies to Moslem consumers.
We also hope to contribute to a greater understanding of consumer ethics in an Islamic cultural
area, which is not only meaningful conceptually but
also has practical relevance, considering the increasing economic importance of Moslem consumers.
Helmut Schneider et al.
The intended isolation of the religious community’s influence on the connection between intrinsic
religiosity and the ethics of consumer behavior
requires a study design in which preferably many
potential confounding variables are excluded. This
especially applies to the basic social meaning of
religion. Therefore, we chose Germany and Turkey
for the comparison. In Germany, 63.4% of people
are avowed Christians (EKD, 2010); Turkey represents a 99% Moslem country (Srnka et al., 2007).
Turkey is especially qualified as a standard of comparison because similar to Germany and many other
Christian-orientated societies, it has democratic
structures and shows a high level of secularity
(Younis, 1997).
The remainder of this article therefore is structured as follows: We provide a brief summary of
prior literature regarding the connection between
religiosity and consumer ethics. We then derive
hypotheses based on a conceptual model of assumed
cause-and-effect relationships. After we present the
empirical study and hypotheses tests, we conclude
with a discussion of the results and some study
limitations.
Literature review
Consumer ethics
Ethical values in general refer to strongly settled
convictions that influence what society deems right
or wrong. In this sense, they create a fundamental
component of every society’s culture (Hofstede,
1997). From a system theoretical systematic or theoretical perspective, a society consists of various
subsystems (Luhmann, 2008). In addition, the economic system is subject to societal ethics, such that
Ferrell et al. (2008, p. 6) define economic ethics as
‘‘moral principles and standards that guide behavior
in the world of business’’ – a definition that involves
all stakeholders of an economic system, both firm
representatives (e.g., managers) and consumers.
However, our interest is the unique analysis of
consumer stakeholders, and therefore we adopt
Muncy and Vitell’s (1992, p. 298) definition of
consumer ethics as ‘‘moral principles and standards
that guide behavior of individuals or groups as they
obtain, use, and dispose of goods and services.’’
These authors have contributed significantly to
progress with regard to empirical analyses of consumer ethics, especially in terms of their proposed
measurement instrument (Muncy and Vitell, 1992;
Vitell and Muncy, 1992, 2005). This instrument
distinguishes four types of ethically questionable
consumer behaviors. First, actively benefiting from
an illegal activity (active benefiting) refers to actions
that the consumer actively pursues that most others
would consider illegal and that cause disadvantage to
the seller. Second, actions in which the consumer
takes advantage of a salesperson’s mistake represent
the passive benefiting dimension. Third, a no harm
dimension consists of actions that are tolerated and
accepted by most consumers, in that they do not rate
them as explicitly harmful to third parties. Fourth,
actively benefiting from questionable actions consists
of all actions in which the consumer acts purposefully but the related actions are not necessarily illegal.
We spared the survey of the last-mentioned
dimension, because as already observed in other
studies (Al-Khatib et al., 2005), problems may appear during the implementation in non-Western
countries. Regarding Hofstedes cultural dimensions
Germany can be referred to as rather individualistic
and Turkey can be referred to as rather collectivistic
(Paşa et al., 2001). Members of individualistic cultures more often question ethical norms and values
of their society, while members of collectivistic
cultures tend to accept these norms (Vitell et al.,
1993). Therefore, one can assume that acts based
upon a societal consent which are claimed as legal
are not sensed as unethical by members of collectivistic societies. Therefore, we decided to spare the
survey of the dimension active benefiting/legal.
However, Muncy and Vitell’s measure of consumers’ ethical convictions has been used widely,
including in some intercultural studies (e.g., AlKhatib et al., 1997; Babakus et al., 2004; Polonsky
et al., 2001; Rawwas, 1996, 2001; Rawwas et al.,
2005).
Religion
According to Berger (1961), religion is a fundamental determinant of social behavior. Research in
various disciplines, like psychology and sociology,
therefore considers the influence of religious value
The Impact of Intrinsic Religiosity on Consumers’ Ethical Beliefs
systems on human actions (Allport, 1950; Anderson,
1970; Greeley, 1977; Patai, 1977; Weaver and Agle,
2002). In economic research into consumer behavior, analyses of religion’s influence are somewhat
more recent, though several studies demonstrate the
influence of religious affiliation on psychological
dispositions and physical actions (Bailey and Sood,
1993; Chamberlain and Zika, 1992; Delener, 1990;
Essoo and Dibb, 2004; McDaniel and Burnett,
1990). In three studies, Hirschman (1983) shows that
compared with religion, few other variables possess
greater explanatory power. Thus, it seems frankly
astonishing that – despite several studies that compare consumer ethics with intercultural standards and
occasionally address religion in a country context
(Babakus et al., 2004; Cornwell et al., 2005) – religiosity as a determinant of ethical convictions has
been ignored (e.g., Ekin and Tezölmez, 1999;
Menguc, 1998).
Religiosity
Regarding values and human convictions in general,
as well as consumer beliefs in particular, personal
religiosity represents a central determinant (Vitell
and Paolillo, 2003). Empirical studies suggest the
need to integrate religiosity into consumer research
(Delener, 1994; Delener and Schiffman, 1988; Essoo
and Dibb, 2004; Mokhlis, 2009). We define religiosity as a belief in the existence of God and a
commitment to attending to and complying with
rules that members of that religion believe have been
defined by God (McDaniel and Burnett, 1990). The
internalization of the role expectations created by
religion, as mediated by religious self-image, then
influences human behavior (Mokhlis, 2009; Weaver
and Agle, 2002). According to Allport (1950)
though, two forms of religiosity should be distinguished (cf. Donahue, 1985): the intrinsic form, in
which people assign high importance to religion to
organize their own lives, and the extrinsic form, such
that people use religion as a tool to increase their
acceptance in particular social environments. That is,
an ‘‘extrinsically motivated person uses his religion
whereas an intrinsically motivated person lives his
religion’’ (Allport and Ross, 1967, p. 434).
