How Do Consumers in General Evaluate, Judge, and Act toward Shoplifting? The Moderating Effects of Personal Characteristics and Motives

Q4 Business, Management and Accounting
Juehui Shi, Ngoc Cindy Pham, Claudio Schapsis, Tofazzal Hossain, Arturo Z. Vasquez-Parraga
{"title":"How Do Consumers in General Evaluate, Judge, and Act toward Shoplifting? The Moderating Effects of Personal Characteristics and Motives","authors":"Juehui Shi, Ngoc Cindy Pham, Claudio Schapsis, Tofazzal Hossain, Arturo Z. Vasquez-Parraga","doi":"10.37625/abr.25.2.293-327","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Despite the seriousness of shoplifting, consumers’ evaluations, judgements, and intentions toward shoplifting remain underexplored by scholars from business ethics, marketing, retailing, and consumer behavior. We propose a new shoplifting ethics model, which integrates Hunt and Vitell’s theory of ethics with Nadeau, Rochlen, and Tyminski’s typology of shoplifting, by incorporating the moderators of consumers’ personal characteristics (i.e., age, gender, marital status, income) and shoplifting motives (i.e., social, experiential, economic, emotional) onto the relationships among deontological evaluation, teleological evaluation, ethical judgment, and intention. Based on a two-by-two randomized experimental design, two shoplifting cases (i.e., swapping price tags, stealing products) are investigated in four scenarios (i.e., deontologically unethical condition with positive consequences, deontologically unethical condition with negative consequences, deontologically ethical condition with positive consequences, deontologically ethical condition with negative consequences). We discover that age, marriage, and income enhance the relationship between consumers’ deontological evaluations of shoplifting and ethical judgments of shoplifting; that employment strengthens the relationship between the ethical judgments of shoplifting and shoplifting intentions; and that marriage enhances the relationship between consumers’ teleological evaluations of shoplifting and shoplifting intentions. Nevertheless, the economic factor weakens the relationship between consumers’ deontological evaluations of shoplifting and ethical judgments of shoplifting. We find that ethical judgments of shoplifting mediates the relationship between consumers’ deontological/teleological evaluations of shoplifting and shoplifting intentions. The results imply that younger, single, unemployed, and low-income consumers engage in more shoplifting activities compared to their older, married, employed, and high-income counterparts. Moreover, even though acknowledging the inherent wrongness of shoplifting and its negative consequences, consumers can still be impelled by economic reasons to participate in shoplifting. We contribute to the ongoing debate on whether economic reasons change consumers’ ethical judgments of shoplifting and whether economic disadvantage motivates consumers to shoplift. Contrary to conventional wisdom, negative consequences and punishment do not fully deter consumers from shoplifting. Under the contingencies of personal characteristics and shoplifting motives, shoplifting intention is influenced directly by ethical judgment and indirectly by deontological and teleological evaluations. Theoretical and practical insights are discussed to help policy makers and store managers prevent shoplifting behavior.","PeriodicalId":34785,"journal":{"name":"American Business Review","volume":"23 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Business Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.37625/abr.25.2.293-327","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Business, Management and Accounting","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Despite the seriousness of shoplifting, consumers’ evaluations, judgements, and intentions toward shoplifting remain underexplored by scholars from business ethics, marketing, retailing, and consumer behavior. We propose a new shoplifting ethics model, which integrates Hunt and Vitell’s theory of ethics with Nadeau, Rochlen, and Tyminski’s typology of shoplifting, by incorporating the moderators of consumers’ personal characteristics (i.e., age, gender, marital status, income) and shoplifting motives (i.e., social, experiential, economic, emotional) onto the relationships among deontological evaluation, teleological evaluation, ethical judgment, and intention. Based on a two-by-two randomized experimental design, two shoplifting cases (i.e., swapping price tags, stealing products) are investigated in four scenarios (i.e., deontologically unethical condition with positive consequences, deontologically unethical condition with negative consequences, deontologically ethical condition with positive consequences, deontologically ethical condition with negative consequences). We discover that age, marriage, and income enhance the relationship between consumers’ deontological evaluations of shoplifting and ethical judgments of shoplifting; that employment strengthens the relationship between the ethical judgments of shoplifting and shoplifting intentions; and that marriage enhances the relationship between consumers’ teleological evaluations of shoplifting and shoplifting intentions. Nevertheless, the economic factor weakens the relationship between consumers’ deontological evaluations of shoplifting and ethical judgments of shoplifting. We find that ethical judgments of shoplifting mediates the relationship between consumers’ deontological/teleological evaluations of shoplifting and shoplifting intentions. The results imply that younger, single, unemployed, and low-income consumers engage in more shoplifting activities compared to their older, married, employed, and high-income counterparts. Moreover, even though acknowledging the inherent wrongness of shoplifting and its negative consequences, consumers can still be impelled by economic reasons to participate in shoplifting. We contribute to the ongoing debate on whether economic reasons change consumers’ ethical judgments of shoplifting and whether economic disadvantage motivates consumers to shoplift. Contrary to conventional wisdom, negative consequences and punishment do not fully deter consumers from shoplifting. Under the contingencies of personal characteristics and shoplifting motives, shoplifting intention is influenced directly by ethical judgment and indirectly by deontological and teleological evaluations. Theoretical and practical insights are discussed to help policy makers and store managers prevent shoplifting behavior.
消费者一般如何评价、判断和应对入店行窃?个人特质与动机的调节作用
尽管入店行窃的严重性,但消费者对入店行窃的评价、判断和意图仍未得到商业伦理、市场营销、零售和消费者行为学等领域学者的充分探讨。通过将消费者的个人特征(年龄、性别、婚姻状况、收入)和入店行窃动机(社会、经验、经济、情感)的调节因子引入义务评价、目的评价、伦理判断和意图之间的关系中,提出了一种新的入店行窃伦理模型,该模型将Hunt and Vitell的伦理学理论与Nadeau、Rochlen和Tyminski的入店行窃类型分类相结合。基于二乘二随机实验设计,研究了两起商店行窃案件(即交换价格标签、偷窃商品)在四种情况下(即有积极结果的道义不道德条件、有消极结果的道义不道德条件、有积极结果的道义伦理条件、有消极结果的道义伦理条件)的发生情况。研究发现,年龄、婚姻和收入增强了消费者入店行窃的义务评价与入店行窃的伦理判断之间的关系;就业强化了入店行窃的道德判断与入店行窃意图之间的关系;婚姻增强了消费者对入店行窃的目的论评价和入店行窃意图之间的关系。然而,经济因素削弱了消费者对入店行窃的义务评价与入店行窃的伦理判断之间的关系。我们发现,入店行窃的伦理判断在消费者入店行窃的义务论/目的论评价与入店行窃意图之间起中介作用。研究结果表明,与年龄较大、已婚、有工作和高收入的消费者相比,年轻、单身、失业和低收入消费者更容易入店行窃。此外,即使承认入店行窃的内在错误及其负面后果,消费者仍然可能受到经济原因的驱使而参与入店行窃。经济原因是否会改变消费者对入店行窃的道德判断,以及经济劣势是否会促使消费者入店行窃,我们对此进行了讨论。与传统观念相反,负面后果和惩罚并不能完全阻止消费者入店行窃。在个人特征与入店行窃动机的偶然性下,入店行窃意图直接受到伦理判断的影响,间接受到义务论和目的论评价的影响。理论和实践的见解讨论,以帮助决策者和商店经理防止入店行窃行为。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
American Business Review
American Business Review Business, Management and Accounting-Business, Management and Accounting (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
13
审稿时长
8 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信