This is the author’s version of a work that was submitted/accepted for pub-lication in the following source:

Dootson, Paula, Johnston, Kim A., Beatson, Amanda T., & Lings, Ian(2016)Where do consumers draw the line? Factors informing perceptions andjustifications of deviant consumer behaviour.Journal of Marketing Management, 32(7-8), pp. 750-776.

This file was downloaded from: https://eprints.qut.edu.au/91385/

c© Copyright 2016 Westburn Publishers Ltd.

Notice: Changes introduced as a result of publishing processes such ascopy-editing and formatting may not be reflected in this document. For adefinitive version of this work, please refer to the published source:

https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2015.1131734

1

Where Do Consumers Draw the Line? Factors Informing Perceptions and

Justifications of Deviant Consumer Behaviour

Dr Paula Dootson*

QUT Business School, Queensland University of Technology

GPO Box 2434; Brisbane, QLD 4001

Phone: + 61 7 3138 2173 Email: paula.dootson@qut.edu.au

*Corresponding author

Dr Kim A. Johnston

QUT Business School, Queensland University of Technology

GPO Box 2434; Brisbane, QLD 4001

Phone: + 61 7 3138 4089 Email: kim.johnston@qut.edu.au

Dr Amanda Beatson

QUT Business School, Queensland University of Technology

GPO Box 2434; Brisbane, QLD 4001

Phone: + 61 7 3138 1241 Email: a.beatson@qut.edu.au

Prof Ian Lings

QUT Business School, Queensland University of Technology

GPO Box 2434; Brisbane, QLD 4001

Phone: + 61 7 3138 2972 Email: ian.lings@qut.edu.au

2

Abstract

Deviant consumer behaviour in the marketplace is an ongoing problem causing harm to

the organisation, employees, and other consumers. To address this problem, this study

explores consumer perceptions of right and wrong using the novel concept of a deviance

threshold – the mental line in the sand dictating right and wrong. Using consumer-based

interviews with a card-sort activity, findings supported and extended dimensions

proposed to explain why some behaviours are perceived as more serious or unethical than

others. Moreover, why specific neutralisation techniques are used and how they affect

categorisations of behaviours within an individual’s deviance threshold is explained. This

study offers alternative strategies tailored to challenging consumer justifications to curb

deviance. Implications support abandoning the universal approach to deterrence.

Keywords

Consumer, deviant, threshold, neutralisation, qualitative, deterrence

3

Where Do Consumers Draw the Line? Factors Informing Perceptions and

Justifications of Deviant Consumer Behaviour

Introduction

Most individuals draw a mental line in the sand representing their perceptions of

what behaviours are right and wrong in a given context. This line is conceptualised as an

individual’s deviance threshold. In a consumer setting, law and organisational policies

are in place to signal right and wrong consumer behaviours. Yet, despite the law and

organisational policies in place, consumers continue to undertake illegal behaviours and

behaviours that violate organisational policies (Daunt & Harris,2012). For instance, in

2013, $AU112 billion was lost globally to fraudulent returns by customers (Jager, 2013).

Fraudulent returns can include returning a shoplifted item (illegal) and lying about the

item being a gift as a reason to return (policy violation). While some consumers may

draw on law and policy to guide their actions, there seems to be evidence of consumers

drawing on multiple factors to decide what they perceive as right and wrong, or

normative. Normative behaviours are those that society generally agrees on as being

acceptable, yet there may not be a law or policy formally stipulating its acceptability. Past

research has shown that consumers vary in their perceptions of the ethicality (Neale &

Fullerton, 2010) and wrongness (Wilkes, 1978) of different consumer behaviours, based

on how consumers rate their perceptions on Likert scales. The factors underpinning why

these perceptions exist have not yet been explored: identifying them could be used to

understand the formation of the individual’s deviance threshold to better understand the

4

complexities of deviant consumer behaviour (DCB), ensuring better deterrence strategies

are employed.

Consumer behaviours that are against the law or regulations or that violate the

generally accepted norms of conduct are known as DCBs (Fullerton & Punj, 1993). DCB

can negatively affect employees, organisational assets, and other consumers (Fullerton &

Punj, 1997, 2004). A behaviour that is defined as deviant by external measures could still

be regarded as acceptable by a consumer if it falls within their deviance threshold: in

other words, if the consumer perceives the behaviour to be justified, evidenced by the

individual’s use of neutralisation techniques. Neutralisation techniques are

disengagement tools used to reduce anticipatory or actual cognitive dissonance

experienced from performing an act that contradicts with one’s underlying values and

beliefs (Festinger, 1957; Sykes & Matza, 1957). Understanding the underlying factors

informing an individual’s deviance threshold, and how these factors could relate to the

kinds of justifications consumers use to neutralise their DCBs, is valuable for creating

effective deterrence strategies tailored to challenge the justifications enabling enactment

of DCBs. Developing tailored deterrence strategies for organisations is important for

marketing managers as deterrence is no longer considered to have a universal effect on

individuals (Worrall, Els, Piquero, & TenEyck, 2014). The research for this current paper

recommends the abandonment of a ‘one-size-fits-all approach to deterrence’ in line with

criminological research on criminal deterrence strategies (Worrall et al., 2014, p. 341).

The first aim of this paper is to explore the factors informing an individual’s

deviance threshold. Drawing on existing conceptual literature, five factors are identified

that are likely to inform an individual’s deviance threshold (e.g. outcomes, intent). Data

5

from a series of qualitative interviews are used to support, reject, and/or extend on these

factors. The second aim is to extend on the work of Harris and Daunt (2011), by

examining how underlying factors (e.g. outcomes, intent) in consumer perceptions of

behaviour acceptability inform the use of specific neutralisation techniques to justify

perceptions of DCB. This will build a greater knowledge base on the use of these

techniques, as called for in the consumer ethics literature (Vitell, 2003). The factors that

inform the construction of an individual’s deviance threshold are mapped in this paper,

and used to examine how neutralisation techniques affect mental placement of behaviours

within that threshold.

The paper first presents a review of neutralisation techniques and their impact on an

individual’s deviance threshold, followed by a review of how behaviours are

distinguished from one another. The qualitative research design is subsequently discussed

and the results are presented. The paper concludes with a summary of the theoretical and

practical implications of this research, and the limitations and future research

opportunities.

Neutralisation techniques and deviance thresholds

Across a number of fields of research, including criminology, psychology,

management, and marketing, neutralisation techniques have been suggested to facilitate

the occurrence, maintenance, and escalation of deviant behaviour (e.g. Bandura,1991a;

Bonner & O’Higgins, 2010; Harris & Dumas, 2009; Strutton, Vitell, & Pelton, 1994;

Tenbrunsel & Messick, 2004; Zyglidopoulos, Fleming, & Rothenberg, 2009).

Neutralisation techniques are required to resolve the conflict between wanting to perform

6

DCBs for some benefit, while not having to negatively update their self-concept –

perception of oneself (Mazar, Amir, & Ariely, 2008). For most individuals there comes a

point – the deviance threshold – at which they cannot justify a greater degree of DCB, as

the magnitude of cognitive dissonance would be so large (Festinger, 1957; Mazar et al.,

2008). If an individual were to engage in behaviour beyond their own deviance threshold,

they would need to negatively update how they perceive themselves: in other words, they

would need to think badly of themselves. This goes against an individual’s inherent drive

to maintain a positive self-concept (Blasi, 1984; Cialdini, 1988; Festinger, 1957; Mazar et

al., 2008; Sirgy, 1982). The original framework of neutralisation techniques encompassed

denial of responsibility, denial of injury, denial of victim, condemnation of the

condemners, and appeal to higher loyalties (Sykes & Matza, 1957). Investigations have

expanded on these original techniques and proposed defence of necessity (Minor, 1981),

claim of entitlement (Coleman, 1994; McGregor,2008), normal practice (Coleman, 1994;

Henry, 1990), claim of relative acceptability (Henry & Eaton, 1989), metaphor of ledger

(Klockers, 1974), and justification by comparison (Cromwell & Thurman, 2003).

Denial of responsibility is used when the individual deflects responsibility for the

outcome of their behaviour to the external environment (Sykes & Matza, 1957).

Individuals using this neutralisation technique perceive themselves as being acted upon,

rather than acting on their own accord (Sykes & Matza, 1957). This creates

disengagement between an individual and their actions. While denial of responsibility

argues ‘I didn’t mean to do it’, defence of necessity alternatively argues ‘I had no other

choice but to do it’, the act was necessary to achieve a goal (Harris & Daunt, 2011;

Minor, 1981).

7

The claim of entitlement technique, originally proposed by Coleman (1994) in his

book on white-collar crime, was suggested by McGregor (2008) to also be evident in the

consumer context. McGregor (2008) suggested that claim of entitlement is used to justify

benefit from enacting a DCB. However, McGregor’s (2008) arguments were unsupported

by empirical data and thus there is an opportunity to find evidence for it in the consumer

context.

Denial of injury is used when the individual perceives their behaviour is not harming

others. Hence, the individual assesses the wrongfulness of an action by the level of injury

or harm resulting from the behaviour (Sykes & Matza, 1957). Another technique used to

similarly deflate the negative consequences incurred by the victim is the claim of relative

acceptability technique (Henry & Eaton, 1989), arguing there are ‘much worse

individuals than me’ (Harris & Daunt, 2011). The claim of relative acceptability

technique is limited to interpersonal comparisons. In contrast, the justification by

comparison technique judges behaviours against one another (Cromwell & Thurman,

2003). Behaviours are rationalised as being acceptable in comparison to more serious

forms of DCB that exist for anyone to perform. The metaphor of the ledger technique is

used to make comparisons between different behaviours the individual themselves

actually performs (Klockers, 1974). The metaphor of the ledger technique suggests that

behaviours can be deemed acceptable on the basis that the individual’s good behaviour

offsets their deviant actions. This means individuals can use their good behaviour as a

credit for bad behaviour. A field of research is growing around this concept of crediting

behaviour (‘moral credits’) (e.g. Merritt, Effron, & Monin, 2010).