Vitell and colleagues (Vitell and Paolillo, 2003;
Vitell et al., 2005, 2006, 2007) empirically assess the
connection between religiosity and consumer behavior in ethically questionable situations. In their first
study, they could not find any such connection, but
their measure relied on the three-item, inclusive scale
provided by Wilkes et al. (1986), which does not
differentiate between intrinsic and extrinsic religiosity. In their 2005 study, they instead used the scale
developed by Allport and Ross (1967), which was
created explicitly to measure religiosity, both
intrinsic and extrinsic. They found extrinsic religiosity had no connection to basic ethical convictions,
but intrinsic religiosity had a positive influence on
almost all its dimensions (cf. no harm). In their
analogously constructed 2006 study, the connection
between intrinsic religiosity and active benefiting
reached a significance level of only 10% (p = 0.057).
Finally, their 2007 study was based on the 2006 data
and therefore offered no new results regarding this
question.
Thus, previous research indicates that consumers
with high intrinsic religiosity appear more likely to
reject ethically questionable behavior than consumers
with low intrinsic religiosity. However, the extent of
extrinsic religiosity does not appear to influence the
basic ethical convictions of consumers.
Research model and hypothesis
Both religion and religiosity, as independent variables, are important with regard to the behavior of
consumers. If religion dictates a code of values, defined by God, the individual degree of intrinsic
religiosity determines the extent to which a consumer adopts this value code. In turn, the extent to
which this religiously characterized, individual code
of values determines behavior depends on both the
person’s predisposition toward situational relativity
in ethical principles (Hunt and Vitell, 1986) and the
basic relevance of socially characterized norms for
individual behavior (see Figure 1).
Therefore, to conduct an interreligious analysis of
the meaning of religiosity for ethical consumer
behavior, we first must determine which religions to
involve, that dictate the potential values that may be
internalized. Most religious writings and teachings
strongly emphasize moral and ethical behavior
(Singh, 2001). For example, both Christianity and
Islam depend on religious texts, which promote
Helmut Schneider et al.
H1
high
Consumers
Consumers´
Ethical
Beliefs
intrinsic
religiosity
low
H2
high
Consumers
intrinsic
religiosity
Consumers´
Ethical
Beliefs
Idealism vs.
Relativism
Norm relevance for
individual behavior
intrinsic
religiosity
low
Christian Consumers
Moslem Consumers
more religious Christian Consumers/Moslem Consumers
less religious Christian Consumers/Moslem Consumers
Figure 1. Study framework.
similar core values in terms of ethical evaluations of
actions such as lying, cheating, deceiving, or
manipulating (Srnka et al., 2007). Therefore, we
would not initially expect any difference regarding
the connection between intrinsic religiosity and
ethical consumer behavior for Christians or Moslems
(Saroglou et al., 2004). Against this background and
in line with Vitell et al. (2005, 2006, 2007; Vitell and
Paolillo, 2003), we predict:
H1:
Consumers with high intrinsic religiosity refuse unethical behavior in the form of (a) active
benefiting, (b) passive benefiting, and (c) no
harm more than do consumers with low
intrinsic religiosity.
Because of the similarity of the Islamic and
Christian codes regarding ethically correct behavior
(Saroglou et al., 2004), we posit that increasing
intrinsic religiosity results in increasing basic ethical
convictions, regardless of which religion the consumer follows. However, the connection between
intrinsic religiosity and ethical values should differ for
two main reasons. First, Christianity and Islam differ
with regard to the situational relativity of ethical
principles, as outlined in the distinction between
relativism and idealism described by Forsyth (1980).
Relativism refers to ‘‘the extent to which an individual rejects universal moral rules’’ when making
ethical judgments (Forsyth, 1980, pp. 175–176), so
people with a relativist perspective evaluate facts
depending on situational circumstances rather than
universal ethical principles. Idealism instead describes
an attitude in which ethical evaluations depend on
basic ethical convictions, independent of any situational circumstances (Rawwas, 1996). Miskawayh
(1968) identifies a crucial motivation to adopt a relativistic attitude toward unethical behavior, namely,
profit. The trade-off between a potential loss of profit
and ethically questionable behavior thus becomes
central to a relativism perspective. Islam explicitly
deemphasizes profit maximization, in favor of a
stronger value orientation toward justice and a valueadded society (Saeed et al., 2001). Therefore, if a
consumer were to evaluate his or her ethical behavior
from a relative perspective, Islamic consumers should
attach less importance to any economic disadvantage
The Impact of Intrinsic Religiosity on Consumers’ Ethical Beliefs
arising from ethical behavior. We posit that Islamic
consumers show a stronger connection between their
intrinsic religiosity and ethical consumer behavior
than Christian consumers.
Second, for our study in particular, the relevance
of social norms varies for Germany versus Turkey.
Rawwas et al. (2005) reveal that Turkish consumers
generally tend to adopt an ideational perspective
rather than a relative one. Similarly, Vasquez-Parraga
and Kara (1995) analyze the ethical behavior of
Turkish managers; their results support the idea that
Turkish (Islamic) consumers should exhibit a strong
connection between religiosity and basic ethical
convictions. According to Hofstede’s (1997) wellknown empirical culture classification, which supports other intercultural analyses of economic ethics
(e.g., Sims and Gegez, 2004), Turkey and Germany
differ greatly on all four dimensions as well, as
Table I shows.
