how consumers' commitment to a company impacts not only their ethical judgment of corporate behaviour but also the outcomes of the judgment.

1. Journal of Business Ethics (2005) 62: 237-252
DOI 10.1007/sl0551-005-1899-0
© Springer 2005
Consumers' Evaluation of Unethical
Marketing Behaviors: The Role of
Customer Commitment
Rhea Ingram
Steven J. Skinner
Valerie A. Taylor
ABSTRACT. While there is a significant amount of
research investigating managerial ethical judgments, a
limited amount examines consumer judgments of
unethical corporate behavior and its impact on the mar-
ketplace. This study examines how consumers' commit-
ment to a company impacts not only their ethical
judgment of corporate behavior but also the outcomes of
that Judgment. The authors test hypotheses with data
from 334 consumers and fmd that consumers' level ot
conmiitment attenuates the level of perceived fairness.
More specifically, highly committed consumers may
forgive companies for behaviors when perceived hann is
low, but become progressively dissatisfied as the level of
perceived hami increases. Results of the study point to
the importance of considering ethical behavior from a
consumer perspective. If corporate actions are perceived
.is unethical, the company stands to lose favor with their
Rhea Ingram is currently an associate professor of marketing at
Columbus State University. Her research interests include
investigations into consumers' reactions to unethical marketing
behaviors, motii>afions in sport and event industry, as well as
classroom management issues. Her research has appeared in
the Joumal of Business Research, Joumal of Hospital
Marketing and Public Relations, ^5 well as several con-
ference proceedings. She serves as a reviewerfor national and
regional conferences, as well as a few joumals. She sen>es on
the Board of Directors for the local American Cancer Society
and the Columbus Sports Council Rhea's corporate ex-
perience was in sales & marketing for a manufacturing firm
and an economic development organization.
Steven J. Skinner is the Rosenthal Professor of Marketing in
the Catton College of Btisiness and Economics at the
Unii'ersity of Kentucky. His research has been published in
a number of joumals, including the Journal of Marketing
Research, Academy of Management Journal, Journal
of Retailing, Joumal of Business Research, Public
Opinion Quarterly, Joumal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, Joumal of Advertising Research,
Journal of Risk and Insurance, and Joumal of
most committed customen. Considering that more time,
effort and investment is required to gain a new customer
as to retain an old, this study shows that engaging in
behavior perceived as unethical by consumers nsks
alienating the most committed customers.
KEY WORDS: marketmg and consumer behavior,
unethical behavior, consumer evaluations.
Melanie and Rick, two students at the local univer-
sity, hear a report accusing an apparel manufacturer
of using overseas sweatshops for producing their
product lines sold in the United States. Although
neither Melanie nor Rick initially hears the name of
the manufacturer, they both immediately judge the
behavior as unethical. However, later in the day,
they leam that the producer accused of using sweat-
personal Selling and Sales Management. He has re-
ceived the Mu Kappa Tau Award for the best article in
Joumal of Personal Selling and Sales Management. He
was formerly a research administrator for State Farm
Insurance Companies. He has consulted with a variety of
large and small organizations. He currently serves on the
Board of Directors of (he Newnum Foundation, and is on
the Financial Board of the Catholic Neivman Center on the
University of Kentucky campus.
Valerie A. Taylor is Frank Varallo Associate Professor of
Marketing in the College of Business Administration at the
University of Tennessee at Chattanooga. Her research in-
terests include product branding strategies, consumer in-
formation processing, and health communication issues. Her
research has been published in the Joumal of the Acad-
emy of Marketing Science, Psychology & Marketing,
the Joumal of Brand Management, The Joumal of
Marketing Theory & Practice, and the Joumal of
Health Communication. She serves as a revieuvr for
Joumal of the Academy of Marketing Science and Psy-
chology & Marketing, among others. She has also held
positions in the telecommunicatiotis industry.

2. 238 Rhea Ingram ct al.
shop labor is a brand well-known to them both, and
that it also happens to be one of Rick's favorite
brands. Melanie expresses her outrage and states that
she will never purchase the offending brand again,
while Rick discounts the seriousness of the behavior
and remarks that everybody (e.g., other manufactur-
ers) does it.'
Research shows that unethical marketing behavior
impacts consumers' behavior in the marketplace
(e.g., Alexander, 2002; Creyer and Ross, 1997;
Folkes and Kamins, 1999; Smith and Cooper-Mar-
tin, 1997; Whalen et al., 1991). However, as the
opening story illustrates, the association the con-
sumer has with a company seems to impact their
reaction to the behavior. Relatively httle attention
has been given to judgments of unethical marketing
behavior trom the consumers' perspective, especially
focusing on the exchange relationship established
between the two parties.
Marketing is responsible for creating a balanced
exchange between the company and the consumer,
where parties attempt to proportionally maximize
their rewards and minimize their costs hopeflilly
resulting in satisfaction (Bagozzi, 1975). However,
the difficulty of creating a balanced exchange arises
from (1) differing perspectives and (2) being per-
sonally or vicariously involved (Whalen et al., 1991).
For example, when the unethical behavior occurred
in the opening scenario, some consumers may have
perceived that one party reaped excessive benefits
while exploiting or harming another party (i.e.,
sweatshop treatment) generating an imbalanced ex-
change, while other consumers could have viewed
the situation as adding jobs or economic develop-
ment, discounting the seriousness ofthe offense and
explain the behavior as commonplace in the
corporate world. Indeed, most exchanges today in-
volve not only simple inputs and outcomes (e.g.,
price vs. cost) but also multidimensional inputs and
outcomes influencing the perception of exchange
siuiations (Swan and Oliver, 1991) creating different
perspectives among consumers.
With the increasing importance of relationship
marketing (Bendapudi and Berry, 1997; Schmitt,
2003), one multidimensional variable that influences
consumers' reactions in exchange relationships and
has become a top priority for many firms today
is commitment between the parties. Customer
commitment has been defmed as an emotional or
psychological attachment to a company (Kelley and
Davis, 1994) or a brand (Lastovicka and Gardner,
1978); and identified as a key factor to the success of
buyer-seller relationships (Dwyer et al., 1987;
Gundlach et al.. 1995; Morgan and Hunt, 1994). An
individual with a high degree of commitment is
believed not only to invest more benefits or assets
into the exchange (Gundlach et al., 1995), possess
aspirations of remaining with the organization
(Mowday et al., 1982), but also counterargue neg-
ative infonnation (Ahluwaha et al., 2000), and make
less harsh judgments in response to a service failure
(Priluck, 2003; Tax, et al., 1998). Morgan and Hunt
(1994, p. 34) argue that commitment develops when
a firm "attends to relationships by ... maintaining
high standards of corporate values and allying oneself
with exchange partners having similar values."
Therefore, while commitment seems to play an
important role, the actual impact customer com-
mitment has on the judgment of unethical marketing
behavior is unclear.
Consequently, the objective of this research is to
examine the impact of customer commitment to a
company on ethical judgments and in turn its effect
on satisfaction with the firm and behavioral inten-
tions. First, the literature is reviewed examining how
individuals make ethicaljudgments, the influences on
those judgments, and the outcomes of the judgments
both from a managerial and consumer perspective.
Second, a conceptual fi-amework and hypotheses are
developed. Third, the method employed to test the
hypotheses is described, followed by the analysis and
results. Finally, implications, limitations, and direc-
tions for future research are discussed.
Literature reviews
Research in the business ethics literature is extensive
(cf. Ford and Richardson, 1994), focusing on ethical
decision-making and what influences these deci-
sions. Most ethical decision-making models, whe-
ther implicitly or explicitly, revolve around Rest's
(1986) four basic components: recognition of a
moral issue, making a moral judgment, establishing a
moral intent, and engaging in moral behavior (e.g.,
Ferrell and Gresham, 1985; Hunt and Vitell, 1986;