8

The denial of victim technique is commonly employed when responsibility has been

taken, and injury has been acknowledged, yet the individual perceives the injury to be

justified – ‘a rightful retaliation or punishment’ (Sykes & Matza,1957, p. 668). The

victim could also be unknown or physically absent to the individual (Sykes & Matza,

1957). The absence of an identifiable victim makes it difficult for the consumer to feel

empathetic (Jenni & Loewenstein, 1997), facilitating enactment of the DCB.

The condemnation of the condemner’s technique is used by an individual to shift

attention to those condemning the individual’s behaviour (Sykes & Matza, 1957). This

technique is commonly used in the public arena, when opposing groups attack the

wrongfulness of the others’ behaviours to deflect from their own questionable

behaviours. The technique works on the premise that it is unfair to condemn one person,

without condemning all the individuals who engaged in similar actions (Coleman, 1994).

A similar perspective is offered by the neutralisation technique of normal practice, an

extension of Sykes and Matza’s (1957) framework, which rationalises that a behaviour is

acceptable if it is prevalent in society – ‘everybody else is doing it’ (Coleman, 1994;

Henry, 1990). As normative behaviours are suggested to reflect the popularity and social

approval of an act (Park & Smith, 2007), the use of the normal practice technique seeks

to remove the presence of cognitive dissonance by arguing their actions are normative,

not deviant.

The final technique of appeal to higher loyalties is used to justify upholding a norm of

a small sub-group of society at the cost of violating a wider societal norm (Sykes &

Matza, 1957). A parent acting to protect their child at the expense of breaking the law

9

would use this neutralisation technique, holding their loyalty to their child as higher than

their loyalty to obeying the law (Sykes & Matza, 1957).

These neutralisation techniques enable performance of DCB by distorting the link

between the individual’s actions and the consequences they cause (Bandura, 1991a,

1991b, 1999). Disengagement from the consequences of one’s actions could cause an

individual to engage in a behaviour originally considered by the individual to be

unacceptable, without much distress (Bandura, 1991a, 1999; Mazar et al., 2008). To date,

research has investigated the type of neutralisation technique used, relative to the

behaviour being examined (Harris & Daunt, 2011; Hinduja, 2007; Morris & Higgins,

2009) and the timing of its use – pre-and-post behaviour (Harris & Dumas, 2009).

However, it remains unclear what motivates the use of a specific neutralisation technique.

Neutralisation techniques explain why some DCBs are mentally positioned within an

individual’s deviance threshold. However, it is unclear (1) what factors inform where the

deviance threshold is positioned (i.e. where do consumers draw the line in the sand), and

(2) how those factors inform the kinds of neutralisation techniques an individual uses to

mentally retain DCBs within their deviance threshold, enabling them to be performed

without the individual negatively updating their self-concept. This paper argues that the

underlying factors influencing consumer perceptions of DCB are likely to inform the type

of neutralisation techniques used, a different perspective from existing literature. Taking

this alternate perspective means convergence of the results could lead to greater

generalisability of the knowledge on the use of neutralisation techniques, or identify gaps

in our knowledge. Five potential factors are identified in this paper as informing the

10

positioning of an individual’s deviance threshold, which could inform the use of a

specific neutralisation technique.

Factors informing the position of an individual’s deviance threshold

Past research has used conceptual (e.g. Fullerton & Punj, 2004) or post-hoc empirical

research (e.g. Muncy & Vitell, 1992) to categorise behaviours based on some common

underlying element such as the degree of harm caused or the normative nature of the

behaviour. Five overarching factors have been identified; (1) official classification of the

behaviour (law and policy), (2) perceived risk, (3) norms, (4) intent, and (5) perceived

outcomes. The five factors, along with their sub-dimensions, are outlined in Table 1. This

paper synthesises and empirically validates existing conceptual factors identified in the

literature as underpinning consumer perceptions of right and wrong. These are the factors

proposed to inform the positioning of an individual’s deviance threshold.

11

Table 1. Summary of conceptual dimensions used to classify behaviours as distinct from one another

Overarching factor Conceptual Dimensions Source

Official Classification – law & policy

- Regulated / Not regulated - Deceitful / Fraudulent act - Legal sanctions

(Moschis & Cox, 1989)

(Muncy & Vitell, 1992)

(Fullerton & Punj, 2004)

Perceived Risk - Magnitude of consequences* - Probability of effect* - Temporal immediacy*

(Jones, 1991)

(Jones, 1991)

(Jones, 1991)

Norms - Normative/Deviant - Social consensus - Social sanctions

(Moschis & Cox, 1989)

(Jones, 1991)

(Fullerton & Punj, 2004)

Intent - Passive or active the consumer was in the act - Nature of the act

(Muncy & Vitell, 1992)

(Fullerton & Punj, 2004)

Perceived Outcomes

- Degree of harm - Probability of harm - Type of harm - How many affected - Direction of harm

(victim)

- Degree of harm - Type and degree of disruption - The perceived consequences of each alternative, for those involved - The (un)desirability of the consequence incurred by those involved - The probability of the harm being incurred by those involved - Concentration of effect (intensity of harm caused) - The importance of each party involved in the behaviour - Proximity (nearness to victim)

(Muncy & Vitell, 1992)

(Fullerton & Punj, 2004)

(Hunt & Vitell, 1986)

(Hunt & Vitell 1986)

(Hunt & Vitell 1986)

(Hunt & Vitell 1986; Jones, 1991)

(Jones, 1991) Table 1 footnote: * If interpreted as effect on self (egoist) – then this can be interpreted as risk, if interpreted as effect on others (utilitarian) – then these can be interpreted as harm

12

The first factor, official classification, refers to the law or organisational policy,

which is used in society to formally categorise behaviours as acceptable or

unacceptable. Scholars have proposed the presence of formal regulation as a means to

distinguish between acceptable behaviours and DCBs (e.g. Amine & Gicquel, 2011;

Fullerton & Punj, 2004; Moschis & Cox,1989; Muncy & Vitell, 1992; Vitell &

Muncy, 2005). Current organisational deterrence strategies assume behaviours

officially classified by law or policy as unacceptable will be agreed with, and

complied with, by individuals. As such, Mitchell and Chan (2002) argue organisations

should overtly stress the wrongness of a DCB to deter consumers. Yet this may be an

ineffective approach, as some individuals do not internalise the morality on which

laws or organisational policy are based (Cooter, 2000). In other words, if individuals

perceive the law or policy to be unfair, or can justify violating it, they are more likely

to engage in the DCB (Gregoire & Fisher, 2007; Yi & Gong, 2008). When a

deterrence message (i.e. ‘It’s wrong, don’t do it’) contradicts an individual’s

perception of the behaviour, the message may be ignored to avoid experiencing

cognitive dissonance (Festinger,1957). Dissonance can subsequently be removed

depending on the factor most salient in the individual’s perception of right and wrong,

from the list discussed below. In order to remain effective at guiding perceptions of,

and engagement in a specific behaviour, the official classification needs to be backed

by punishment (Freeman, Liossis, & David, 2006), which leads to the second factor of

perceived risk.

When perceptions of risk are high, a specific behaviour is perceived to be

unacceptable, due to the threat of punishment (Freeman et al., 2006). However,

deterrence strategies that emphasise risk to deter DCB are only effective if the

perceived certainty of apprehension is high, perceived severity of punishment is

13

proportionate to the DCB, and punishment is enacted swiftly (Akers & Sellers, 2004;

Grasmick & Green, 1980). Most DCBs go undetected (Bandura, 1991a) due to the

extensive costs associated with policing and punishing them (Lin, Hastings, & Martin,

1994; Zetter, 2014). Therefore, a deterrent strategy relying on the threat of

punishment could be ineffective at signalling to consumers that a specified behaviour

is wrong. Where a DCB is not officially classified by law or policy as unacceptable,

or where perceptions of risk are low or absent, individuals could rely on norms to

inform their deviance threshold.

Norms, the third factor, guide perceptions of DCB based on the perceived

popularity and social approval of the act (Park & Smith, 2007). While norms are

proposed by a number of scholars as a means to distinguish between DCBs in their

degree of acceptability (e.g. Amine & Gicquel, 2011; Moschis & Cox, 1989), what

constitutes normative consumer behaviours varies among individuals. Individuals will

likely perceive normative behaviours as behaviours their peer group reinforces, while

deviant behaviours are punished via social sanctions (Akers & Sellers, 2004). When

social consensus – the level of agreement about an issue or behaviour – varies, it

results in varying perceptions of DCBs and various DCBs being performed in the

marketplace. When the social consensus is that a particular behaviour’s acceptability

is low, uncertainty drives consumers to explore other psychological and external

factors to guide their judgements. The behaviour classification literature identifies two

additional factors consumers could rely on to inform their deviance thresholds: intent

and perceived outcomes.

The fourth factor identified as potentially influencing consumer perceptions is

intent – the intention of the consumer performing the act. Consumer perceptions can

be influenced by how passive or active the consumer is in committing the act (Muncy

14

& Vitell, 1992; Vitell & Muncy, 2005). If the action was actively deviant (e.g. giving

misleading information) as opposed to passively deviant (e.g. not saying anything

when receiving extra change), consumer perceptions of its acceptability will vary

such that the more passive the act, the more acceptable it is perceived to be in

comparison to active DCB.