That is, Turkish society, compared with German
society, is characterized by higher power distance
(PDI), more collectivism (IDV), a stronger desire for
uncertainty avoidance (UAI), and more femininity
(MAS). The first three dimensions are particularly
relevant in terms of the impact of social norms on
individual behavior. For example, the desire for
security associated with a high uncertainty avoidance
score and the hierarchical orientation described by
the high power distance score suggest a stronger
orientation toward formal rules and standards
(Rawwas et al., 2005). Therefore, Turks tend to do
things according to the rules, more so than Germans;
societies with a strong uncertainty avoidance predisposition generally express an ‘‘emotional need for
rules’’ (Hofstede, 1997, p. 125; Sims and Gegez, 2004).
Moreover, the stronger collectivism orientation
TABLE I
Scores on Hofstede’s culture dimensions: Germany and
Turkey
Power distance (PDI)
Collectivism (low scores) individualism (high scores) (IDV)
Uncertainty avoidance (UAI)
Femininity (low scores) masculinity (high scores) (MAS)
Germany
Turkey
35
67
66
37
65
66
85
45
among Turkish culture causes a stronger need for
harmony and thus a lower predisposition toward
confrontation (Hofstede, 1997). Turks are likely to
follow socially determined norms to avoid deviant
behaviors that might create conflict. This preference
likely explains the importance of stakeholders for
Turks (Hunt and Vitell, 2006). This argument also
receives support from Rawwas et al.’s (2005)
empirical results, which show that Turkish consumers in ethical decision situations tend to follow
defined rules rather than make decisions on their
own. In contrast, consumers in individualistic societies, such as Germany, are willing to break rules if
they consider it necessary (Chonko and Hunt,
1985). Therefore, we hypothesize:
H2:
The connection between intrinsic religiosity
and refusal of unethical behavior on the
dimensions (a) active benefiting, (b) passive
benefitting, and (c) no harm is moderated by
the religious community, such that intrinsic
religiosity has a stronger influence on Moslems
than on Christians.
Hypotheses tests
Sample and scales
The data have been collected within the scope of
lectures of both authors at two large universities in
Germany (Muenster) and Turkey (Istanbul). After a
short introduction in which the participants, all
students in the field of Business Administration were
given directions to fill the questionnaire, the questionnaires were shared out. Afterward the participants filled the questionnaires on their own. Initially
the questionnaire was prepared in English on the
basis of the original scales. Afterward the questionnaire was translated by members of the author-team,
whose mother tongue is German or Turkish, into
the language of the respective survey group. A backtranslation followed to minimize any bias derived
from the translation (Green and White, 1976). All
respondents took part voluntarily without incentives. After completing the survey, they learned the
aim of study. In total 471 test persons took part in
the study, 231 in Turkey and 240 in Germany.
Overall, 57.7% of the samples are men and 42.3% are
Helmut Schneider et al.
women (German: 62.1 and 37.9%; Turkish: 53.2
and 46.8%). Moreover, 72.8% (German: 75.8%;
Turkish: 69.7%) of the respondents are younger than
25 years and 27.2% (German: 24.2%; Turkish:
30.3%) are between 26 and 35 years of age. This
atypical distribution of age regarding the overall
population of both countries limits the generalizability of the results. In total 51.0% of the participants are Christians and 49.0% are Moslems.
The two scales used herein have been validated in
previous studies. To measure the dependent variable,
we adapted Vitell and Muncy’s (1992) consumers’
ethical belief scale, which originally consisted of 19
items, to measure the four ethically questionable
dimensions. Because we used only three of these
dimensions, our study contained 16 items (see
Appendix), which asked respondents to rate each
behavior on a 5-point scale (1 = ‘‘I strongly believe
that this is wrong’’ to 5 = ‘‘I strongly believe that
this is not wrong’’). To confirm reliability, we calculated Cronbach’s a values, as we show in Table II,
for Germany and Turkey separately. For all three
dimensions, the scales used in both countries reach at
least satisfactory Cronbach’s a values.1
Table III contains an overview of the results of
the descriptive statistics, for both the complete
sample and the country-specific subsamples. Lower
values on the scale indicate stronger basic ethical
convictions.
The first independent variable was measured with
the religious orientation scale provided by Allport
and Ross (1967). Because we focus exclusively on
intrinsic religiosity, we include only the eight (see
Table IV) necessary items to capture it (Vitell et al.,
2006). Furthermore, to capture general religiosity,
not a religion-specific version, we adapted the items
slightly; for example, instead of using a Christian
expression such as ‘‘church,’’ our survey employed
the more general expression ‘‘house of God.’’ On
the five-point scale, 1 = ‘‘strong refusal’’; 2 = ‘‘refusal’’; 3 = ‘‘neutral’’; 4 = ‘‘approval’’; 5 = ‘‘strong
approval’’. By using the eight items afterward, the
mean value of every respondent was calculated.
Higher values signalise a higher level of intrinsic
religiosity. We spared the calculation of the factor
values in correspondence to the works of Vitell
et al., which are mentioned here as reference research. Table IV shows the results for these eight
items as well as the respective group mean values in
an overview.
The a values (0.805 for the Turkish and 0.779 for
the German subsamples) indicate good reliability.
Finally, to determine religious membership as the
second independent variable, we used a single, polar
question: ‘‘To which religious community do you
belong?’’
TABLE 2
Cronbach’s a for the consumers’ ethical belief dimensions
Dimension
Cronbach’s a
Number of items
Analysis and results
Turkey Germany
Active benefiting
Passive benefiting
No harm
6
4
6
0.867
0.834
0.808
The hypotheses tests consisted of two steps. First, to
test H1, independent of religious membership, we
analyzed the connection between intrinsic religiosity
and the three basic ethical convictions of consumers.