3. Consumers' Evaluation of Unethical Behaviors 239
[ones, 1991; Trevino, 1986). These models describe
the process of how individuals make ethical judg-
ments, defined as "deciding what is right or wrong
in a situation" (Trevino, 1986, p. 602), and then act
on the judgment.
Although research indicates that the judgment of
ethical behavior is in the eye of the beholder, it is
also important to understand how other stakeholders
judge marketers' behavior. Seminal papers in the
marketing ethics hterature (Domoff and Tankersley,
1975; Sturdivant and Cocanoughen, 1973) as well as
more recent works (Bone and Corey, 2000; Singer,
1996; Singhapakdi et al., 1999a) indicate a disparity
between consumers' and marketing executives'
ethical judgments of marketing actions. Unethical
marketinj^ behavior is any behavior within the mar-
keting function that is illegal or morally unacceptable
to the larger community (Jones, 1991). For instance,
some consumers may perceive Dow Coming's
release of potentially hannful sihcon breast implants,
questionable activity regarding Sears Auto Service's
billing practices and Met Life's sales tactics, NIKE's
reported use of sweatshop labor, and Firestone's slow
attention to destructive tires as examples of such
unacceptable behavior.
Marketing scholars and practitioners alike have
long been interested in consumers' reactions to
product failures (Folkes, 1984), service failures
(Goodwin and Ross, 1992; Smith and Bolton,
1998), and negative publicity (Ahluwalia et al, 2000).
Yet, only recently have researchers begun to inves-
tigate consumer reactions, Uke those of Melanie and
Rick in the opening scenario, to questionable moral
conduct of corporate marketers, which may have a
serious adverse impact on a firm's relationship with
its customers (cf. Babin et al., 1999; Bejou et al.,
1998; Lagace et al., 1991). It should be consid-
ered too, that when consumers face an unethical
marketing situation or information about an uneth-
ical event, evaluations are not solely based on the
available infonnation but are also bound v^ithin the
situation (Bamett and Karson, 1987).
Research scrutinizing consumers' ethical judg-
ments has focused primarily on (1) what influences
ethical judgments and (2) the judgment's effect on
consumer behavior. This research suggests that
demographic variables (e.g., age, education,
income) and personality influence ethical judgments
(Rallapalli et al., 1994; ViteU and Muncy, 1992).
Additionally, research has shown unethical market-
ing behavior negatively impacts consumers' expec-
tations (Creyer and Ross, 1997), attitudes (Babin
et al., 1999; Folkes and Kamins, 1999), satisfaction
(Alexander, 2002), and behavioral intentions (Creyer
and Ross, 1997; Whalen etal., 1991), whether
experienced personally or vicariously. An example of
such consumer behavior after a vicariously experi-
enced incident involves the Exxon Valdez disaster.
Within a few months afterwards, over 10,000 con-
sumers retumed their company credit cards in pro-
test (Galen and Cahan, 1990).
Jones (1991) generated one ofthe most concise
syntheses of ethical decision-making models
emphasizing the contributions of each and incorpo-
rating the characteristics ofthe moral issue, which he
termed moral intensity. This issue-related variable,
consisting of several components (e.g., magnitude of
consequences, social consensus, probability of effect,
temporal immediacy, proximity, and concentration
of effect), is predicted to positively affect each stage of
the ethical decision-making process. Empirical find-
ings investigating Jones' propositions show mixed
results (cf. Frey, 2000). Research suggests that social
consensus and seriousness of consequences are the
most influential ofthe moral intensity variables, and
impact the decision-making process (e.g., Bamett,
2001; Morris and McDonald, 1995; Singer, 1996;
Singer and Singer, 1997). Proximity has been found
to influence overall ethicality (Davis et al., 1998;
Morris and McDonald, 1995; Singer and Singer,
1997), while the other moral intensity variables (i.e.,
Ukelihood of effect, temporal immediacy, and con-
centration of effect) impact decisions to a lesser de-
gree. Little research explicitly investigating
consumers' reactions to unethical behaviors has taken
into consideration aspects of Jones' moral intensity,
especiaUy examining the relationship that exists be-
tween buyer and seUer.
Conceptual framew^ork
The proposed model (see Figure 1) expands the
marketing ethics literature to explain how ethical
judgments are made within the social context of an
exchange relationship. Equity theory argues, in
short, that if one party perceives another party
benefiting unfairly, the disadvantaged party views

4. 240 Rhea Ingram et al.
H6a,
H6b/ Behavioral
Intentions
Figure 1. A model of consumers' evaluation of unethical marketing behavior.
the situation as inequitable, and attempts to regain
balance. Actions may consist of negative word-of-
mouth to friends and family, complaints to the
company or third party organizations (e.g.. Better
Business Bureau), or no future purchases from the
company. However, taking into consideration an
estabhshed relationship between two parties, the
situation may be modified such that no punitive
action is taken because of the past interactions and
role expectations of both parties (cf Ahluwalia et al.,
2000; Hess et al., 2003; Maxham and Netemeyer,
2002; Priluck, 2003).
Therefore, we posit that the relationship a com-
pany builds with their consumers, whether directly
or indirectly, impacts the ethical judgment of a sit-
uation, and in turn the satisfaction and behavioral
intentions towards the finn. Building on existing
literature, the model predicts that not only does
perceived magnitude of hami impact perceived
fairness of the situation, but customer commitment
will also influence the relationship between these
two variables.
Consumers' judgment ofthe unethical behavior
Research indicates that consumers often evaluate
marketplace transactions by considering how equi-
tably each party has contributed to the exchange.
The use of an equity approach to model exchange
evaluation is supported hy meta-analysis fmdings, the
results of which show perceived equity to be a strong
predictor of customer satisfaction (Szymanski and
Henard, 2001). Further, Oliver and Swan (1989)
identified perceived faimess as a dominating medi-
ator variable in consumers' satisfaction evaluation.
Perceived faimess, from the consumer's point of
view, is defmed as the perception that the seUer and
buyer receive roughly proportional maximum out-
comes relative to their minim;il inputs. Reflecting
equity theory, the buyer's outcomes and seller's in-
puts are the dominating factors of perceived faimess
(Swan and OUver, 1991). Further, perceived faimess
has been shown to impact consumers' reactions to
various activities such as perceived price faimess
(e.g., Campbell, 1999; Martins and Monroe, 1994),
satisfaction with a fimi or salesperson (e.g., OUver
and Swan, 1989; Swan and OUver, 1991), and ser-
vice deUvery (e.g., Fisk and Coney, 1982; Mowen
and Grove, 1983). Moreover, Singer (1996) addi-
tionaUy found that considerations of faimess are
significant predictors of overall ethicality. Therefore,
this study considers perceived faimess as a
consumer's judgment regarding the ethicality of a
marketing behavior.