Finally, the perceived outcome of a particular behaviour, the fifth factor identified,

could also be used to distinguish behaviours. Outcomes can involve consideration of

the type and degree of harm towards an organisational or individual victim. Fullerton

and Punj (2004) suggest that behaviours can be distinguished based on the type and

degree of disruption, which aligns with degree of harm as proposed in the Consumer

Ethics Scale (Vitell & Muncy, 2005). Interpretation of behavioural outcomes can be

affected by proximity – the nearness an individual feels to the victim (Jones, 1991).

Social distance is a relevant proximity measure in the consumer context. The greater

the perceived social distance between the consumer and the organisation, the more

likely the consumer will engage in DCB possibly causing harm to the organisation

(Moore & Loewenstein, 2004).

Combining these conceptual dimensions from the preceding typologies and

frameworks to form five factors (official classification, risk, norms, intent, and

outcomes) provides a foundation from which consumers’ deviance thresholds can be

qualitatively explored. The research for this paper proposes that a varying number of

factors are present in individual assessments of acceptability, which could lead to

those individuals experiencing cognitive dissonance if factors salient in their

perceptions are inconsistent with law, policy, and/or norms. This dissonance creates

an opportunity for the individual to use neutralisation techniques to justify the mental

positioning of DCBs within their deviance threshold (Figure 1). In other words, the

15

factors salient in consumer perceptions will likely inform the type of neutralisation

technique the individual uses to justify their perceptions and behaviours.

Figure 1. An individual’s deviance threshold – where the behaviours fall

Method

In order to map the factors that inform the construction of an individual’s deviance

threshold, and examine how neutralisation techniques effect mental placement of

behaviours within that threshold, 29 one-hour semi-structured in-depth interviews

were conducted. During the interview, a card-sort activity was used to facilitate the

exploration of the abstract concepts of right and wrong, using 30 consumer

behaviours. Card sorting is a simple categorisation tool used to gain contextualised

insights into consumer perceptions (Fincher & Tenenberg, 2005). Card sorts are

grounded in Kelly’s (1955) Personal Construct Theory, which argues that ‘different

people categorise the world differently, but with enough commonality to let us

understand each other but enough differences to make us individuals’ (Upchurch,

Rugg, & Kitchenham, 2001, p. 85). The categorisations that the respondents made

during the card sort reflect their ‘internal mental representation’ of right and wrong

behaviours (Fincher & Tenenberg, 2005, p. 90). A card sort was chosen over other

sorting methods because of its simple nature, which enabled it to be used as a

facilitative tool during the interviews.

ACCEPTABLE BEHAVIOURS

QUESTIONABLE AND UNACCEPTABLE BEHAVIOURS

THAT CAN BE JUSTIFIED

QUESTIONABLE AND UNACCEPTABLE BEHAVIOURS

THAT CANNOT BE JUSTIFIED

DEVIANCE THRESHOLD

16

Thirty behaviours were chosen for the card-sort activity. To choose the behaviours,

a selection of the most commonly researched consumer behaviours were taken from

the literature (see Freestone & Mitchell, 2004; Fullerton & Punj, 2004; Mitchell &

Chan, 2002; Muncy & Vitell, 1992; Neale & Fullerton, 2010; Wilkes, 1978). Other

behaviours were selected by the researcher to reflect more salient consumer issues in

the current marketplace, as called for by Neale and Fullerton (2010). The researcher

informally surveyed a convenience sample of consumers over 18 years of age, living

in Australia, to ascertain what questionable or unacceptable consumer behaviours they

were aware of in the marketplace. Behaviours chosen for inclusion in the study from

the informal survey were selected based on their perceived degree of prevalence in the

marketplace so that respondents were more likely to be vicariously or experientially

familiar with the behaviour. Thirty behaviours were chosen as the maximum number

of behaviours to sort before respondent fatigue occurred as evidenced in pilot testing

of the card sort. See Appendix A for the 30 behaviour options used in this study.

The population of interest was Australian consumers over 18 years old. Table 2

summarises sample characteristics. Participants were recruited through non-

probability convenience, snowballing, and purposive sampling techniques, using age

and gender, which have been found to influence perceptions of consumer behaviour

(Genereux & McLeod, 1995; McMahon & Cohen, 2009). The researchers approached

consumers they knew and participants snowballed from there. As the purpose of the

research was to explore general perceptions of right and wrong consumer behaviours,

there was no need to restrict the sample to individuals who had experience performing

DCBs. Ethics approval was obtained from the researchers’ university.

17

Table 2. Sample Characteristics

The interviews were audio recorded and transcribed. Participants first undertook a

closed card-sort activity of 30 consumer behaviours, sorting into three pre-established

categories: (1) acceptable behaviour, (2) questionable behaviour, and (3) unacceptable

behaviour. The behaviour categorisations during the card sort were made depending

on how the respondent perceived the specific behaviour. The card-sort activity

facilitated the rest of the interview. Participants were subsequently asked how they

described each of the behaviour categories. Participants were then presented with

hypothetical scenarios involving a gender-neutral character engaging in a specific

behaviour written on one of the cards. The participant needed to encourage and then

subsequently deter the scenario character from engaging in that behaviour. The

hypotheticals were repeated a number of times to get rich insight into the perceptions

of right and wrong. Using a third-person character technique allowed the participant

to transfer his or her own attitudes towards the third-person to explain that person’s

behaviour (Zikmund, Ward, Lowe, Winzar, & Babin, 2011). Finally, participants

ranked unacceptable behaviours to ascertain which was perceived as the most

unacceptable. Participants then invented a hypothetical scenario of why, when two

people faced with the same circumstance and background, one would engage in

unacceptable behaviour yet the other would not.

Age Males Females Total

19-34 5 4 9

35-50 4 5 9

51-66 5 4 9

67+ 1 1 2

15 14 29

18

The data were analysed using thematic analysis following Turner’s (1981) seven

stages approach, advocated by Reynolds and Harris (2009) and Harris and Daunt

(2011) as appropriate for consumer deviance research. The card-sort activity was used

in an exploratory capacity to facilitate the discussion of abstract concepts of right and

wrong during the interview. An initial analysis was conducted on the card sort to

identify the distribution of behaviours within each category: acceptable, questionable,

and unacceptable behaviour. Appendix B has the results from the card sort, which

highlight the variability in consumer perceptions.

Results and discussion

As well as confirming that five factors from the literature inform consumer

perceptions, three additional factors were identified in the interview data.

Collectively, the eight factors identified were official classification, perceived risk,

norms, intent, perceived outcomes, perceived fairness, past experiences as victim, and

moral identity. These are the factors that can inform a consumer’s deviance threshold

– where consumers draw the line between right and wrong. When consumer

preferences (e.g. to watch the latest movie) do not align with what consumers

perceive as an acceptable behaviour (e.g. illegal downloading), consumers will draw

on neutralisation techniques to position the DCB (e.g. illegal downloading) within

their deviance threshold, enabling them to perform it without negatively updating

their self-concept.

In the findings, it was apparent that individuals placed emphasis on different

factors in their perceptions of right and wrong. Hence, different behaviours took up

different mental positions in individuals’ deviance thresholds. The factor an

19

individual placed most emphasis on (e.g. perceived outcomes) dictated the type of

neutralisation technique used (e.g. denial of injury) to excuse the inclusion of DCBs

in their deviance threshold that arguably did cause harm. Each of the eight factors

identified in the data is discussed below, alongside a summary of the neutralisation

techniques consumers use to justify their perceptions.

Official classification

This study found if a specific behaviour was consistent with the law and

organisational policy, it was perceived as acceptable. However, not all behaviours

violating their official classification were perceived as unacceptable behaviours:

It’s [the law is] almost like implicit …in how you think what is right and what is wrong… the starting ground, that…probably categorises stuff straight away, and then —you can deviate from that or apply to that depending on the context. (#10)

The neutralisation technique claim of entitlement was evident here, suggesting

that the individual feels they have the right to get what they want, when they want it,

and how they want it:

[Using an expired coupon to buy merchandise] In my mind I sort of rationalise and think, well, if the retailer made this offer …I can understand they’ve put an expiry date to it, but, if I’m a day or two days late, I sort of feel like I’m being penalised ‘cause I didn’t want to purchase it in their time frame, in the retailer’s time frame. Clearly, if they could sell me a widget yesterday for five bucks cheaper, then they could sell me the same widget for five bucks and there’re still making money on it. (#7)

If consumers perceive the official classifications of behaviours to be guidelines

that they can deviate from, the classifications will be less effective at controlling

DCB. Reasons for deviating from the official classification depended on the factor

20

most salient in the consumer’s perceptions. For instance, the violation of hotel policy

by lying about how many people were staying in a hotel room was considered

acceptable when the extra guests were unintended guests; hence the intent factor was

salient in those consumers’ deviance thresholds.

The extent to which an individual places importance on the official

classification of the behaviour dictates how important it is in their perception of right

and wrong. However, unless the official classification is backed by formal

punishment, it could become less significant in guiding perceptions of, and

engagement in, DCB. This is explored further below in perceived risk. The findings

around official classification support the inclusion of formal regulation in typologies

and frameworks created to distinguish between types of DCBs (e.g. Moschis & Cox,

1989; Muncy & Vitell, 1992; Fullerton & Punj, 2004; Amine & Giquel, 2011; Vitell

& Muncy, 2005).