0.745
0.687
0.648
TABLE III
Descriptive statistics for the ethical consumer behavior
Complete sample
Active benefiting
Passive benefiting
No harm
Germany
Turkey
n
Mean
SD
n
Mean
SD
n
Mean
SD
471
471
471
1.65
2.18
3.70
0.70
0.99
0.93
240
240
240
1.79
2.69
4.14
0.61
0.83
0.67
231
231
231
1.50
1.65
3.26
0.75
0.85
1.00
The Impact of Intrinsic Religiosity on Consumers’ Ethical Beliefs
TABLE IV
Descriptive statistic for intrinsic religiosity
I enjoy reading about my religion
It is important for me to spend time in
private thought and prayer
I have often had a strong sense of God’s presence
I try hard to live all my life according to
my religious beliefs
My religion is important because it answers many
questions about the meaning of life
I would rather join a Bible study group than a
church social group
My whole approach to life is based on my religion
Prayers I say when I am alone are as important
to me as those I say in church
Mean
Therefore, we first tested the used variables for
normal distribution.2 Afterward on the basis of a
median spilt (median = 2.75), we set up two groups
of test persons with high (n = 235; mean = 3.68)
and low intrinsic religiosity (n = 211; mean = 2.07).
The difference between these groups with high
and low intrinsic religiosity is highly significant
F(1,444) = 1076.17; p < 0.000). Afterward for
each of the three dimensions of consumer ethics, we
tested if there were significant differences between
these shaped groups by using the one factor analysis
of variance (ANOVA). To estimate the intensity of
this connection, we also calculated the effect size
(g2).3 All calculations were carried out by using
the software programme PASW (previously SPSS)
Version 18.0. We provide the results in Table V.
Intrinsic religiosity has a significantly positive
influence on all three dimensions of ethical consumer behavior, especially passive benefiting, with
its effect size of 0.14. The effect on the no harm
dimension is of medium size,4 whereas its effect on
active benefiting is statistically small but still significant. These results offer support for H1a–c.
To examine the moderating influence of religious
community on the connection between intrinsic
religiosity and consumer behavior ethics (H2), we
conducted a median split for Christians and Moslems
Complete sample
(n = 471)
Mean (SD)
Germany
(n = 240)
Mean (SD)
Turkey
(n = 231)
Mean (SD)
2.92 (1.16)
3.21 (1.21)
2.42 (0.86)
2.81 (1.11)
3.45 (1.20)
3.61 (1.18)
3.40 (1.47)
2.41 (1.26)
2.43 (1.11)
1.89 (0.93)
4.42 (1.05)
2.96 (1.32)
3.19 (1.28)
2.62 (1.12)
3.78 (1.18)
2.46 (1.18)
1.95 (0.85)
2.99 (1.24)
2.23 (1.31)
3.51 (1.32)
1.58 (0.85)
3.19 (1.366)
2.90 (1.36)
3.84 (1.18)
2.91 (0.93)
2.35 (0.67)
3.49 (0.80)
separately.5 We again calculated ANOVAs, separately
for both religious communities, with regard to the
connection between religiosity and consumer behavior ethics. In addition, we conducted a multifactorial
variance analysis (MANOVA) to identify potential
interaction effects between the independent variables.
We depict the result of the one-factorial ANOVAs in
Figure 2, separately for Christians and Moslems.
According to Figure 2, Moslems generally exhibit
more ethical consumer behavior than Christians.
Moreover, the intensity of the intrinsic religiosity of
Moslems has a significantly positive influence on all
three dimensions of ethical consumer behavior; the
admittedly low effect is consistently higher than that
for the Christian subsample. For Christians, only the
passive benefiting dimension is significantly influenced by the intensity of intrinsic religiosity. The
different slopes for Christian and Moslem subsamples
in Figure 2 also indicate a moderating influence
of the religious community. In Table VI, we provide the results of our MANOVA carried out to
examine the moderating influence of religious
community. Except for the passive benefiting
dimension, a significant (p < 0.05) interaction effect
appears between religious community and the
intensity of intrinsic religiosity. Thus, we find support for H2a and H2c but must reject H2b.
Helmut Schneider et al.
TABLE V
Variance analysis: connection between religiosity and consumer behavior ethics
F
p
g2
19.583
71.577
37.853
<0.000
<0.000
<0.000
0.04
0.14
0.09
Intrinsic religiosity
Low
n = 211
High
n = 235
Mean
Active benefiting
Passive benefiting
No harm
1.80
2.55
3.97
G=Germany
TR=Turkey
1.51
1.82
3.45
passive benefiting
active benefiting
G: F(1,238)=.784, n.s., Eta2=.00
unethical
beliefs 5
TR: F(1,229)=14.131, p=.000,
Eta2=.06
no harm
G: F(1,238)=5.825, p=.017, Eta2=.02
TR: F(1,229)=22.818, p=.000,
Eta2=.09
G: F(1,238)=.313, n.s., Eta2=.00
TR: F(1,229)=8.747, p=.003, Eta2=.04
Christians
Moslems
4
4.11
4.16
3.43
3
3.05
2.81
2.56
2
1.81
ethical
beliefs 1
1.78
1.67
1,37
1.30
more
religious
1,88
less
religious
more
religious
less
religious
more
religious
less
religious
Figure 2. Results of variance analyses: connection between religiosity and consumers’ ethical beliefs, comparison of
Christians and Moslems.
Discussion and limitations
Our empirical analysis generates three major results.
First, we identify noticeable differences in the ethical evaluations of active benefiting, passive benefiting, and no harm, regardless of the religious
community or extent of religiosity. Active benefitting is widely rejected; passive benefitting is less so.
Actions that do not directly harm anybody produce
minimal rejection. These results coincide with Vitell
and Muncy (1992) and underline the need for a
gradated measurement of the ethical convictions of
consumers.