5. Consumers' Evaluation of Unethical Behaviors 241
Several streams of research suggest ethical judg-
ments are affected by the perceived magnitude of
harm. Perceived magnitude of hami is defined as the
degree to which an individual perceives the outcome
of an act to allow one party to benefit over another
(Jones, 1991). For example, if someone has stolen
money from a wallet, one's reaction might be more
critical if $ 500 dollars compared to $ 1 had been
stolen, even more so if the amount stolen was
$10,000. This conceptuaUzation is consistent with
how research suggests most Americans judge behav-
iors - that is, on the basis of consequences or degree of
hann (i.e., teleological philosophy), rather than
methods used in deciding on the behavior (i.e.,
deontological philosophies) (Ferrell and Gresham,
1985; Singer, 1996; ViteU and Muncy, 1992; Wright
et al., 1999). Therefore, in this study, perceived
magnitude of harm measures the degree to which
consumers perceive the company's actions as harmful.
The managerial ethics and decision-making
research indicates a negative relationship between
magnitude of harm and perceived ethicality (see
Frey, 2000 for comprehensive review). Similarly,
within a consumer context, ViteU and Muncy (1992)
found that consumers' were least accepting of
unethical behaviors where one party benefited over
another, while Singer (1996) found that the public
rated the magnitude of hami as more extreme than
managers in a scenario where the target was injured.
Findings from the services literauire also support this
position, showing that perceived satisfaction is
reduced as the magnitude of the loss caused by a
service failure increases (Hess et al., 2003; Maxham
and Netemeyer, 2002; Smith et al., 1999). Conse-
quently, we predict:
Hypothesis 1: As perceived magnitude of hami in-
creases, the perceived faimess of the situation
decreases.
Individual differences have been shown to influ-
ence the perception of unetbical behaviors in several
empirical studies (e.g., FuUerton et al., 1996; Ra-
Uapalh et al., 1994), as weU as the equity-satisfaction
Uterature (Brockner and Adsit, 1986) and services
literature (Hess et al, 2003; Tax et al., 1998).
Gundlach et al. (1995, p. 78) identifies that customer
commitment is an important individual difference
variable, and states that the "concept of commitment
may very well become a focal point of explanation in
marketing...this is true whether we are talking about
consumer relationships with companies or interor-
ganizational commitment." As relationships between
companies and consumers become increasingly
important, customer commitment is essential in
establishing long-term successful relationships. Cus-
tomer commitment has been described as the
bonding of an individual to an organization (Mat-
hieu and Zajac, 1990), and conceptually similar to
customer loyalty and involvement (Gundlach et al.,
1995). Further, customer commitment has been
shown to influence the consumer's evaluation pro-
cess (Garbarino and Johnson, 1999) generating
strategic advantages such as continuous patronage,
greater word-of-mouth, and loyalty. An individual
who is committed to an organization believes in and
accepts the goals and values of the organization,
expresses genuine interest in its welfare, expends
considerable effort on its behalf, and desires to re-
main a member (KeUey and Davis, 1994). Recent
research also indicates that the role of conmiitment
in an evaluation judgment should be considered, as
more committed customers may be more forgiving
in their judgments.
For example, Ahluwalia et al. (2000) found that
consumer commitment moderated the effect of
negative public relations infomiation on subsequent
judgments. Their research indicates tbat customers
with higher commitment levels engaged in biased
processing of infomiation such that they counterar-
gued negative infomiation. The result of increased
counterarguing is an attitude more resistant to
change than those of customers with lower levels of
commitment. Similarly, in the face of negative
information stemming from a product-bami crisis,
Dawar and PiUutla (2000) found that customers who
have some basis for holding the company in higher
regard also engage in biased processing, resolving any
ambiguity by discounting the negative infonnation.
Within the services context, research further suggests
that relationship coinmitment can insulate service
providers from a service failure, but only to a degree
(Hess et al., 2003; Maxham and Netemeyer, 2002;
Priluck, 2003; Tax et al., 1998). As in the opening
story. Rick, a committed customer of the apparel
manufacturer, discounted his cognition regarding
the questionable marketing behavior nither than his
cognition about the company when he leamed that a

6. 242 Rhea Ingram et al.
company to which he is highly committed was the
culprit. Therefore, customer judgment of a poten-
tially unethical behavior should hinge on the level of
commitment of the customer to the company.
Hence,
Hypothesis 2: A higher level of customer commitment
moderates the relationship between perceived
magnitude of harm and perceived faimess by
attenuating the strength ofthe relationship.
Consumers' evaluation of unethical behavior
Perceived faimess as well as expectations of each
party has been shown to affect satisfaction judgment
(see Oliver, 1997 for review; Berger et al., 1974).
Research indicates that consumers do hold ethical
expectations of corporations (Creyer and Ross,
1997) that in tum influence their judgments (J. L.
Thomas Jr., unpublished thesis). Ethical expectations
are consumer's predictions regarding the extent to
which a firm will behave morally. Ethical expecta-
tions are largely based on the consumer's direct
experience with the company, word-of-mouth
communications, and infomiation gathered from
secondary sources.
Building on the services Uterature finding that an
existing relationship with customers can insulate a
service provider against a service failure (Hess et al.,
2003), this study predicts that an established
relationship also impacts the development of
expectations (KeUey and Davis, 1994). The more
committed a consumer, the higher their expecta-
tion will be that the relationship wiU continue and
that the organization's behavior will be consistent
over time. This prediction foUows from assimila-
tion-contrast theory (Dawar and PiUutla, 2000;
Sherif and Hovland, 1961) in suggesting that
information processing wiU be guided by the con-
sumer's existing expectations. Consequently, in an
ethical judgment, a consumer's expectations wiU
frame their interpretation of the questionable
behavior. Therefore, we predict that a consumer's
level of commitment wiU affect their expectations,
and when a consumer is faced with a Rmi's
unethical behavior their ethical expectations of that
company will influence their satisfaction level with
the company.
Hypothesis 3: Perceived faimess is positively related to
customer satisfaction.
Hypothesis 4: Customer commitment is positively
related to ethical expectations.
Hypothesis 5: Ethical expectations are positively re-
lated to satisfaction.
The relationship between satisfaction and behav-
ioral intentions has been weU documented (Oliver,
1997; Oliver and Swan, 1989). One important
behavioral intention to marketers is how Ukely
individuals wiU return to repeat purchase products.
An individual's likelihood of doing business with a
company in the future is referred to as repeat pur-
chase intention. If satisfied with a relationship, con-
sumers are wiUing to continue the relationship.
Hypothesis 6a: Customer satisfaction is positively re-
lated to repeat purchase intention.
Word-of-mouth research has grown extensively
in the marketing literature, especially in the
satisfaction and complaining behavior realm. Taxo-
nomies of word-of-mouth behavior include a three-
dimensional classification schema comprising voice
(i.e., seeks redress from the seller, complains to the
seUer), private action (i.e., wams friends or others),
and third party response (i.e., takes legal action,
complains to a consumer agency) (Day and Landon,
1977; Singh, 1988). The majority of dissatisfied
consumers wiU participate in word-of-mouth as
opposed to either taking no action or registering a
formal complaint (Richins, 1983).
Word-of-mouth intention is defined in this study
as the consumers' beUef that they wiU or wiU not tell
members of their social set about the unethical
behavior (Richins, 1983); however, word-of-mouth
conimunications can be either positive or negative in
nature. Research has indicated that the level of sat-
isfaction impacts both the intention ofthe individual
to participate in word-of-mouth, as well as the va-
lence of such activity (OUver and Swan, 1989; Swan
and Oliver, 1991). Therefore, this study predicts
that:
Hypothesis 6b: Customer satisfaction is positively rel-
ated to the valence of word-of-mouth intention.