Perceived risk

Theoretically, perceived risk is an individual’s perception of the probability of

being caught, the severity of punishment, and swiftness of punishment. The swiftness

of punishment was not evident in the data, aligning with research in criminology

(Nagin & Pogarsky, 2001). However, probability and severity of punishment were

evident in the interview data. The perception of risk infers how important the official

classification of a particular behaviour is in guiding an individual’s perceptions of,

and engagement in DCB. If violation of the official classification of a given behaviour

were backed by punishment, then the individual would perceive it to be high risk and

would subsequently classify the behaviour as unacceptable:

21

I’d say the consequences are very serious and if they were to get caught, which there’s a good chance they will, because of the credit card companies- the policies they have in place and procedures, you will almost certainly get caught. (#1)

… the police aren’t going to say “oh mate, you shouldn’t have done that” they’re just going to arrest you for stealing. So that’s the basic deterrent, that you’re going to get caught and there’ll be a penalty. (#19)

However, consistent with existing research that most DCB goes undetected

(Bandura, 1991a) perceptions of risk were usually low among participants. Low

perceptions of risk undermine the credibility of the behaviour’s official classification

by law and policy, making individuals perceive the behaviour to be acceptable, or at

least questionable but still within their deviance threshold:

I would think that they could get away with that because there’s nobody coming round to check, so it’s on their conscious [conscience] whether they bring four, six or what other people they want [lying about how many people are in the hotel room]. (#2)

A neutralisation technique evident in the data was the justification by

comparison technique, which compares behaviours against one another (Cromwell

& Thurman, 2003), suggesting that a behaviour can be acceptable if the behaviour

is not as bad as alternatives:

The punishment may not even be enough to warrant not doing it, at least for the first time anyway…there’s a good chance he’ll get away with it…the punishment for doing something like that would be a lot less than if you went and robbed a grocery store. (#23)

If individuals do not perceive they will get caught, the severity of the

punishment becomes irrelevant, consistent with the theoretical propositions of

perceived risk (Grasmick & Green, 1980). The low perceived probability of being

22

caught was used as a justification for why a behaviour could be perceived as

acceptable, and why it could be performed. These low perceptions of risk suggest

a new neutralisation technique, denial of punishment probability, which is used to

justify the inclusion of certain behaviours within an individual’s deviance

threshold because the threat of being punished is low:

They’ve just got ridiculous rules…it’s something in their written policies but they never look at it. They never use it anyway. (#4)

Current deterrence strategies in the marketplace make appeals to consumers to

uphold the law or organisational policy, or appeal to the risk associated with

performing a deviant act. The results so far suggest that this approach to deterrence is

not the most effective, as the official classification and perceived risk associated with

the behaviour were two of eight possible factors informing perceptions of right and

wrong.

Norms

Norms were found to reflect a combination of an individual’s perceived

prevalence of the behaviour and an individual’s subjective norms. If the behaviour

was perceived to be prevalent, it was perceived to be acceptable. Consistent with

social comparison theory (Festinger, 1954), individuals are driven to constantly

evaluate their perceptions and behaviours against those of individuals similar to them,

ultimately influencing their behaviour. In the data, conflict arose when participants

perceived the prevalence of a behaviour to contradict the behaviour’s official

classification, shifting the behaviour from being perceived as unacceptable to

questionable – within the individual’s deviance threshold:

23

With [eating] grapes, it’s just okay, because you don’t want to buy something that’s bad, and that’s probably the one kind of fruit that you can do that with. You’re not going to bite an apple …, grapes are just easy…it’s acceptable because everyone else does it. (#13)

Consistent with differential association theory (Sutherland, 1947), support from

family and friends indicated what an individual deemed normative behaviour. If peers

supported the behaviour, enactment of that behaviour would unlikely incur a social

sanction and could possibly be rewarded. If peers do not support the behaviour, social

sanctions are likely, indicating that the behaviour deviates from the norm and should

be perceived as questionable or unacceptable. Placing emphasis on norms in

perceptions of right and wrong means behaviours associated with social sanctions will

fall outside of an individual’s deviance threshold. Participants recognised the role

family and friends played in their perceptions of DCB:

‘cause like my lawyer friends would just be like “that’s [not claiming an item at the self-checkout] unacceptable… I can’t be hanging around someone who does that”. (#4)

They’re [family and friends] very judgmental. They would definitely have a reaction. They’d probably call me out on it, for sure. … literally question what I was doing and why I was doing it. (#13)

These findings support past research that norms are used to classify behaviours as

acceptable or unacceptable, but they can also be used as the justification of DCB

(Davis, Johnson and Ohmer, 1998) through the use of the neutralisation technique

normal practice (Henry, 1990) – ‘there’s the kind of societal view that hey everyone

does it’ (#9), ‘acceptable because everyone else does it’ (#13), ‘I think it’s such a

prevalent thing nowadays… so in that sense it’s questionable’ (#6).

24

Intent

Intent refers to the intention of the individual engaging in the behaviour. Evidence

of intent informing perceptions of right and wrong is consistent with Muncy and

Vitell’s (1992) assumption that an individual’s classification of a behaviour reflects

the extent to which the consumer is passive or active in performing the behaviour.

When the intent was made clear during the interview, participants perceived

intentional behaviours such as “intentionally taking someone else’s takeaway order”

as unacceptable, in comparison to unknown intention such as “taking someone’s

vegetarian meal at a conference”, which was perceived as questionable. Alternative

examples were discussed:

If someone was doing this [claiming an item as stolen to an insurance company to collect the money] all the time and they were claiming large amounts of money then I would feel more justified in putting it in the unacceptable pile because…they’re looking to make a profit from it. (#15)

[Saying there are 2 people in your hotel room when really there are 4] If you deliberately set out to, you enter a contract and then you have every intention to get around it, then that’s not the right thing to do. But under certain circumstances, like things that aren’t planned … it’s a breach of contract but … I wouldn’t lose any sleep over it. (#19)

Unintentional DCB reflected the denial of responsibility neutralisation technique:

I hadn’t done it on purpose, I wasn’t trying to evade the fare. But I dropped my travel card. I had no money on me either. So I was upfront, I was honest with her and she said “well that’s fine”, she said, “something may happen at the other end but you just need to explain to them what you have explained to me.” Because I said to them all you have do is ask me to provide you with statement and see I use my [travel card] every day. So that’s why I put it as a questionable. I wasn’t really evading the fare, but sometime shit happens and you know. (#12)

25

Good intentions were identified when discussing ‘creating a fake US iTunes

account to access and pay for content not available in Australia’. Participants

believed this behaviour was acceptable, despite being illegal, because the company

still received payment. Participants argued their intentions were good because they

were finding a way to pay the company, while still getting access to the content they

wanted:

There’s still an intention to pay for what it is that you’re receiving. It’s still unacceptable because it’s contravening the policies and the laws that are underpinning, but in going through the transaction, you’re still paying for it. (#18)

It’s not like you’re trying to falsify something so you don’t pay at all. You are willing to pay, you just can’t access it, so under that context I think that’s fine. (#28)

The neutralisation technique defence of necessity was found where participants

said they had no alternative – e.g. ‘they haven’t made it an option at all’ (#5). The

justification by comparison technique is also used as the behaviour is deemed more

acceptable than alternatives – e.g. ‘not like you’re trying to falsify something so you

don’t pay at all’ (#28).

Perceived outcomes

The outcome dimensions evident in the data were direction and degree of harm,

despite others being identified in the literature review. The direction of harm

highlights the victim of the DCB. DCB can be directed towards an individual

(employee, other consumers) or an organisation. When DCB is directed towards an

individual, the behaviour is more likely to be perceived as unacceptable than if DCB

was directed towards the organisation:

26

You tend to think that organisations can handle it more, like maybe they’ve got some funding set aside to handle things that you might do … individual people don’t generally have any kind of protection against that. And then there’s just the perception I suppose that companies don’t really have a human face…It’s being able to personally identify people that magnifies everything. (#5)

The distinction between individuals and organisations is explained by the identifiable

victim effect, such that the more identifiable the victim the less likely deviant acts will

be directed towards them, due to the victim’s ability to engender empathy from the

offender committing the deviant act (Jenni & Loewenstein, 1997), as evident below:

I’ve been in a situation where a girl there, obviously part-time, gave me change for $50 instead of $10 or $20, and I thought, no, I gave it back because it’s a lot of difference and that particular person would be accountable at the end of the day on her till, and she’s only part-time, you wouldn’t do it…I would give that money back, but if you kept it, that would be very questionable behaviour. (#6)

When the victim is not identifiable, offenders will perceive no harm is being

caused, thereby facilitating their deviant actions (Small & Loewenstein, 2003). While

there was a distinction between individual and organisational victims, there was also a

distinction between small and large organisations. This supports recent research

findings that consumers are more willing to victimise large rather than small

organisations (Fullerton, Neale & Dootson, 2014), as the consumer does not feel they

are harming the large organisation (Fullerton & Punj, 1997).