Second, regardless of which religion the respondents avow, we find strong positive correlations of all
three dimensions of ethical convictions and intrinsic
religiosity. With increasing intrinsic religiosity, consumers increasingly reject unethical behavior. These
general results, as well as the intensity of the correlations, correspond with Vitell et al.’s (2005, 2006,
2007) findings, as the comparison in Table VII
summarizes.
Third, we highlight the need to distinguish these
general results by specific religions. Neglecting the
specific religious community, regardless of the
consistent significant connections, ignores certain
The Impact of Intrinsic Religiosity on Consumers’ Ethical Beliefs
TABLE VI
MANOVA results: influence of religiosity on consumer behavior ethics
Active benefiting
Religious community (Christians vs. Moslems)
Religiosity (strong vs. weak)
Religious community 9 Religiosity
Passive benefiting
No harm
F
p
F
p
F
p
22.981
7.318
9.566
0.000
0.007
0.002
187.819
25.740
2.756
0.000
0.000
0.098
125.781
7.257
6.307
0.000
0.007
0.012
TABLE VII
Comparison of study results
Year
n
Measurements
Results
Independent variable (a)
Vitell et al.
2005 114
2006
Dependent variable (a)
p
-0.191
-0.293
-0.274
-0.140
-0.232
-0.446
-0.488
-0.187
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
n.s.
<0.01
<0.05
<0.05
<0.01
Active/illegal
Passive
Active/legal
No harm
-0.229
-0.446
not included
-0.348
0.000
0.000
Active/illegal (0.867)
Passive (0.834)
Active/legal
No harm (0.808)
-0.263
-0.242
not included
-0.160
Active/illegal (0.745)
Passive (0.687)
Active/legal
No harm (0.648)
0.037
-0.116
not included
0.012
Allport–Ross scale of intrinsic religiosity (0.796)
Active/illegal (0.663)
Passive (0.765)
Active/legal (0.603)
No harm (0.587)
127 Allport–Ross scale of intrinsic religiosity (0.831) Active/illegal (0.811)
Passive (0.830)
Active/legal (0.759)
No harm (0.754)
Ibid. 2006 (with additional independent variable: attitude toward business)
2007
This study
Complete sample
471 Allport–Ross scale of intrinsic religiosity
Correlation (r)
0.000
Turkey
231
Allport–Ross scale of intrinsic religiosity (0.805)
0.000
0.000
0.015
Germany
240
Allport–Ross scale of intrinsic religiosity (0.779)
details that may be instructive. For example, in the
Moslem subsample from Turkey, all three ethical
convictions are significantly influenced by the extent
of intrinsic religiosity. Among the Christian,
German subgroup, we find a significantly (<0.05)
0.564
0.073
0.849
positive connection only for passive benefiting. This
result implies the high variance between Christian
and Moslem subsamples with regard to the extent of
intrinsic religiosity and ethical convictions. Intrinsic
religiosity is more distinctive in the Moslem
Helmut Schneider et al.
subsample, as are the basic ethical convictions.
Similarly, Rawwas et al. (2005) identify a particular
ethical sensitivity among Turkish consumers. When
we compare Moslems and Christians with regard to
the extent of their religiosity and their attitude
toward unethical behaviors, we conclude that
Moslems generally posses more intrinsic religiosity
than Christians and reject unethical consumer
behavior more than Christians. Ali (1986) and
Arslan (2001) also reveal that Arabic managers have
considerably more positive work ethics than Scandinavian, U.S., British, and Irish managers. The
sole significant connection between religiosity and
passive benefiting in the Christian subsample indicates that religion has only a small influence on
opinions about unethical consumer behavior for
this group.
However, we also note that active benefiting
usually is limited by law (Muncy and Vitell, 1992).
It is thus conceivable that the behavior-determining effect of laws has a greater influence than
religiously determined values. Finally, regarding
issues that do not cause any direct harm, Christian
religiosity seems to have no behavioral effect,
which contradicts Vitell et al.’s studies, conducted
in Christian cultural contexts. These contrary results may stem from the differences in the examined countries, that is, Germany and the United
States, which would imply that the connection
between (Christian) intrinsic religiosity and ethical
convictions require even more fine-grained analyses that incorporate not just religious but also
cultural communities.
Some implications for the marketing management
can be derived from the results. First, our study
stresses the meaning of intrinsic religiosity for the
ethics of consumer behavior. As ethical questionable
consumer behavior is also placed to the debit of
companies (especially regarding the dimension active
benefiting) this means, that companies acting in
countries marked by a high level of intrinsic religiosity (in our case Turkey) are less exposed to consumer-sided threats than companies which are active
in countries having a low level of intrinsic religiosity.
Moreover, one can expect that consumers having a
high ethical sensitivity regarding their own behavior
as consumers also expect this ethical sensitivity from
the companies by which they are canvassed. In this
respect, it seems advisable that companies acting in
target markets having a high intrinsic religiosity
exercise caution concerning ethical questionable
marketing behavior (e.g., misleading advertising,
doorbusters, etc.). Regarding our results, this especially applies to Moslem-orientated target markets.
Therefore, by examining Turkey, which is more
Western-orientated we chose a rather atypical
exponent of Moslem-orientated countries, but even
here the extend of intrinsic religiosity and therefore
ethics of consumer behavior were significantly more
pronounced than within the compared country
Germany. One can assume that this result will be
even more pronounced in countries that are less
Western-orientated such as Egypt or Saudi Arabia.
Our results are subject to several research limitations. First, our study includes only Islam and
Christianity as religions. The correlations associated
with other religious communities remain uncertain.