7. Consumers' Evaluation of Unethical Behaviors 243
Method
Sample and procedures
A study which focused consumers on a critical
incident regarding each consumer's experience with
a questionable marketing behavior was conducted.
The study was a self-admitiistered questionnaire
containing two sections. In the first section,
respondents were asked to think for five minutes
about an incident to which they were exposed that
involved 'questionable marketing behavior' and then
to document the incident hy writing a short narra-
tive story about their experience. After completing
the narrative, the respondents then answered several
multi-item scales measuring their attitudes and
opinions pertaining to the story they described. A
pre-test confinned that most subjects were able to
generate a written narrative regarding questionable
marketing behavior. Questionable marketing
behavior was characterized as any action{s) that a
company engaged in that was inconsistent with what
individuals or society would deem appropriate or
acceptable.
The narratives, then, served the single purpose
of triggering an incident in the respondent's
memory where they felt a company had per-
tonned immorally and consequently provided a
focal point for the multi-item measures. The
written narrative of critical incidents experienced
by respondents reduced the contrived nature
.issociated with the common scenario method (cf
Franke, 1999). The personal narrative method
reflects reality, while not restricting the type of
behavior being perceived when a breach between
->elf and society has occurred (Riessman, 1990),
and encourages individuals to reveal perceptions of
satisfaction/dissatisfaction and evaluations of quality
(Stem et al., 1998). The following narratives are
illustrations of consumers' recall of unethical
incidents.
The most questionable marketing behavior that I can
recall hearing involves the tobacco industry. They
have been accused of withholding information regard-
ing the long-term effects of tobacco use on a person's
health. They have also been accused of directing some
of their advertising toward teenagers to try to get them
to start smoking. (21 year old male)
Best Buy advertises free financing with no payments
for a specified time, usually a year. What people
don't realize is Best Buy adds on 20%+ interest at
the end of the year if it has not been paid off. I
know some people that were tricked by their 'fi-ee
financing' slogan and it cost them a few hundred
dollars. (24, female)
A company advertised specials on computers weekly
in their Sunday ads. An advertisement was published
for a package with no interest financing until January
2001. When the package was purchased and the
contract signed, there was to be no interest until
2001 along with S 600.00 in rebates. The contract
was not valid, because the largest rebate was not
going to be honored. The manufacturer was not
aware of the company's advertising and now further
action may be taken. The consumer now has no re-
bate of $600.00 and the interest may be charged if
both companies do not come to an agreement. The
consumer is at a COMPLETE loss. (26, female)
A total of 738 surveys were distributed to a quota-
convenient sample (Mick, 1996) of adult consumers in
a southeastern metropolitan area. Of these consumers,
340 retumed the questionnaires. After eliminating
incomplete questionnaires, the fmal sample consisted
of 334 consumers, providing a response rate of 46%.
Based on demographic and dependent variables, no
significant differences were found between early and
late respondents. Table I describes the sample in
temis of the gender, marital status, education, eth-
nicity and income of respondents. A comparison be-
tween the fmal sample and the demographic profile of
the metropolitan area (also provided in Table I) in
which the sample transpired indicates that the sample
generally represented the area population.
Measures
Multi-item scales captured respondents' attitudes and
beliefs regarding characteristics of the written nar-
rative they presented. All of the multi-item scales
were adapted from those previously developed in
prior research. Each construct and scale is next
presented.
Perceived magnitude of harm
Singhapakdi et al. (1996) constmcted a six-item scale
measuring Jones' (1991) moral intensity construct.

8. 244 Rhea Ingram et al.
TABLE I
Demographic characteristics: metropolitan area^ vs. sample
Metropolitan area
Percent
Sample
Number Percent
Gender
Male
Female
Marital status
Married
Not married
Education
High school only
College (B.S.) only
Post-graduate
Ethnicity
Black/African-American
Asian-American
Hispanic
White/European American
Native American
Other
Income'^
Below $20,000
20,000-49,999
50,000-79,999
80.000 and above
47%
53
na
na
23%
44
12%
13.2%
2.2
1.4
83.0
0.2
na
44%
33
13
10
154
181
176
154
43
175
117
15
10
2
284
5
9
86
139
56
42
46%
54
52.5%
46
12.8%
52.2
34.9
4.5%
3.0
0.6
84.8
1.5
2.7
25.7%
41.5
16.7
12.5
"Census data information.
Only includes individuals over 25 years of age.
division within the categories are not equivalent between county and sample.
The scale consisted of six items reflecting each ofthe
dimensions representing moral intensity. Using
exploratory factor analysis, two dimensions were
identified and labeled as 'perceived potential harm/
no harm' and 'perceived social pressure'. The items
from the 'perceived harm/no hami' dimension were
adopted as they were of specific interest in this study.
Example items of the seven-point Likert scales
included, 'The overall harm done as a result ... was
very small,' and 'There was a very small likelihood ...
would cause any harm.'
Customer commitment
Customer commitment is an attitudinal variable
which involves an individual's beliefs and acceptance
of goals and values ofthe organization, expression of
genuine interest in the company's welfare, expendi-
ture of considerable effort on its behalf, and desire to
remain a consumer (Kelley and Davis, 1994). This
construct has been previously examined in the service
literature (Bettencourt, 1997; Kelley and Davis,
1994), and has been modified (or the setting of this
study. The 14-item scale rated how respondent's felt
about the company described in their story prior to
the incident on seven-point Likert scales ranging from
strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (7). Example
items included, 'I felt very little loyalty to the com-
pany,' 'I found that my values and the values (the
company) were very similar,' and 'I really cared about
the fate of (the company).'
Perceived fairness
Trevino (1986) defmed ethical judgment as the
process of deciding what is right or wrong in a sit-
uation. Perceived faimess was measured using Oliver
and Swan's (1989) 3-item scale Using seven-point

9. Consumers' Evaluation of Unethical Behaviors 245
scales, theses items asked respondents to rate per-
ceptions of faimess as: treated unfairly/treated fairly;
treated wrong/treated right; unfair deal/fair deal.
Ethical expectations
Ethical expectations are a consumer's perceptions
regarding the ethicaJity of a firm based upon the
consumer's own direct experiences, word-of-mouth
communications, and information gathered from
secondary sources (J. L. Thomas Jr., unpublished
thesis). A five-item measure was used which asked
respondents to rate their knowledge ofthe company
on a seven-point Likert scale. Examples items in-
cluded, 'I expect the company in my story to behave
morally,' 'Generally, the behavior of the company
(in my story) is not acceptable.'
Customer satisfaction
Satisfaction with the company was measured with six
Items from a bipolar adjective scale tested by West-
brook and Oliver (1991). This measure is a general
satisfaction measure that was modified to capture
consumers' satisfaction with the finn identified in
their story. Example items were anchored: 'The
company pleased me/The company displeased me,'
'Very dissatisfied with the company/Very satisfied
with the company,' and 'Unhappy with the com-
pany/Happy with the company.'
Behavioral intentions
Most research has examined behavioral intentions
utilizing a single-item measure. However, a total of
six items, three each of repeat purchase and word-
of-mouth intentions, were developed for this study.
These items were measured using a seven-point
Likert scale. Example items included, 'After I
became aw^are of the incident in my story, I made
additional purchases fi-om the company,' 'After the
incident in my story, I began patronizing another
company,' 'I speak positively to other about
the company in my story,' and 'I warn others about
the company in my story.'
Assessing reliability and validity
Reliability
Coefficient alpha and item-to-total correlation of
each multi-item scale was assessed. All scales sur-
passed the minimum level of acceptability of .70
coefficient alpha (Nunnally, 1978; Peterson, 1994).
Some items with low item-to-total correlation,
however, were further examined during the initial
validity assessment and as a result six items were
deleted from the fmal analysis. The coefficient alphas
were recalculated and reported in Table IL
Validity
Intercorrelations among items revealed that questions
purporting to measure the same construct were
moderately to highly correlated (i.e., intercorrelatiotis
within items for each construct ranged from 0.24 to
0.86). Also, correlations between items measuring the
same construct were higher than correlations bet:ween
itenis assessing different, providing preliminary evi-
dence of discriminant validity. Items were further
evaluated using confirmatory factor analysis. Table II
shows the results using the chi-square statistic for the
seven-factor model. As expected due to non-normal
data the fit of the models improved when the
SCALED statistic was employed. The chi-squared
and SCALED chi-square statistic was improved for a
seven-factor model from the one-factor model. In
addition, goodness-of-fit indexes suggested an
acceptable fit ofthe data in the seven-factor model.
Three additional independent tests (i.e., confidence
interval, shared vanance, and chi-squared difference
tests) were conducted to examine discriminant valid-
ity. The confidence interval test examined whether
the confidence intervals (± two standard errors)
around the correlation between any two factors in-
cluded 1.0. In none ofthe cases did the confidence
interval contain 1.0, thereby indicating discriminant
validity. The variance extracted test (Foniell and
Larcker, 1981; Hatcher, 1994; Shamia, 1996) and the
chi-squared difference tests demonstrated further
support for discriminant validity. All the variance ex-
tracted estimates for each pair of constructs were
greater than the squared correlation between the two
factors (see Table II). Chi-squared difference tests also
provided evidence of discriminant validity as each
pairwise chi-squared statistic was significant (p < .001).
Analysis and results
The results are presented in Tables III and IV.
Various regression analyses were performed to