The neutralisation technique of denial of victim was evident for the factor

direction of harm, with participants arguing the organisation deserved or could

afford the harm the DCB caused:

Look at the size of the store, what they’re charging, at the profits, excessive profits they’re making, like X and Y [two large grocery

27

stores] are doing it in a way that’s unacceptable as a duopoly so people will convince themselves that it’s acceptable to hit back. (#1)

The degree of harm dimension of perceived outcomes focused on how much harm

the individual perceived the behaviour would cause to others. The data suggest that

harm was viewed as monetary, as opposed to emotional or physical. The greater the

perceived harm, the more likely the participant would perceive the behaviour as

unacceptable:

[Impersonating someone else by using their credit card to purchase goods, without their permission]…you’re using someone else’s money. You didn’t earn that money so you don’t deserve to spend it. I sit there and go, what goes through someone’s head to make them think that that’s acceptable? …it’s wrong on so many levels, you didn’t earn that money, it’s fraud. I know it happened to a few people and it’s cost them so much and they can’t pay their kids school fees …I just find it really inconsiderate and really unacceptable. (#9)

[drinking a soda in the grocery store and not paying for it] a can of soda is about three bucks so you deprive the supermarket of three dollars and it’s not that big a deal. Depending on the [public transport] fare, it could be two or three dollars as well, so that’s not that big a theft… Then you’ve got this dress or a power tool ... from my understanding dresses are at least a hundred dollars and power tools same [that’s unacceptable]. (#3)

Participants had arbitrary definitions for what constituted enough harm to

classify the behaviour as unacceptable, and to stop the individual from engaging

in it. The variability in what participants perceived as an acceptable level of harm

reflects their varying points of tolerance for DCB:

If you’re going to a movie…that’s only a $5 thing…but then if you’re going to lie to save like $200 to go to a theme park, then it’s like maybe…I shouldn’t even be considering that activity, I should just be doing something else, rather than trying to lie to do it. (#10)

28

The degree of harm dimension of perceived outcomes was associated with the

neutralisation technique denial of injury, in which participants argued that no one is

being hurt by the individual’s DCB:

Trying to get in to the Louvre or something like that, if I can save a couple of bucks by claiming that she’s a little bit younger, then it wasn’t going to be any skin off anybody’s nose particularly with thousands of people there a day. (#11)

The more negative the perceived outcomes, based on the degree and direction of

the harm, the more likely the individual would perceive the behaviour to be

unacceptable – the limit of their deviance threshold.

Perceived fairness

As an extension on the conceptual dimensions identified in the literature review,

perceived fairness refers to how fair an individual perceives a consumption situation

to be, usually dictated by law, organisational policy, or the organisation’s conduct.

This includes, but is not limited to, pricing, consumption constraints, and service

quality. When a law, policy, or situation is perceived to be unfair, retaliatory DCBs

are perceived to be acceptable if not justified. When discussing the behaviour ‘not

saying anything when the waitress miscalculates the bill in your favour’, it was

perceived as acceptable, if not questionable, if the service had been poor:

If we’ve had terrible service, if the food’s been late and people haven’t been friendly…then you’re not providing essentially what you said you would, so I’ll claim a silent compensation for something like that [not saying anything when the waitress miscalculates the bill in your favour]. (#18)

29

Agnew’s (1992) strain theory suggests that an individual is more likely to react

with DCB when the individual perceives a situation to be unfair. In that situation, an

individual could seek DCB alternatives, when normative behaviour fails to achieve

the individuals’ goals of fulfilling their consumer preferences. When constraints are

placed on an individual’s consumption, the individual may not feel they had the right

to choose their behaviours freely (Cialdini, Cacioppo, Bassett & Miller, 1978). This

can prompt the use of the condemnation of the condemner’s neutralisation technique,

shifting focus away from their own actions to the actions of the organisation:

They just charge astronomical prices …but you’re going to do it if it means that your child has that opportunity to see a film…it’s not about beating the company, but it’s just showing them that…if you drop your prices people wouldn’t do these things… work with the people make it easier and more desirable…make the movie tickets slightly cheaper so everybody can go to the movies. (#12)

Organisations facing this issue must seek to understand why the individual feels

justified in their actions and must respond by either being transparent about the

reasons behind the perceived unfair policy, or adjusting their business model to better

meet the demands of their consumers.

Past experiences as victim

Another extension on the conceptual dimensions identified in the literature review

includes past experiences as victim, which refers to an individual’s vicarious or actual

experience as a victim of DCB. Past experiences restricted the inclusion of DCBs

within an individual’s deviance threshold as being a past victim made them less

tolerant of the DCB:

[Claiming a purchase price is cheaper] I’ve been on the other side of that … I’ve been the person doing the selling and you can usually tell

30

when it’s happening …and I’d usually just tell them, ‘fine, go to the other shop and get it’, call them on their bluff… it is unacceptable and when I was in that position of selling, I wouldn’t compromise, knowing that they knew, if they’re not going to do their leg work, it’s their responsibility to if they want a cheaper price and a bargain. (#18)

Individuals who perceived a close proximity (Jones, 1990) to the victim

understood the harm resulting from the behaviour. These behaviours were therefore

largely perceived as unacceptable and beyond the individual’s deviance threshold:

[Claiming a lost item as stolen to claim insurance] (a) my husband works for an insurance company, (b) I know people who have done that and it’s the wrong thing to do and they’ve done it several times on several different occasions. Not just are you giving misleading or false information to insurance companies, it really ticks me off because that impacts on my insurance premium. … it’s lying as well …it impacts on everybody else’s insurance premiums for something that you’ve done wrong. It’s not that anybody else has stolen your whatever, it’s that you’ve misplaced it somewhere. (#17)

Unlike the factors discussed thus far, past experiences did not promote the use of a

neutralisation technique to excuse DCB. Instead, it promoted use of the universal

moral rule – ‘treat others as you wish to be treated’ explaining why some behaviours

remain outside the individual’s deviance threshold. This maxim follows Kant’s (2002

[1785], p. 37) categorical imperative “act only in accordance with that maxim through

which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law”. The next factor,

moral identity, had a similar effect of explaining why some behaviours are beyond the

individual’s deviance threshold rather than excusing placement within the threshold.

Moral identity

Moral identity refers to the extent to which moral traits are a central and relatively

stable part of an individual’s self-concept (Aquino & Reed, 2002). The more salient

31

the moral traits (e.g. honesty, kindness, caring, and compassion) in an individual’s

self-concept, the more likely those traits will guide an individual’s perception of right

and wrong. If enacting a behaviour was incongruent with an individual’s moral

identity, then the behaviour was perceived to be unacceptable as it caused the

individual to experience cognitive dissonance:

On the inside of it I knew I was breaking my own values and core beliefs in what was right and wrong, so there was discomfort from that. (#18)

Just generally anything that would make you feel guilty … and feeling the need to … find some justifiable reason for it. (#29)

In the interviews, an activity was run to explore why when two people faced the

same situation, one responds with DCB while the other does not. Participants

unanimously agreed the saliency of an individual’s moral standards determined the

likelihood of an individual performing a DCB:

They’ve much stronger boundaries and moral compass than the other people. (#27)

Stronger moral compass. Determined to get through something without resorting to the easiest means or the illegal means. (#8)

These views suggest that moral identity could dictate an individual’s deviance

threshold. If an individual places emphasis on their moral identity in their perception

of right and wrong, they are likely to be less tolerant of DCB and less likely to engage

in it (Aquino & Reed, 2002), thus finding a more inelastic deviance threshold.

However, past research has demonstrated that individuals with a weak moral identity

can be affected by moral triggers that raise the saliency of moral traits (e.g. honesty),

if only temporarily, to prevent or reduce instances of deviance. Mazar et al. (2008)

demonstrated that students who were asked to write down as many of the Ten

32

Commandments as they could recall, were less likely to cheat than students who were

not asked to write down the Ten Commandments before completing a series of maths

matrices. This result was reached regardless of the student’s religion and regardless of

how many Commandments were correctly recalled, suggesting that the moral

reminder of the Ten Commandments was enough to trigger the individual’s moral

identity to reduce cheating. Shu, Mazar, Gino, Ariely, and Bazerman (2012) triggered

honesty, the primary trait for a moral identity (Aquino & Reed, 2002), by asking

people to sign at the beginning of their insurance claim form declaring the

information they were about to disclose was honest. This is in comparison to typical

insurance claim forms (or even tax file forms) that ask individuals to sign at the end

of the form once any dishonesty has been performed, declaring the information is

honest. Signing at the beginning of the form saw a reduction in fraudulent insurance

claims (Shu et al., 2012). Hence, an individual with a low or high moral identity can

still have moral traits (e.g. honesty) made salient to nudge their behaviour, and, if

only temporarily, alter their perceived deviance threshold.

To summarise, the findings suggest that a number of factors can influence an

individual’s deviance threshold. Table 3illustrates these factors and the corresponding

neutralisation techniques used. Individuals who place most emphasis on norms in

their perceptions of right and wrong will likely use the neutralisation technique of

normal practice to justify their perceptions of a DCB, allowing behaviours like illegal

downloading to fall within their deviance threshold. Engaging in illegal downloading

would then be a DCB that an individual can perform without negatively updating their

self-concept, given their ability to justify its position within their deviance threshold.

Conversely, other individuals may place emphasis on perceived fairness in their

perceptions of right and wrong, suggesting that they will use the condemnation of

33

condemners or claim of entitlement techniques. Actively underpaying for a service

may be outside an individual’s deviance threshold. However, reliance on perceived

fairness as informing their perceptions of right and wrong could mean that not saying

anything when the waitress miscalculates your bill is justified when the service is

poor. The ability to justify DCB means the behaviour then falls within the

individual’s deviance threshold, allowing them to do it and maintain a positive self-

concept. The implications of these findings will now be discussed.