Second, Turkey contains a high ratio of Sunni
Moslems, who are not necessarily representative of
the entire Islamic world. Turkey also adopts a secular
structure and therefore differs from other Islamic
countries, such as Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Malaysia
that establish strict Islamic codes of conduct in all
areas of life, including international marketing
(Saeed et al., 2001). Similarly, Germany contains a
high ratio of Protestant Christians who are not
representative of the Christian cultural world. Third,
we acknowledge the possibility that the results may
be due to other, unexamined variables, which is a
problem generally faced by every researcher, especially those that undertake intercultural comparative
studies. For example, the samples across countries
differ in terms of age and gender ratios. Fourthly,
there appear limitations regarding the student sample
not least because it is a sample containing students of
business studies who might posses specific ethical
basic orientations based upon their economic orientation.
The mentioned limitations are at the same time
connecting factors for further research work. First, it
seems worthwhile to examine additional religious
communities with regard to the meaning of intrinsic
religiosity for the consumer ethics. Moreover, it
would be suggestive to carry out a more differentiated
analysis within the Christian and Islamic religious
community, e.g., regarding the possible differences
The Impact of Intrinsic Religiosity on Consumers’ Ethical Beliefs
between Catholic and Protestant Christians or Sunni
and Shiitic Moslems. For the analysis of the influence of intrinsic religiosity on consumer ethics
within the Islamic cultural sphere it would be
preferable to examine societies which are less
Western-orientated than Turkey such as Egypt or
Saudi Arabia. Eventually for the analysis of the
moderating influence of the religious community on
the connection between religiosity and consumer
ethics it seems worthwhile to develop a study design
in which the influence of the religious community
will be more isolated than in our study, e.g., by
comparing test persons of one country having different religious societies (e.g., Jews, Christians and
Moslems in Germany).
Despite the mentioned limitations, our results
reveal that religiosity has an important influence on
ethical consumer behavior but that the religious
community cannot be disregarded in this connection, as it has been in previous research.
Notes
1
Considering the low a values within the German
sub sample for the dimensions passive benefiting and no
harm we additionally calculated the mean inter-item
correlation. With values from 246 (no harm) and 0.336
(passive benefiting) at least sufficient levels could be
generated (Briggs and Cheek, 1986).
2
To examine the normal distribution, we conducted a
Kolmogorov–Smirnov test, with the following results:
active benefiting (z = 3.808, p = 0.000), passive benefiting (z = 2.702, p = 0.000), no harm (z = 2.667, p =
0.000), and intrinsic religiosity (z = 1.535, p = 0.018).
3
We calculated the effect sizes as follows: g2 ¼ SSSSbetween
total
(Buehner and Ziegler, 2009).
4
Cohen (1988) suggests the following limitations for
interpretation of effect sizes on the basis of g2: from
0.01: small effect; from 0.06: medium effect; from
0.14: large effect (cf. Ellis, 2010).
5
The median value for Moslems is 3.63. The difference between groups above (n = 103; mean = 4.22)
and below (n = 128; mean = 2.90) the median for
intrinsic religiosity is highly significant (F(1,229) =
485.415; p < 0.000). The same finding applies to the
Christian subsample (median value = 2.29; above
n = 119; mean = 2.89; below n = 121; mean = 1.81;
F(1,238) = 437.50; p < 0.000).
Appendix
Consumer ethics (CES) items (five-point Likert
scale, 1 = ‘‘strongly believe that it is wrong,’’
5 = ‘‘strongly believe that it is not wrong’’)
Active benefiting
Changing Price-tags on merchandise in a retail store
Drinking a can of soda in a supermarket without paying
for it
Using a long distance access code that does not belong
to you
Reporting a lost item as ‘stolen’ to an insurance company in order to collect the money
Giving misleading price information to a clerk for an
unpriced item
Returning damaged merchandise when the damage is
your own fault
Passive benefiting
Getting too much change and not saying anything
Observing someone shoplifting and ignoring it
Lying about a child’s age in order to get a lower price
Not saying anything when the waitress miscalculates the
bill in your favor
No harm
Using computer software or games that you did not buy
Recording an album instead of buying it
Returning an item after finding out that the same item is
now on sale
Returning merchandise after trying it and not liking it
Spending over an hour trying on different dresses and
not purchasing any
Taping a movie off the television
References
Ali, A.: 1986, A Comparative Study of Managerial Beliefs
About Work in the Arab States. Working Paper No. 1,
Fort Hays State University School of Business, Hays,
KS.
Al-Khatib, J. A., S. J. Vitell and M. Y. A. Rawwas: 1997,
‘Consumer Ethics: A Cross-Cultural Investigation’,
European Journal of Marketing 31(11/12), 750–767.
Al-Khatib, J. A., S. J. Vitell, R. Rexeisen and M. Y. A.
Rawwas: 2005, ‘Inter-Country Differences of Consumer Ethics in Arab Countries’, International Business
Review 14(4), 495–516.
Helmut Schneider et al.
Allport, G. W.: 1950, The Individual and His Religion: A
Psychological Interpretation (MacMillan, New York,
NY).
Allport, G. W. and J. M. Ross: 1967, ‘Personal Religious
Orientation and Prejustice’, Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology 5(4), 432–443.
Anderson, C.: 1970, White Protestant Americans (Prentice
Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ).
Arslan, M.: 2001, ‘The Work Ethic Values of Protestant
British, Catholic Irish and Muslim Turkish Managers’,
Journal of Business Ethics 31(4), 321–339.
Babakus, E., T. B. Cornwell, V. Mitchell and B. Schlegelmilch: 2004, ‘Reactions to Unethical Consumer
Behavior Across Six Countries’, Journal of Consumer
Marketing 21(4), 254–263.
Bailey, J. M. and J. Sood: 1993, ‘The Effects of Religious
Affiliation on Consumer Behavior: A Preliminary
Investigation’, Journal of Managerial Issues 5(3), 328–
352.