10. 246 Rhea Ingram et al.
TABLE I!
Measurement model results
Fit
Measurement model
Intcmai consistency
Perceived magnitude of harm
Customer commitment
Perceived faimess
Ethical expectarions
Satisfaction
Behavioral intentions
Correlations among latent variables
Perceived magnitude of harm
Customer commitment
Perceived faimess
Ethical expectations
Satisfaction
Behavioral intentions
SCALED X
1217.64
Composite
0.88
0.90
0.99
0.97
0.96
0.86
PMH
1.00
-0.133
-0.527
-0.469
-0.458
-0.366
d(
608
reliability
C
1.00
0.218
0.387
0.292
0.321
CEI
0.909
Coefficient
0.85
0.90
0.96
0.75
0.96
0.86
PE
1.00
0.449
0.653
0.525
AGEi
0.776
alpha
EXP
1.00
0.553
0.565
RMR
0.220
RMSEA
0.063
Average variance ex-
tracted
0.54
0.46
0.89
0.51
0.79
0.52
SAT
LOO
0.779
BI
1.00
Note: The % statistic is significant at the .01 level, and all correlations are significant at die .01 level with the exception of
the correlation between Perceived magnitude of harm and Customer commitment at the .05 level.
evaluate the hypotheses. In addition, Pearson cor-
relations were examined to detect significant rela-
tionships among variables. Perceived faimess served
as the dependent variable in the first two analyses
(see Table III), while other variables were the
predictor variables of interest in Table IV.
A simple regression analysis was utilized to test the
prediction for hypothesis 1 which suggests a negative
relationship between perceived magnitude of the
harm and perceived faimess. In other u'ords, the
higher the perceived magnitude ofthe hami, the less
the act is perceived fair. The regression model
TABLE Ul
Regression model comparisons
Predictors Sig.
Step 1:
Step 2:
Dependent variaiyle: Perceived faimess
Perceived magnitude of harm
Customer commitment
Perceived magnitude of harm
Customer commitment
Perceived magnitude of harm x Customer commitment
0.300
0.013
0.507
0.150
0.209
0.466
0.420
0.001
0.000
0.001
0.013
0.103
0.001
0.013
Note: N-327. Tabled values are standardized regression weights.

11. Consumers' Evaluation of Unethical Behaviors 247
indicated a strong negative relationship (P .527,
^1 < .000) and accounted for 27.8% of the variance
in the dependent variable (R" = .278, F = 125.076,
/) = .000). Therefore, hypothesis 1 was supported.
An additional regression analysis was conducted
controlling for the variables that could be related to
consumers' perceived faimess (i.e., ethicaljudgment).
When entering the variables (i.e., sex, age, education
level, income, and social desirability) as a block prior
to examining the main and interaction effects, results
indicated no difference between the two R-squared
values (F = 1.692) and all beta weights for the
additional variables were insignificant.
In testing that customer commitment moderated
the relationship between perceived magnitude of
harm and perceived faimess, a hierarchical regression
approach (Cohen and Cohen, 1983) was perfonned.
Step 1 consisted of the simple regression described
above, then customer commitment scores were
entered in Step 2, and fmally the cross-product of
the two variables were entered in Step 3. An inter-
action effect exists if the difference between the two
coefficients of detemiination {R ) is statistically sig-
nificant and the interaction path is significant.
Table III shows the hierarchical regression results
where the moderated interaction term accounted for
significant proportions of tbe variance in perceived
faimess (R^ = .313, F = 49.146, p = .000) and the
Loecient of the interaction term was statistically
significant (-.420, p < .05) indicating that the
higher levels of customer commitment attenuate the
perceived faimess ot the act.
The relationships predicted in hypotheses 3
through 6b were examined by analyzing Pearson
correlations. Each ofthe relationships (H3-H6b) was
predicted to be positive in nature, stating that an
increase in one variable would lead to an increase in
.mother. As seen previously in Table II, the signs of
the relationships supported all the predicted direc-
tion of associations, Hypotheses 6a and 6b were
further assessed by dividing the items into two
categories, repeat purchase and word-of-mouth
intentions, and calculated Pearson correlations for
each. Word-of-mouth intentions had a slightly
higher correlation (.734, p < .01), while repeat
purchase intentions was equivalent (.694, p < .01),
thus supporting both hypotheses.
To further support the consumers' evaluation of
unethical marketing behaviors model, regression
analysis was utilized to detemiine the mediation
effects of particular variables. This model adopts an
equity theory framework, which indicates that per-
ceived faimess, ethical expectations, and satisfaction
each act as mediating variables in determining
consumers' behavioral intentions. These mediating
relationships can be detennined by analyzing a series
of regression equations (Barron and Kenny, 1986).
Table IV supports the model by indicating the three
variables are mediators to behavioral intentions.
For each ofthe predicted mediation relationships,
the independent variables had significant coefficients
when regressed with the mediator and outcome
variable, but appeared non-significant when
controlling for the mediator variable. The only
exception was in determining perceived faimess as a
mediator. When controlling for perceived faimess in
the regression analysis, the coefficient for magnitude
of harm was significant suggesting a direct relation-
ship with satisfaction. However, the absolute size is
also a 'critical' factor to examine along with the
significance of the coefficients (Barron and Kenny,
1986, p. 1177). The results suggested partial support
for perceived faimess as a mediator in that the beta
weight of magnitude ot hann decreased (—.458,
p = .000 to —.157, p = .001) when controlling for
perceived faimess. Therefore, the results suggested
support for each predicted mediation relationships in
the consumers' evaluation of unethical marketing
behavior model.
Discussion
Consumers are often faced with available informa-
tion about the questionable behavior ot organiza-
tions with which they are involved in exchange
relationships. This paper addressed an important
question: what effect does unethical behavior have
on how customers judge a firm? Specifically, we
examined the impact of customer commitment to an
organization on their ethical judgment ofthe firm, as
well as satisfaction and future purchase intentions.
The results indicated that customer commitment
moderates the relationship between magnitude of
hanri and perceived faimess and infiuences ethical
expectations. Ethical expectations, in tum, are pos-
itively related to satisfaction, which has a positive
impact on fliture intentions.