Table 3. Factors informing perceptions with corresponding neutralisation techniques

Factor informing perceptions of right and wrong

Associated neutralisation technique

Source of neutralisation technique

Official classification* Claim of entitlement Coleman, 1994; McGregor, 2008

Perceived risk Justification by comparison

Denial of punishment probability

Cromwell & Thurman, 2003

Identified in this paper

Norms Normal practice Coleman, 1994; Henry, 1990

Intent Denial of responsibility

Defence of necessity

Sykes & Matza, 1957

Minor, 1981

Justification by comparison Cromwell & Thurman, 2003

Perceived outcomes

(a) Direction of harm

Denial of victim

Sykes & Matza, 1957

(b) Degree of harm Denial of injury Sykes & Matza, 1957

Past experiences as victim ‘Treat others as you wish to be treated’

These factors offered justifications ‘against’ rather than ‘for’ DCB.

Moral identity ‘Not what a good person does’

Perceived fairness Condemnation of the condemners

Sykes & Matza, 1957

Table 3 footnote: *Justifications used to deviate from the official classification of the behaviour depend on which of the other factors is most salient in their perceptions, e.g. if ‘direction of harm’ is most salient, then the individual will likely use the denial of victim technique.

34

Implications, limitations, and future research

This research was driven by two aims: first, to explore the factors informing an

individual’s deviance threshold and second, to understand how the factors informing

individuals’ deviance thresholds influence the types of neutralisation techniques

consumers use to justify their perceptions of DCB. In addressing the first aim of the

research, the research in this paper provides empirical evidence for conceptual

dimensions suggested in a number of frameworks and typologies that distinguish

behaviours in their degree of wrongness (e.g. Wilkes, 1978) and ethicality (e.g. Neale

& Fullerton, 2010; Vitell & Muncy, 2005). While descriptive research can quantify

the extent to which behaviour is perceived as acceptable or ethical on rating scales,

the research in this paper explains why such perceptions exist. While official

classification, norms, perceived risk, intent, and perceived outcomes were suggested

in the literature as distinguishing between behaviours, evidence was also found for

past experience as the victim, moral identity, and perceived fairness. An individual’s

deviance threshold is thus a function of these eight factors identified in this paper, and

the weightings each individual places on each of the eight factors.

The deviance threshold is a novel concept in consumer behaviour research to

explain perceptions of DCBs. Without rich understanding of consumers’ perceptions,

marketing strategies used to deter DCBs remain based on traditional deterrence

mechanisms appealing to risk and official classifications. The findings in this paper,

however, show evidence for additional factors informing consumer perceptions of

right and wrong. As individuals seem to place a varying degree of importance on a

varying number of factors in their perceptions of right and wrong, it is recommended

that a “one-size-fits-all approach to deterrence” is abandoned, in line with

criminology research on criminal deterrence strategies (Worrall, et al. 2014, p. 341).

35

Alternative deterrence strategies, driven by these results, are thus provided in the

practical implications section below.

In addressing the second aim of this paper, this research found the salient factor

informing an individual’s deviance threshold informs the type of neutralisation

technique they use. This neutralisation technique then enables individuals to justify

the mental placement of behaviours within their deviance threshold. Official

classification, norms, perceived risk, intent, perceived outcomes, and perceived

fairness are factors linked to neutralisation techniques that enable DCBs to be

mentally placed within an individual’s deviance threshold. Past experience as victim

and moral identity, were two factors not associated with a neutralisation technique.

Instead, they provided an explanation for keeping behaviours outside of an

individual’s deviance threshold, as enactment of those behaviours would create too

much dissonance, and would thus require the individual to negatively update their

self-concept.

These findings extend on existing research into which neutralisation techniques

are employed for specific behaviours, and the timing of their use pre- and post-

performing the behaviour (e.g. Harris & Daunt, 2011; Harris & Dumas, 2009; Vitell,

2003). While the data provided additional empirical support for the use of justification

by comparison, normal practice, denial of responsibility, defence of necessity, denial

of victim, denial of injury, and condemnation of the condemners, new empirical

support was found for the claim of entitlement technique. While claim of entitlement

has previously been tested in white-collar crime, it was conceptually proposed yet

empirically untested in the consumer context (McGregor, 2008). Our research extends

on McGregor’s (2008) work finding evidence for use of the claim of entitlement

neutralisation technique in the consumer context. Another justification that emerged

36

was the denial of punishment probability technique, associated with the low

perceptions of risk for most DCBs. The denial of punishment probability technique

can be explained by Sunstein’s (2003) concept of probability neglect, whereby

individuals fail to focus on the probability of an event and instead focus on the

positive or negative outcomes of a behaviour.

While the research provides rich insights about a phenomenon, it is limited in the

generalisability of findings (Zikmund et al., 2011). Culturally this research only

reflects views of Australian consumers. While Neale & Fullerton (2010) highlight that

the UK and US closely align in perceptions of ethicality with Australian consumers,

cultural validation is an opportunity for future research. Moreover, the research

requires quantitative validation. An opportunity exists to combine the factors

identified in this study with existing insights into the types of consumers who have

more favourable beliefs towards DCB, to generalise the findings of what factors are

being used. For instance, future research could empirically quantify the weightings

high Machiavellian, low religiosity, high relativistic, young males place on the factors

identified in this study, as this group has been found to be more tolerant of DCB (Pan

& Sparks, 2012; Vitell, 2003). Understanding what factors this group places emphasis

on will provide marketers with information to develop more informed deterrence

strategies, targeted at the justification techniques used by those who are more tolerant

towards DCB.

As traditional deterrence strategies rely on high perceptions of risk, and taking

into account the financial and economic constraints of businesses, future research

should consider the role for alternative deterrence strategies as discussed below.

This research offers actionable insights for marketing practitioners through more

informed strategies to encourage the consumer to perform behaviours the organisation

37

desires, while deterring DCBs. For instance, designing a campaign to humanise a

large organisations and leverage the identifiable victim effect, giving a ‘face’ to an

organisation, makes it more difficult for the consumer to justify deviant acts at the

expense of the organisation. Thus, the denial of victim technique is challenged, as the

victim is made known. A step further would be to make the harm incurred by the

organisation visible to the consumer, to further deter deviant acts. Such an approach

aids to reduce the social distance between the consumer and the organisation, and

challenge the perceived positive outcomes of performing the deviant act.

The normal practice technique could be challenged through the use of social

proofs, for consumers who place emphasis on norms in their perceptions of deviance.

Social proofs persuade individuals to perform a desired behaviour by suggesting peer

or social group engagement in that behaviour (Goldstein, Cialdini and Griskevicius,

2008). However, the behaviour being promoted must be engaged in by the majority,

otherwise the strategy ends up promoting the undesirable behaviour (Cialdini et al.

2006). Similar strategies have been used to encourage voter turnout and promote

environmentally friendly behaviours (Goldstein et al., 2008; Gerber & Rogers, 2009).

An opportunity exists to test this approach in the DCB context.

Emphasis on self-regulation when organisations create deterrence strategies is

recommended, reflecting the effect of moral identity on perceptions of DCB. To

access self-regulation, organisations need to activate an individual’s objective self-

awareness of their own moral traits, which can be done using moral triggers as

explored in work by Mazar et al. (2008) and Shu et al. (2012) discussed above, such

as signing at the beginning of a form to declare honesty. Increasing the saliency of

moral values such as honesty, even temporarily, can reduce the likelihood of DCB

(Mazar et al., 2008). This means a strategy based on appealing to one’s moral identity

38

is effective for those with a strong moral identity, as honesty is already salient to the

individual’s self-concept, and for those with a weak moral identity as the honesty

moral value is temporarily triggered for this group.

Finally, these insights offer researchers some understanding of the social

expectations that consumers maintain and use to define appropriate behaviour (Romer

& Hornik, 1992) within the marketplace. Future research would benefit from

quantifying the degree of social consensus on these perceptions. With individuals

placing varying degrees of importance on a varying number of factors, informing

varying types of neutralisation techniques, future research needs to examine the extent

to which individual subjective definitions of right and wrong vary across society.

Examining the extent of social consensus on DCB will provide evidence for

discrepancies in societal level perceptions, which has implications for how DCB is

policed. The official classification of the behaviour (law or policy) relies on the

assumption there’s social consensus in the behaviour’s perceived wrongness. Low

social consensus in how consumers perceive right and wrong will provide additional

support for the argument that more tailored approaches to deterrence need to be

explored in the consumer setting.

This paper adds to the consumer deviance and consumer ethics bodies of

literature by offering a novel concept – the deviance threshold – to explain consumer

perceptions of right and wrong. The findings empirically validate and extend on

conceptual dimensions used in a number of frameworks and typologies to

distinguish behaviours based on their perceived acceptability. Additionally, the

findings extend on neutralisation research by offering an explanation for why specific

techniques are used and how they affect mental placement of behaviours within and

beyond an individual’s deviance threshold. Finally, this research recommends the

39

abandonment of a universal approach to deterrence strategies in the consumer setting,

as recently called for in criminology research (Worrall et al., 2014), because of the

variability in consumers’ deviance thresholds. Practically, this research offers

alternative deterrence strategies that go beyond reliance on appeals to upholding the

law/policy, and appeals to the risk of punishment.

40

References

1. Agnew, R. (1992). Foundation for a general strain theory of crime and delinquency. Criminology, 30, 47–88. doi:10.1111/j.1745-9125.1992.tb01093.x [CrossRef], [Web of Science ®], [CSA]

2. Akers, R. L., & Sellers, C. S. (2004). Criminological theories: Introduction, evaluation, and application. Los Angeles, CA: L Roxbury Publishing.