Belk, R. W., T. Devinney and G. Eckhard: 2005,
‘Consumer Ethics Across Cultures’, Consumption,
Markets and Culture 8(3), 275–289.
Berger, P. L.: 1961, The Noise of Solemn Assemblies
(Doubleday and Co. Inc., New York, NY).
Briggs, S. R. and J. M. Cheek: 1986, ‘The Role of Factor
Analysis in the Development and Evaluation of Personality Scales’, Journal of Personality 54(1), 106–148.
Buehner, M. and M. Ziegler: 2009, Statistik für Psychologen und Sozialwissenschaftler (Pearson, Munich).
Chamberlain, K. and S. Zika: 1992, ‘Religiosity, Meaning in Life and Psychological Wellbeing’, in G. F.
Schumacher (ed.), Religion and Mental Health (Oxford
University Press, New York, NY), pp. 138–148.
Chan, A., S. Wong and P. Leung: 1998, ‘Ethical Belief of
Chinese Consumers in Hong Kong’, Journal of Business
Ethics 17(11), 1163–1170.
Chonko, L. B. and S. D. Hunt: 1985, ‘Ethics and Marketing Management: An empirical Examination’,
Journal of Business Research 13(4), 339–359.
Cohen, J.: 1988, Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral
Sciences, 2nd Edition (Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale,
NJ).
Cornwell, B., C. C. Cui, V. Mitchell, B. Schlegelmilch,
A. Dzulkiflee and J. Chan: 2005, ‘A Cross-Cultural
Study of the Role of Religion in Consumers’ Ethical
Positions’, International Marketing Review 22(5), 531–
546.
Delener, N.: 1990, ‘An Examination of the Religious
Influences as Predictors of Consumer Innovativeness’,
Journal of Mid West Marketing 5, 167–178.
Delener, N.: 1994, ‘Religious Contrasts in Consumer
Decision Behaviour Patterns: Their Dimensions and
Marketing Implications’, European Journal of Marketing
28(5), 36–53.
Delener, N. and L. G. Schiffman: 1988, ‘Family Decision
Making: The Impact of Religious Factors’, in
G. Frasier et al. (eds.), Efficiency and Effectiveness in
Marketing (American Marketing Association, Chicago,
IL), pp. 80–83.
Donahue, M. J.: 1985, ‘Intrinsic and Extrinsic Religiousness: Review and Meta-Analysis’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 48(2), 400–419.
EKD (ed.): 2010, ‘Christians in Germany’, http://
www.ekd.de/statistik/mitglieder.html.
Ekin, M. G. S. and S. H. Tezölmez: 1999, ‘Business
Ethics in Turkey: An Empirical Investigation with
Special Emphasis on Gender’, Journal of Business Ethics
18(1), 17–34.
Ellis, P. D.: 2010, The Essential Guide to Effect Sizes:
Statistical Power, Meta-Analysis, and the Interpretation of
Research Results (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA).
Essoo, N. and S. Dibb: 2004, ‘Religious Influences on
Shopping Behaviour: An Exploratory Study’, Journal of
Marketing Management 20(7/8), 683–712.
Ferrell, O. C., J. Fraedrich and L. Ferrell: 2008, Business
Ethics (Houghton Mifflin, Boston, MA).
Forsyth, D. R.: 1980, ‘A Taxonomy of Ethical Ideologies’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 39(1),
175–184.
Greeley, A. M.: 1977, The American Catholic (Basic Books,
New York, NY).
Green, R. T. and P. D. White: 1976, ‘Methodological
Considerations in Cross-National Consumer Research’,
Journal of International Business Studies 7(2), 81–87.
Hirschman, E. C.: 1983, ‘Religious Affiliation and
Consumption Processes’, Research in Marketing 6, 131–
170.
Hofstede, G.: 1997, Cultures and Organizations: Software of
the Mind (McGraw-Hill, New York, NY).
Hunt, S. D. and S. J. Vitell: 1986, ‘A General Theory
of Marketing Ethics’, Journal of Marcromarketing 6(1),
5–16.
Hunt, S. D. and S. J. Vitell: 2006, ‘A General Theory of
Marketing Ethics: A Revision and Three Questions’,
Journal of Marcromarketing 26(2), 143–153.
Kavak, B., E. Gürel, C. Eryigit and Ö. Ö. Tektas: 2009,
‘Examining the Effects of Moral Development Level,
Self-Concept, and Self Monitoring on Consumers’
Ethical Attitudes’, Journal of Business Ethics 88(1), 115–
135.
Luhmann, N.: 2008, Soziale Systeme: Grundriss einer allgemeinen Theorie, 12th Edition (Suhrkamp, Frankfurt
am Main).
The Impact of Intrinsic Religiosity on Consumers’ Ethical Beliefs
McDaniel, S. W. and J. J. Burnett: 1990, ‘Consumer
Religiosity and Retail Store Evaluative Criteria’,
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 18(2), 101–
112.
Menguc, B.: 1998, ‘Organizational Consequences, Marketing Ethics and Salesforce Supervision: Further
Empirical Evidence’, Journal of Business Ethics 17(4),
333–352.
Miskawayh, A. I. M.: 1968, The Refinement of Character
(C. K. Zurayk, Trans.). (The American University of
Beirut, Beirut).
Mokhlis, S.: 2009, ‘Relevancy and Measurement of
Religiosity in Consumer Behavior Research’, International Business Research 2(3), 75–84.
Muncy, J. A. and S. J. Vitell: 1992, ‘Consumer Ethics: A
Investigation of the Ethical Beliefs of the Final Consumer’, Journal of Business Ethics 24(4), 297–311.
Oumlil, A. B. and J. L. Balloun: 2009, ‘Ethical DecisionMaking Differences Between American and Moroccan
Managers’, Journal of Business Ethics 84(4), 457–478.