12. 248 Rhea Ingram et al.
TABLE IV
Regression analysis test for mediation
Equations F-value
Predicted mediator: Ethical expectations
Cust Com. —» Ethical Exp.
Cust. Com. -^ Satisfaction
Cust. Com.
+ Ethical Exp. —> Satisfaction
Predicted mediator: Perceived faimess
Magnitude of harm —> Per. fair.
Magnitude of harm —> Satisfaction
Magnitude of harm
+ Per. fair. —> Satisfaction
Predicted mediator: Satisfaction
Perceived faimess —> Satisfaction
Perceived faimess —> Beh. Int.
Perceived faimess
+ Satisfaction —> Beh. Int.
0.150
0.085
0.313
0.278
0.209
0.444
0.427
0.276
0.607
57.417**
30.268**
73.721**
125.076**
86.104**
129.584**
241.823**
123.390**
249.774**
0.387**
0.292**
0.091
0.517**
-0.527**
-0.458**
-0.157**
0.570**
0.653**
0.525**
0.032
0.758**
Note: N-327. Tabled values are standardized regression weights.
*Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
TIteoretical itnplications
Although the findings ofthe interaction effect in this
study (more committed customers are more forgiv-
ing in their judgments) does not seem to be
explained by equity theory, this particular theory
offers another framework in which to examine
consumers' evaluation of unethical marketing
behaviors (Alexander, 2002). A closer look at the
nature of the interaction effect denotes that no
matter the level of commitment from a consumer, as
magnitude of hami increases over a particular
threshold, most consumers will begin to perceive an
act unfair. Marketing, as well as economics htera-
ture, has identified various types of harm (e.g.,
physical, psychological, financial, social) that could
create different outcomes. A better quantifiable
interpretation of the magnitude of barm might
benefit the understanding of the interaction more
appropriately. For example, research could identify if
the level of harm or the type of hami has different
infiuences on consumers' evaluations.
In addition, research should further investigate
ethical expectations. As mentioned earher, these
expectations do play an important role in many
marketing situations. Marketers need to better
understand not only how expectations infiuence the
overall evaluation but also understand at which
stage(s) of this model are expectations most impor-
tant. Research has identified various types of
expectations (Boulding et al., 1993). The present
study does not delineate between the various types,
however, they may influence an evaluation differ-
ently; nor does the current study measure confir-
mation of expectations which has been shown to
influence satisfaction formation (see Oliver, 1997).
Managerial implications
This study has several implications for managing a
questionable incident: how to recover from the
wrongdoing; how to manage the expectations of
consumers regarding corporate behavior; and bow
intervention of external organizations might
diminish unethical behavior. Although the findings
suggest that highly committed consumers forgive
companies for behaviors when perceived hami is
low, the results also indicate that highly commit-
ted consumers become progressively dissatisfied as
the level of perceived hann increases. Therefore,
companies should not only implement pohcies

13. Consumers' Evaluation of Unethical Behainors 249
that guide ethical behavior among their employ-
ees, they should also create contingency plans for
quick recovery (Alexander, 2002) to minimize
incidents of perceived harm. For example, in an
interview with Fortune magazine, Exxon's CEO
stressed that the one thing he would do differendy
is to address the public immediately regarding any
problem.
Another imphcation of this research is that com-
panies who pride themselves on ethical behavior
should monitor the ethical expectations of con-
sumers. For example, many companies who have
been awarded with various ethics awards (e.g..
Better Business Bureau Torch Awards) promote this
honor in their advertisements. The results of this
research support that ethical expectations do impact
consumer perceptions and behaviors, but were
inconclusive as to exactly what role etbical expec-
tations play in consumers' evaluation of unethical
marketing behaviors. Ethical expectations may
infiuence the process at various stages ofthe evalu-
ations. For instance, a retailer like Bath and Body
Works, who prides themselves on animal rights,
might react quite negatively if a supplier was found
to use animals in testing products.
In addition, these companies should not only ad-
dress reactions of consumers who are committed to
their company, but also not committed. Low com-
mitted consumers, according to this study, appear to
become disgrunded no matter the perceived mag-
nitude of hann caused. This finding indicates that
companies' unethical behavior generates disapproval
causing a great amount of negative publicity not only
for itself but for other stakeholders (e.g., other indi-
viduals, suppliers) as well. In the late 1990s,
universities were reaping negative sentiments from
their use of NIKE products in athletics departments
and hcensed apparel (Healy, 2000; Marklein, 2000;
'Sweatshop Protest', 1999).
Limitations
Tbe ethics literature identifies a multitude of factors
which infiuence ethical judgments, while this study
focuses primarily on the commitment of the con-
sumer to the company. Further research should
incorporate multiple variables to identify how each
variable, individually and cooperatively, impacts
consumer ethical evaluations. In addition, future
research should measure the specific inputs and
outcomes of the ethical situation, as this may add
more insight into the evaluation process (Oliver and
Swan, 1989; Swan and Oliver, 1991). The business-
to-business market also provides a rich context for
examining these issues. How would retailers react to
unethical behavior on part the of a manufacturer?
Perhaps they would withdraw from the relationship
in an effort to restore equity.
While the richness of the written narrative
approach overcomes the contrived nature of the
scenarios, the use of written narratives creates limi-
tations as well. Written narratives do not allow for
testing of specific unethical behaviors, but produce a
wide range of behaviors which may vary on aspects
other than simply magnitude of hami. Additionally,
the time lapse between when the act actually
occurred until the respondent answered tbe ques-
tionnaire was not monitored. Several months could
have fallen between the two time penods causing
respondents to inaccurately recall the event details,
in addition to their level of customer commitment
prior to the incident. Future research should ac-
count for this time delay, but also might additionally
consider the impact of the passage of time on con-
sumer evaluations.
Notes
This story is based on actual conversation. For sake of
confidentiality, fictitious names are used.
Early respondents include those surveys returned the
first three weeks vs. late respondents the last three
weeks.
References
Ahluwalia, R., R. E. Bumkrant and H. R. Unnava: 2000,
'Consumer Response to Negative Pubhcity: The
Moderating Role of Commitment',yoHmn/ ofMarketing
Research 37, 203-214.
Alexander, E. C; 2002, 'Coasumer Reactions to
Unethical Service Recovery', Journal of Business Etiiics
36(3). 223-237.
Babin, B. J., J. S. Boles and M. Grifiln: 1999, 'Buyer-
Seller Interactions: The Role of Ethical Perceptions on
Customer Attitudes and Intentions', in A, Menon and
A. Shanna (eds.). Proceedings of American Marketing