3. Amine, A., & Gicquel, Y. (2011). Rethinking resistance and anti-consumption behaviours in the light of the concept of deviance. European Journal of Marketing, 45(11/12), 1809–1819. doi:10.1108/03090561111167450 [CrossRef], [Web of Science ®]

4. Aquino, K., & Reed, A. I. (2002). The self-importance of moral identity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 1423–1440. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.83.6.1423 [CrossRef], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®], [CSA]

5. Bandura, A. (1991a). Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 248–287. doi:10.1016/0749-5978(91)90022-L [CrossRef], [Web of Science ®]

6. Bandura, A. (1991b). Social cognitive theory of moral thought and action. In W. M. Kurtines & J. L. Gewirtz (Eds.), Handbook of moral behaviour and development: Vol. 1 theory (pp. 45–104). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

7. Bandura, A. (1999). Moral disengagement in the perpetration of inhumanities. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3(3), 193–209. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0303_3 [CrossRef], [PubMed]

8. Blasi, A. (1984). Moral identity: Its role in moral functioning. In W. Kurtines & J. Gewirtz (Eds.), Morality, moral behaviour and moral development (pp. 128–139). New York, NY: Wiley.

9. Bonner, S., & O’Higgins, E. (2010). Music piracy: Ethical perspectives. Management Decisions, 48(9), 1341–1354.

10. Cialdini, R. B. (1988). Influence. New York, NY: HarperCollins.

11. Cialdini, R. B., Cacioppo, J. T., Bassett, R., & Miller, J. A. (1978). Low-ball procedure for producing compliance: Commitment then cost. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36(5), 463–476. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.36.5.463 [CrossRef], [Web of Science ®]

12. Cialdini, R. B., Demaine, L. J., Sagarin, B. J., Barrett, D. W., Rhoads, K., & Winter, P. L. (2006). Managing social norms for persuasive impact. Social Influence, 1(1), 3–15. doi:10.1080/15534510500181459 [Taylor & Francis Online]

13. Coleman, J. W. (1994). Neutralization theory: An empirical application and assessment. (PhD thesis). Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK.

14. Cooter, R. D. (2000). Three effects of social norms on law: Expression, deterrence, and internalisation. Oregon Law Review, 79(1), 1–22. Retrieved from EBSCOhost, Accession number 502335054.

41

15. Cromwell, P., & Thurman, Q. (2003). The devil made me do it: Use of neutralizations by shoplifters. Deviant Behavior, 24(6), 535–550. doi:10.1080/713840271 [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®], [CSA]

16. Daunt, K. L., & Harris, L. C. (2012). Motives of dysfunctional customer behavior: An empirical study. Journal of Services Marketing, 26(4), 293–308. doi:10.1108/08876041211237587 [CrossRef], [Web of Science ®]

17. Davis, M. A., Johnson, N. B., & Ohmer, D. G. (1998). Issue-contingent effects on ethical decision-making: A cross-cultural comparison. Journal of Business Ethics, 17, 373–389. doi:10.1023/A:1005760606745 [CrossRef], [Web of Science ®]

18. Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7(2), 117–140. doi:10.1177/001872675400700202 [CrossRef], [Web of Science ®]

19. Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

20. Fincher, S., & Tenenberg, J. (2005). Making sense of card sorting data. Expert Systems, 22(3), 89–93. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0394.2005.00299.x [CrossRef], [Web of Science ®]

21. Freeman, J., Liossis, P., & David, N. (2006). Deterrence, defiance and deviance: An investigation into a group of recidivist drink drivers’ self-reported offending behaviours. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 39(1), 1–19. doi:10.1375/acri.39.1.1 [CrossRef], [Web of Science ®]

22. Freestone, O., & Mitchell, V. W. (2004). Generation Y attitudes towards E-ethics and internet-related misbehaviours. Journal of Business Ethics, 54, 121–128. doi:10.1007/s10551-004-1571-0 [CrossRef], [Web of Science ®]

23. Fullerton, R. A., & Punj, G. (1993). Choosing to misbehave: A structural model of aberrant consumer behavior. Advances in Consumer Research, 20, 570–574. Retrieved from EBSCOhost, Accession number 83386346.

24. Fullerton, R. A., & Punj, G. (1997). Can consumer misbehavior be controlled? A critical analysis of two major control techniques. Advances in Consumer Research, 24, 340–344. Retrieved from EBSCOhost, Accession number 83112735.

25. Fullerton, R. A., & Punj, G. (2004). Repercussions of promoting an ideology of consumption: Consumer misbehavior.Journal of Business Research, 57, 1239–1249. doi:10.1016/S0148-2963(02)00455-1 [CrossRef], [Web of Science ®]

26. Fullerton, S., Neale, L., & Dootson, P. (2014). Consumer misbehaviour: A concurrent look at the impact that the size of the victim and size of the loss have on opinions regarding the acceptance or unacceptance of 12 questionable consumer actions. In R. VanMeter & J. Weiser Eds., Society for marketing advances conference (pp. 19–26). New Orleans, LA: Society for Marketing Advances. Retrieved fromhttp://c.ymcdn.com/sites/www.marketingadvances.org/resource/resmgr/2014_SMA_Proceedings.pdf

42

27. Genereux, R. L., & McLeod, B. A. (1995). Circumstances surrounding cheating: A questionnaire study of college students.Research in Higher Education, 36(6), 687–704. doi:10.1007/BF02208251 [CrossRef], [Web of Science ®]

28. Gerber, A. S., & Rogers, T. (2009). Descriptive social norms and motivation to vote: Everybody’s voting and so should you.The Journal of Politics, 71(1), 178–191. doi:10.1017/S0022381608090117 [CrossRef], [Web of Science ®]

29. Goldstein, N. J., Cialdini, R. B., & Griskevicius, V. (2008). A room with a viewpoint: Using social norms to motivate environmental conservation in hotels. Journal of Consumer Research, 35, 472–482. doi:10.1086/586910 [CrossRef], [Web of Science ®]

30. Grasmick, H. G., & Green, D. E. (1980). Legal punishment, social disapproval and internalization as inhibitors of illegal behavior. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 71(3), 325–335. doi:10.2307/1142704 [CrossRef], [Web of Science ®]

31. Gregoire, Y., & Fisher, R. J. (2007). Customer betrayal and retaliation: When your best customers become your worst enemies. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Sciences, 36, 247–261. doi:10.1007/s11747-007-0054-0 [CrossRef], [Web of Science ®]

32. Harris, L. C., & Daunt, K. L. (2011). Deviant customer behaviour: A study of techniques of neutralisation. Journal of Marketing Management, 27(7–8), 834–853. doi:10.1080/0267257X.2010.498149 [Taylor & Francis Online]

33. Harris, L. C., & Dumas, A. (2009). Online consumer misbehaviour: An application of neutralization theory. Marketing Theory, 9(4), 379–402. doi:10.1177/1470593109346895 [CrossRef], [Web of Science ®]

34. Henry, S. (1990). Degrees of deviance, student accounts of their deviant behavior. Salem, WI: Sheffield Publishing.

35. Henry, S., & Eaton, R. (1989). Degrees of deviance: Student accounts of their deviant behaviour. Salem, WI: Sheffield.

36. Hinduja, S. (2007). Neutralization theory and online software piracy: An empirical analysis. Ethics and Information Technology, 9, 187–204. doi:10.1007/s10676-007-9143-5 [CrossRef]

37. Hunt, S. D., & Vitell, S. (1986). A general theory of marketing ethics. Journal of Macromarketing, 6(1), 5–16. doi:10.1177/027614678600600103 [CrossRef]

38. Jager, C. (2013). Shoplifting is costing you $290 a year. Retrieved January 23, 2014, fromhttp://www.lifehacker.com.au/2013/11/shoplifting-is-costing-you-290-a-year/

39. Jenni, K. E., & Loewenstein, G. (1997). Explaining the ‘Identifiable Victim Effect’. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 14, 235–257. doi:10.1023/A:1007740225484 [CrossRef], [Web of Science ®]

40. Jones, T. M. (1991). Ethical decision making by individuals in organizations: An issue-contingent model. The Academy of Management Review, 16(2), 366–395. doi:10.5465/AMR.1991.4278958 [CrossRef], [Web of Science ®]

41. Kant, I. (2002). Groundwork for the metaphysics of morals. (A. W. Wood, Trans.). (Original work published 1785). Binghamton, NY: Vail-Ballou Press.

43

42. Kelly, G. (1955). The psychology of personal constructs. New York, NY: W.W. Norton.

43. Klockers, C. B. (1974). The professional fence. New York, NY: Free Press.

44. Lin, B., Hastings, D. A., & Martin, C. (1994). Shoplifting in retail clothing outlets. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 22(7), 24–29. doi:10.1108/09590559410069909 [CrossRef]

45. Mazar, N., Amir, O., & Ariely, D. (2008). The dishonesty of honest people: A theory of self-concept maintenance. Journal of Marketing Research, 45, 633–644. doi:10.1509/jmkr.45.6.633 [CrossRef], [Web of Science ®]

46. McGregor, S. L. T. (2008). Conceptualizing immoral and unethical consumption using neutralization theory. Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal, 36(3), 261–276. doi:10.1177/1077727X07312190 [CrossRef]

47. McMahon, J. M., & Cohen, R. (2009). Lost in cyberspace: Ethical decision making in the online environment. Ethics and Information Technology, 11, 1–17. doi:10.1007/s10676-008-9165-7 [CrossRef], [Web of Science ®]

48. Merritt, A. C., Effron, D. A., & Monin, B. (2010). Moral self-licensing: When being good frees us to be bad. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 4(5), 344–357. doi:10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00263.x [CrossRef]

49. Minor, W. W. (1981). Techniques of neutralization: A reconceptualization and empirical examination. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 18(2), 295–318. doi:10.1177/002242788101800206 [CrossRef], [Web of Science ®], [CSA]

50. Mitchell, V.-W., & Chan, J. K. L. (2002). Investigating UK consumers’ unethical attitudes and behaviours. Journal of Marketing Management, 18, 5–26. doi:10.1362/0267257022775873 [Taylor & Francis Online]

51. Moore, D. A., & Loewenstein, G. (2004). Self-interest, automaticity, and the psychology of conflict of interest. Social Justice Research, 17(2), 189–202. doi:10.1023/B:SORE.0000027409.88372.b4 [CrossRef]

52. Morris, R. G., & Higgins, G. E. (2009). Neutralizing potential and self-reported digital piracy: A multitheoretical exploration among college undergraduates. Criminal Justice Review, 34, 173–195. doi:10.1177/0734016808325034 [CrossRef]

53. Moschis, G. P., & Cox, D. (1989). Deviant consumer behavior. Advances in Consumer Research, 16, 732–737. Retrieved from EBSCOhost Accession number 6487793.