Paşa, S. F., H. Kabasakal and M. Bodur: 2001, ‘Society,
Organisations, and Leadership in Turkey’, Applied
Psychology: An International Review 50(4), 559–589.
Patai, R.: 1977, The Jewish Mind (Scribners and Sons,
New York, NY).
Polonsky, M. J., P. Q. Brito and N. Higgs-Kleyn: 2001,
‘Consumer Ethics in the European Union: A Comparison of Northern and Southern Views’, Journal of
Business Ethics 31(2), 117–130.
Rawwas, M. Y. A.: 1996, ‘Consumer Ethics: An Empirical
Investigation of the Ethical Beliefs of Austrian Consumers’, Journal of Business Ethics 15(9), 1009–1019.
Rawwas, M. Y. A.: 2001, ‘Culture, Personality and
Morality a Typology of International Consumers’
Ethical Beliefs’, International Marketing Review 18(2),
188–211.
Rawwas, M. Y. A., Z. Swaidan and M. Oyman: 2005,
‘Consumer Ethics: A Cross-Cultural Study of the
Ethical Beliefs of Turkish and American Consumers’,
Journal of Business Ethics 57(2), 183–195.
Saeed, M., Z. U. Ahmed and S.-M. Mukhtar: 2001,
‘International Marketing Ethics from an Islamic Perspective: A Value Maximization Approach’, Journal of
Business Ethics 32(2), 127–142.
Saroglou, V., V. Delpierre and R. Dernelle: 2004, ‘Values
and Religiosity: A Meta-Analysis of Studies Using
Schwartz’s Model’, Personality and Individual Differences
37, 721–734.
Schlegelmilch, B.: 1998, Marketing Ethics: An International
Perspective (Thomson Business Press, London).
Sims, R. L. and A. E. Gegez: 2004, ‘Attitudes Towards
Business Ethics: A Five Nation Comparative Study’,
Journal of Business Ethics 50(3), 253–265.
Singh, M. F.: 2001, Honest Living, 4th Edition (Radha
Soami Satsang Beas, India).
Singhapakdi, A., M. Y. A. Rawwas, J. K. Marta and M. I.
Ahmed: 1999, ‘A Cross-Cultural Study of Consumer
Perceptions About Marketing Ethics’, Journal of Consumer Marketing 16(3), 257–272.
Srnka, K. J., A. E. Gegez and S. B. Arzova: 2007, ‘Why Is
It (Un-) Ethical? Comparing Potential European
Partners: A Western Christian and Eastern Islamic
Country – On Arguments Used in Explaining Ethical Judgments’, Journal of Business Ethics 74(2), 101–
118.
Steenhaut, S. and P. van Kenhove: 2006, ‘The Mediating
Role of Anticipated Guilt in Consumers’ Ethical
Decision-Making’, Journal of Business Ethics 69(3), 269–
288.
Vasquez-Parraga, A. Z. and A. Kara: 1995, ‘Ethical
Decision Making in Turkish Sales Management’,
Journal of Euro Marketing 4(2), 61–87.
Vitell, S. J.: 2003, ‘Consumer Ethics Research: Review,
Synthesis and Suggestions for the Future’, Journal of
Business Ethics 43(1/2), 33–47.
Vitell, S. J. and J. Muncy: 1992, ‘Consumer Ethics: An
Empirical Investigation of Factors Influencing Ethical
Judgements of the Final Consumer’, Journal of Business
Ethics 11(8), 585–597.
Vitell, S. J. and J. Muncy: 2005, ‘The Muncy-Vitell
Consumer Ethics Scale: A Modification and Application’, Journal of Business Ethics 62(3), 267–275.
Vitell, S. J., S. L. Nwachukwu and J. H. Barnes: 1993,
‘The Effects of Culture on Ethical Decision-Making:
An Application of Hofstede’s Typology’, Journal of
Business Ethics 12(10), 753–760.
Vitell, S. J. and J. G. P. Paolillo: 2003, ‘Consumer Ethics:
The Role of Religiosity’, Journal of Business Ethics
46(2), 151–162.
Vitell, S. J., J. G. P. Paolillo and J. J. Singh: 2005,
‘Religiosity and Consumer Ethics’, Journal of Business
Ethics 57(2), 175–181.
Vitell, S. J., J. G. P. Paolillo and J. J. Singh: 2006, ‘The
Role of Money and Religiosity in Determining
Consumers’ Ethical Beliefs’, Journal of Business Ethics
64(2), 117–124.
Vitell, S. J., J. G. P. Paolillo and J. J. Singh: 2007,
‘‘Consumers’ Ethical Beliefs: The Roles of Money,
Religiosity and Attitude Toward Business’, Journal of
Business Ethics 73(4), 369–379.
Weaver, G. R. and B. R. Agle: 2002, ‘Religiosity and
Ethical Behavior in Organizations: A Symbolic Interactionist Perspective’, Academy of Management Review
27(1), 77–98.
Wilkes, R. E., J. J. Burnett and R. D. Howell: 1986, ‘On
the Meaning and Measurement of Religiosity in
Helmut Schneider et al.
Consumer Research’, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 14(1), 47–56.
Younis, T.: 1997, ‘Turkey: The State Apparatus, and
Islamisation’, Civil Service Systems in Comparative Perspective, School of Public and Environmental Affairs,
Indiana University, April 5–8.
Helmut Schneider
Steinbeis-University Berlin,
Guertelstraße 29A/30, 10247 Berlin, Germany
E-mail: [email protected]
John Krieger
University of Duisburg-Essen,
Lotharstraße 65, LB 016, 47048 Duisburg, Germany
E-mail: [email protected]
Azra Bayraktar
Department of Business Administration,
Marmara University,
Anadoluhisari, 34810 Istanbul, Turkey
E-mail: [email protected]