14. 250 Rliea Ingram et al.
Association Winter Educators' Conference {American
Marketing Association, Chicago, IL), p. 270.
Bagozzi, R. P.: 1975, 'Marketing as Exchange', Joumei/ of
Marketing 39, 32-39.
Bamett, T.: 2001, 'Dimensions of Moral Intensity and
Ethical Decision Making: An Empirical Study Joumal
ofApplied Social Psyciiohgy 31(5), 1038-1057.
Bamett, J. H. and M. J. Karson: 1987, 'Personal Values
and Business Decisions: An Exploratory Investigation',
Journal of Business Ethics 6, 371—382.
Barron, R. M. and D. A. Kenny: 1986, 'The Moderator-
Mediator Variable Distinction in Social Psychological
Research: Conceptual, Strategic, and Statistical Con-
siderations', Joumal of Personality and Social Psychology
51(6), 1173-1182.
Bejou. D., C. T. Ennew and A. Palmer: 1998, 'Trust,
Ethics, and Relationship Satisfaction', Intemationai
Journal of Bank Marketing 16, 170-175.
Bendapudi, N. and L. L. Berry: 1997, 'Customers'
Motivations for Maintaining Relationships with Ser-
vice Providers', Jciima/ of Retailing 73, 15-38(Spring).
Berger, J., M. H. Fisek, R. Z. Norman and M. Zelditch,
Jr.: 1974, Expectation States Theory: A Theoretical
Research Program (Winthrop, Cambridge, MA).
Bettencourt, L. A.: 1997, 'Customer Voluntary Perfor-
mance: Customers as Partners in Service Debvery',
Joumal of Retailing 73, 383-406(FalI).
Bone, P. F. and R. J. Corey: 2000, 'Packaging Ethics:
Perceptual Differences among Packaging Professionals,
Brand Managers, and Ethically-interested Consumers',
Joumal of Business Ethics 24(3), 199-213.
Boulding, W., A. Kalra, R. Staelin and V. A. Ziethaml:
1993, 'A Dynamic Process Model of Service Quality:
From Expectations to Behavioral Intentions',Jowmd/ of
Marketing Research 30, 7-27.
Brockner, J. and L. Adsit: 1986, 'The Moderating Impact
of Sex on the Equity-Satisfaction Relationship: A Field
Study',/ciimd/ of Applied Psychology 71, 585-590.
Campbell, M. C: 1999, 'Perceptions of Price Untaimess:
Antecedents and Consequences', Journal of Marketing
Research U, 187-199.
Cohen,J.andP. Cohen: 1983, AppliedMultiple Regressionfor
f/if Bf/i(ii'jow/5aeMC«2(Lawrence Eribaum, Hillsdale N]).
Creyer, E. H. and W. T. Ross, Jr.: 1997. 'The Influence
of Firm Behavior on Purchase Intention: Do Con-
sumers Really Care About Business Ethics?', Joumal of
Consumer Marketing 14, 421—432.
Davis, M. A., N. B. Johnson and D. G. Omher: 1998,
'Issue-Contingent Effects of Ethical Decision Making:
A Cross-Cultural Comparison', Joumal of Business
Btlucs 17, 373-389.
Dawar, N. and M. M. PiUutla: 2000, 'Impact of Product-
Hann Crises on Brand Equity: The Moderating Role
of Consumer Expectations', Joumal of Marketing
Research 37(2), 215-226.
Day, R. L. and E. L. Landon, Jr.: 1977, 'Toward a
Theory of Consumer Complaining Behavior', in A.
Woodside, J. Sheth and P. Bennett (eds.). Consumer
and Industrial Buying Behavior (North-Holland, Inc.,
New York, NY), p. 425-437.
Domoff, R. J. and C. B. Tankersley: 1975, 'Perceptual
Differences in Market Transactions: A Source of
Consumer Frustration', Joumal of Consumer Affairs 9.
97-103(Summer).
Dwyer, R. F., P. H. Schurr and S. Oh: 1987, *Devel^
oping Buyer-Seller Relationships', JoMnw/ of Marketing
51, 11-27.
Ferrell, O. C. and L. G. Gresham: 1985, "A Contin-
gency Framework for Understanding Ethical Deci-
sion Making in Marketing', Joumal of Marketing 49,
87-96.
Fisk, R. P. and K. A. Coney: 1982, "Postchoice Evalu-
ation: An Equity Theory Analysis of Consumer Sat-
isfaction/Dissatisfaction with Service Choices', in H.
K. Hunt and R. L. Day (eds.), Conceptual and Empirical
Contributions to Consumer Satisfaction and Complainin
Behamor (Indiana University School of Business,
Bloomingdale, IN), p. 9-16.
Folkes, V. S.: 1984, 'Consumer Reactions to Product
Failure: An Attribution Approach', Joimia/ of Consumer
Research 10, 398-409.
Folkes, V. S. and M. A. Kamins: 1999, 'Effects of
Information about Firms Ethical and Unethical
Actions on Consumers' Attitudes', yowmd/ of Consumer
Psychology 8(3), 243-259.
Ford, R. C. and W. D. Richardson: 1994, 'Ethical
Decision Making: A Review of the Empirical Litera-
ture', Jfumn/ of Btisiness Ethics 13, 205—221.
Fomell, C. and D. F. Larcker; 1981, 'Evaluating Struc-
tural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables
and Measurement ErroT Journal of Marketing Research
18, 39-50.
Franke, G. R.: 1999, 'The Consistency of Individual
Ethical Perceptions: A Meta-Analysis', in A. Menon
and A. Shamia (eds.). Proceedings ofthe American Mar-
keting Association Winter Educators' Conference (America
Marketing Association, Chicago, IL), p. 112-113.
Frey, B. F.: 2000, 'The Impact of Moral Intensity on
Decision Making in a Business Context', Joumal of
Business Ethics 26, 181-195.
FuUerton, S., K. B. Kerch and H. R. Dodge: 1996,
'Consumer Ethics: An Assessment of Individual
Behavior in the Market Place', Jonm<i/ ofBusiness Ethics
15, 8U5-814.
M. Galen and V. Cahan: 1990,'The Legal Reef Ahead for
Exxon', Business Week March 12, p. 39.

15. Consumers' Evaluation of Unethical Behaviors 251
Garbarino, E. and M. S. Johnson: 1999, The Different
Roles of Satisfaction, Trust, and Commitment in Cus-
tomer Relationships',Joumfl/ ofMarketing 63, 70-87.
Goodwin, C. and I. Ross: 1992, 'Consumer Responses to
Service Failure: Infiuence of Procedural and Interac-
tional Faimess Perceptions', yoMrwd/ of Business Research
25, 149-163.
Gundlach, G. T., R. S. Achrol andJ. T. Mentzer: 1995,
'The Structure of Commitment in Exchange', Joumal
of Marketing 59, 78-92.
Hatcher, L.: 1994, A Step-by-Step Approach to Using the
SAS System for Factor Analysis and Stmctural Equation
Modeling (SAS Institute, Inc, Cary, NC).
Healy. M.: 2000, 'Sweatshops Protest Gain Momentum
on Campuses', USA Today, Febmary 17, lOD.
Hess, R. L., S. Ganesan and N. M. Klein: 2003, 'Service
Failure and Recovery: The Impact of Relationship
Factors on Customer Satisfaction', yowrnd/ ofthe Acad-
emy of Marketing Science 31(2), 127-145.
Hunt, S. D. and S. Vitetl, Jr.: 1986, 'A General Theory
of Marketing Ethics', Joumal of Macromarketing 6, 5
-16.
Jones, T. M.: 1991, 'Ethical Decision Making by Indi-
viduals in Organizations: An Issue-Contingent Model',
Academy of Management Review 16, 366—395.
Kelley, S. W. and M. A. Davis: 1994, 'Antecedents of
Customer Expectations for Service Recovery', Joumal
if the Academy of Marketing Science 22, 52-61(Winter).
Lagace, R. R., R. Dahlstrom and J. B. Gassenheimer:
1991, 'The Relevance of Ethical Salesperson Behavior
on Relationship Quality: The Pharmaceutical Indus-
try", Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management 4,
39-47(FaU).
Lastovicka, J. L. and D. M. Gardner: 1978, 'Components
of Involvement', inJ. L. Maloney and B. Silvennan
(eds.). Attitude Research Playsfor High Stakes (American
Marketing Association, Chicago, IL), p. 53-73.
Marklein, M. B.: 2000, 'Making Them Sweat: Students
Step Up Pressure to Hold CoUeges Accountable for
Apparel*, USA Today April 13, ID.
Martins, M. and K. B. Monroe: 1994, 'Perceived Price
Fairness: A New Look at an Old Constmct', in C. T.
Allen and D. Roedder John (eds.), Advances in Con-
sumer Research (Association of Consumer Research,
Provo, UT), p. 75-78.
Mathieu, J. E. and D. M. Zajac: 1990, 'A Review and
Meta-Analysis of the Antecedents, Correlates, and
Consequences of Organizational Commitment', Psy-
dwlogical Bulletin 108, 171-194.
Maxham, J. G. and R. G. Netemeyer: 2002, 'A Longi-
tudinal Study of Complaining Customers' Evaluations
of Multiple Service Failures and Recovery Efforts',
Jot4mal of Marketing 66, 57—69.
Mick, D. G.: 1996, 'Are Studies of Dark Side Variables
Confounded by Socially Desirable Responding? The
Case of Materialism', yoHma/ of Consumer Research 23,
106-119.
Morgan, R. M. and S. D. Hunt: 1994, 'The Commit-
ment-Trust Theory of Relationship Marketing', Jowr-
nal of Marketing 58, 20-38.
Morris, S. A. and R. A. McDonald: 1995, 'The Role of
Moral Intensity in Moral Judgments: An Empirical
Investigation', Jo»m<i/ of Business Ethics 14, 715-726.
Mowday, R. T., L. W. Porter and R. M. Steers: 1982,
Employee-Organizationai Linkages (Academic Press,
New York, NY).
Mowen, J. C. and S. J. Grove: 1983, 'Search Behavior,
Price Paid, and the "Comparison Other": An Equity
Theory Analysis of Post Purchase Satisfaction', in R. L.
Day and H. K. Hunt (eds.), (Indiana University School
of Business, Bloomingdale IN), pp. 57—63.
NunnaUy, J. C: 1978, Psychometric Tiieory (McGraw-Hill,
New York, NY).
Oliver, R. L.: 1997, Satisfaction: A Behavioral Perspective on
the Consumer (McGraw-HiU, New York, NY).
Oliver, R. L. andJ. E. Swan: 1989, 'Consumer Percep-
tions of Interpersonal Equity and Satisfaction in
Transactions: A Field Survey Approach', Joumal of
Marketing 53, 21-35.
Peterson, R. A.: 1994, 'A Meta-Analysis of Cronbach's
Coefficient Alpha', Joumal of Consumer Research 21,
381-392.
Priluck, R.: 2003, 'Relationship Marketing can Mitigate
Product and Service Failure', Tiie Journal of Services
Marketing 17(1), 37-51.
RaUapaUi, K. C, S. J. ViteU, F. A. Wiebe and J. H.
Bames: 1994, 'Consumer Ethical Beliefs and Person-
ality Traits: An Exploratory Analysis',_/owmfl/ ofBusiness
Ethics 13, 487^95.
Rest, J, R.: 1986, Moral Development: Advances in Research
and Tlteory (Praeger, New York, NY).
Richins, M.: 1983, 'Negative Word-of-Mouth by Dis-
satisfied Consumers: A PUot Study',_/oMmi3/ ofMarketing
47, 68-78(Winter).
Riessman, C. K.: 1990, Divorce Talk: Women and Men
Make Sense oJ Personal Relationships (Rutgers Univenity
Press, New Brusnwick, NJ).
Schmitt, B. H.: 2003, Customer Experience Management: A
Revolutionary Approach to Connecting with your Customers
(John Wiley and Sons, Inc, New York).
Sharma, S.: 1996, Applied Muitivariate Techniques (John
WUey and Sons, Inc, New York, NY).
Sherif, M. and C. L Hovland: 1961, SocialJudgment (Yale
University Press, New Haven, CT).
Singer, M. S.: 1996, 'The Role of Moral Intensity and
Faimess Perception in Judgments of Ethicality: A

16. 252 Rhea Ingram et al
Comparison of Managerial Professionals and the
General Vuhhc Joumal of Business Ethics 5, 469-474.
Singer, M. S. and A. E. Singer: 1997, 'Observer Judg-
ments about Moral Agent's Ethical Decisions: The
Role of Scope ofjustice and Moral Intensity',Jouma/ of
Business Ethics 16, 473-484.
Singh, J.: 1988, 'Consumer Complaint Intentions and
Behavior: Definitional and Taxonomical Issues", Jour-
nal of Marketing 52, 93-107.
Singhapakdi, A., M. Y. A. Rawwas, J. K. Marta and M. I.
Ahmed: 1999a, 'A Cross-Cultural Study of Consumer
Perceptions about Marketing Ethics', Joumal of Con-
sumer Marketing 16(3), 257-272.
Singhapakdi, A., S. J. ViteU and K. L. Kraft: 1996,
'Moral Intensity and Ethical Decision-Making of
Marketing Professionals'. Joumal of Business Research
36, 245-255.
Singhapakdi, A., S.J. ViteU, C. P. Rao and D. L. Kurtz:
1999b, 'Ethics Gap: Comparing Marketers with
Consumers on Important Detenninants of Ethical
Decision-Making', Joumal of Business Ethics 21(4),
317-328.
Smith, A. K. and R. N. Bolton: 1998, 'An Experimental
Investigation of Customer Reactions to Service Failure
and Recovery Encounters',_/oMrHii/ ofService Research 1,
65-81.
Smith, A. K., R. N. Boiton and J. Wagner: 1999, 'A
Model of Customer Satisfaction with Service
Encounters Involving FaUure and Recovery, Jowmii/ of
Marketing Research 36, 356-362.
Smith, N. C. and E. Cooper-Martin: 1997, 'Ethics and
Target Marketing: The Role of Product Harm and
Consumer Vubierability',_/tJHmij/ ofMarketing 61, 1-20.
Stem, B. B., C. J. Thompson and E. J. Amould: 1998,
'Narrative Analysis of a Marketing Relationship: The
Consumer's Perspective', Psycliology and Marketing
15(3), 195-214.
Sturdivant, F. D. and A. B. Cocanoughen: 1973, 'What
are Ethical Marketing Practices?', Han>ard Business
Review 51, 10-17.
Swan, J. E. and R. L. Oliver: 1991, 'An Applied Analysis
of Buyer Equity Perceptions and Satisfaction with
Automobile Salespeople', Jowmti/ of Personal Selling and
Sales Management 11, 1 5—26(Spring).
Sweatshop Protest Ends in Agreement at Duke: 1999,
New York Times February 1: A18.
Szymanski, D. M. and D. H. Henard: 2001, 'Customer
Satisfaction: A Meta-Analysis of the Empirical Evi-
dence', Joumal of the Academy of Marketing Science 29,
16-35(Winter).
Tax, S. S., S. W. Brown and M. Chandrashekaran: 1998,
'Customer Evaluations of Service Complaint Experi-
ences: Implications for Relationship Marketing',
ofMarketing 62, 60-76.
Trevino, L. K.: 1986, 'Ethical Decision Making in
Organizations: A Person-Situation Interactionist
Model', Academy ofManagement Review 11, 601-617.
ViteU, S.J.,jr. andJ. Muncy: 1992, 'Consumer Ethics: An
Empirical Investigation of Factors Influencing Ethical
Judgments of the Final Consumer', Journal of Business
Ethics 11, 585-597.
Westbrook, R. A. and R. L. OUver: 1991, 'Developing
Better Measures of Consumer Sarisfaction: Some
Preliminary Results', in Kent B. Monroe (eds.).
Advances in Consumer Research (Association for Con-
sumer Research, Ann Arbor, MI), p. 94-99.
Whalen, J., R. E. Pitts andJ. K. Wong: 1991, 'Exploring
the Structure of Ethical Attributions as a Component
of the Consumer Decision Model: The Vicarious
Versus Personal Perspective', Joumai of Business Ethics
10, 285-293.
Wright, L. B., F. W. Morgan and J. J. Stoltman: 1999,
'International Comparative Advertising: Legal and
Managerial Issues', in S. P. Brown and D. Sudhanhan
(eds.). Proceedings for the American Marketing Associatio
Summer Educators' Conference (Amencan Marketing
Association, Chicago, IL), p. 171-172.
Rhea Ingram
Business Administration Department,
D. Abbott Turner College of Business^
Columbus State University,
4225 University Avenue, Columbus, GA 31907,
US.A.
E-mail: ingram_rhea@i:olstate.edu
Steven J. Skinner
Gatton College of Business and Economics,
School oJ Management — Marketing Area,
University of Kentucky,
Business and Economics Building, Lexington,
KY 40506-0034,
U.S.A.
E-mail: mkt2tO@pop.uky.edu
Valerie A. Taylor
Department of Marketing & Entrepreneurship
College of Business Administration,
The University of Tennessee at Chattanooga,
Chattanooga, TN 37403,
U.S.A.
E-mail: Valerie-Taylor@utc.edu