54. Muncy, J. A., & Vitell, S. J. (1992). Consumer ethics: An investigation of the ethical beliefs of the final consumer. Journal of Business Research, 24, 297–311. doi:10.1016/0148-2963(92)90036-B [CrossRef], [Web of Science ®]

55. Nagin, D. S., & Pogarsky, G. (2001). Integrating celerity, impulsivity, and extralegal sanction threats into a model of general deterrence: Theory and evidence. Criminology, 39(4), 865–892. doi:10.1111/j.1745-9125.2001.tb00943.x [CrossRef], [Web of Science ®]

56. Neale, L., & Fullerton, S. (2010). The international search for ethics norms: Which consumer behaviors do consumers consider un(acceptable)? Journal of

44

Services Marketing, 24(6), 476–486. doi:10.1108/08876041011072591 [CrossRef], [Web of Science ®]

57. Pan, Y., & Sparks, J. R. (2012). Predictors, consequence, and measurement of ethical judgments: Review and meta-analysis.Journal of Business Research, 65, 84–91. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.02.002 [CrossRef], [Web of Science ®]

58. Park, H. S., & Smith, S. W. (2007). Distinctiveness and influence of subjective norms, personal descriptive and injunctive norms, and societal descriptive and injunctive norms on behavioral intent: A case of two behaviors critical to organ donation.Human Communication Research, 33, 194–218. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00296.x [CrossRef], [Web of Science ®]

59. Reynolds, K. L., & Harris, L. C. (2009). Dysfunctional customer behavior severity: An empirical examination. Journal of Retailing, 85(3), 321–335. doi:10.1016/j.jretai.2009.05.005 [CrossRef], [Web of Science ®]

60. Romer, D., & Hornik, R. (1992). HIV education for youth: The importance of social consensus in behaviour change. Aids Care, 4(3), 285–303. doi:10.1080/09540129208253100 [Taylor & Francis Online], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®], [CSA]

61. Shu, L. L., Mazar, N., Gino, F., Ariely, D., & Bazerman, M. H. (2012). Signing at the beginning makes ethics salient and decreases dishonest self-reports in comparison to signing at the end. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(38), 15197–15200. doi:10.1073/pnas.1209746109 [CrossRef], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®]

62. Sirgy, M. J. (1982). Self-concept in consumer behavior: A critical review. The Journal of Consumer Research, 9(3), 287–300. doi:10.1086/208924 [CrossRef], [Web of Science ®]

63. Small, D. A., & Loewenstein, G. (2003). Helping a victim or helping the victim: Altruism and identifiability. The Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 26(1), 5–16. doi:10.1023/A:1022299422219 [CrossRef], [Web of Science ®], [CSA]

64. Strutton, D., Vitell, S. J., & Pelton, L. E. (1994). How consumers may justify inappropriate behavior in market settings: An application on the techniques of neutralization. Journal of Business Research, 30, 253–260. doi:10.1016/0148-2963(94)90055-8[CrossRef], [Web of Science ®]

65. Sunstein, C. R. (2003). Terrorism and probability neglect. The Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 26, 121–136. doi:10.1023/A:1024111006336 [CrossRef], [Web of Science ®], [CSA]

66. Sutherland, E. H. (1947). Principles of criminology (4th ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott.

67. Sykes, G. M., & Matza, D. (1957). Techniques of neutralization: A theory of delinquency. American Sociological Review, 22(6), 664–670. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/stable/2089195 [CrossRef], [Web of Science ®]

68. Tenbrunsel, A. E., & Messick, D. M. (2004). Ethical fading: The role of self-deception in unethical behavior. Social Justice Research, 17(2), 223–236. doi:10.1023/B:SORE.0000027411.35832.53 [CrossRef]

45

69. Turner, B. A. (1981). Some practical aspects of qualitative data analysis: One way of organising the cognitive processes associated with the generation of grounded theory. Quality and Quantity, 15, 225–247. Retrieved from ProQuest Accession number 82M5460. doi:10.1007/BF00164639 [CrossRef], [Web of Science ®], [CSA]

70. Upchurch, L., Rugg, G., & Kitchenham, B. (2001). Using card sorts to elicit web page quality attributes. IEEE Software, 18, 84–89. doi:10.1109/MS.2001.936222 [CrossRef], [Web of Science ®]

71. Vitell, S. (2003). Consumer ethics research: Review, synthesis and suggestions for the future. Journal of Business Ethics, 43(1/2), 33–47. doi:10.1023/A:1022907014295 [CrossRef], [Web of Science ®]

72. Vitell, S. J., & Muncy, J. A. (2005). The Muncy-Vitell consumer ethics scale: A modification and application. Journal of Business Ethics, 62, 267–275. doi:10.1007/s10551-005-7058-9 [CrossRef], [Web of Science ®]

73. Wilkes, R. E. (1978). Fraudulent behavior by consumers. Journal of Marketing, 42(4), 67–75. doi:10.2307/1250088 [CrossRef],[Web of Science ®]

74. Worrall, J. L., Els, N., Piquero, A. R., & TenEyck, M. (2014). The moderating effects of informal social control in the sanctions-compliance nexus. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 39, 341–357. doi:10.1007/s12103-013-9211-9 [CrossRef]

75. Yi, Y., & Gong, T. (2008). The effects of customer justice perception and affect on customer citizenship behavior and customer dysfunctional behavior. Industrial Marketing Management, 37(7), 767–783. doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2008.01.005[CrossRef], [Web of Science ®]

76. Zetter, K. (2014). Target got hacked hard in 2005. Here’s why they let it happen again. Retrieved January 17, 2014, fromhttp://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2014/01/target-hack/

77. Zikmund, W., Ward, S., Lowe, B., Winzar, H., & Babin, B. J. (2011). Marketing research (2nd Asia Pacific ed.). Victoria: Cengage Learning.

78. Zyglidopoulos, S. C., Fleming, P. J., & Rothenberg, S. (2009). Rationalization, overcompensation and the escalation of corruption in organizations. Journal of Business Ethics, 84, 65–73. doi:10.1007/s10551-008-9685-4 [CrossRef], [Web of Science ®]

46

Appendix A

Behaviours used in the card sort activity

Behaviour Source

Using the 4 cents fuel voucher from the grocery store to buy petrol

This study

Taping a movie off the television Mitchell & Chan, 2002; Muncy & Vitell, 1992; Vitell & Muncy, 2005

Buying movie tickets online to jump the queue at the cinemas

This study

Only buying products from companies if you are part of their loyalty programs

This study

Spending over an hour trying on different t-shirts and not purchasing any

Muncy & Vitell, 1992; Vitell & Muncy, 2005

Claim a purchase price is better at a competing retailer in order to get a discount

Neale & Fullerton, 2010

Tasting grapes in a supermarket and not buying any

Mitchell & Chan, 2002; Muncy & Vitell, 1992; Wilkes, 1978

Creating a fake US iTunes account to access and pay for content not available in Australia

This study

Returning merchandise to a store by claiming it was a gift when it was not

Muncy & Vitell, 1992; Vitell & Muncy, 2005

Illegally downloading TV shows from the internet for free, for personal consumption

Fullerton & Punj, 2004; Freestone & Mitchell, 2004; Vitell & Muncy, 2005

Creating a fake account on social networking site This study

Using an expired coupon for merchandise Fullerton & Punj, 2004; Muncy & Vitell, 1992; Vitell & Muncy, 2005; Wilkes, 1978

Return used goods for a refund Neale & Fullerton, 2010; Wilkes, 1978

Purchasing organs for transplant over the internet Freestone & Mitchell, 2004

Lying about a child's age in order to get a lower price

Mitchell & Chan, 2002; Muncy & Vitell, 1992; Vitell & Muncy, 2005; Neale & Fullerton, 2010

Saying there are only 2 people staying in a holiday apartment when there are really 4

This study

Not saying anything when the waitress miscalculates the bill in your favour

Mitchell & Chan, 2002; Muncy & Vitell, 1992; Vitell & Muncy, 2005; Neale & Fullerton, 2010; Wilkes, 1978

Cutting in front of someone in a queue Mitchell & Chan, 2002; Fullerton & Punj, 2004

Breaking a bottle of salad dressing in a supermarket and doing nothing about it

Muncy & Vitell, 1992

Taking someone's vegetarian meal at a conference This study

Giving misleading price information to a clerk for an un-priced item

Mitchell & Chan, 2002; Muncy & Vitell, 1992; Vitell & Muncy, 2005

Reporting a lost item as 'stolen' to an insurance company to collect the money

Mitchell & Chan, 2002; Muncy & Vitell, 1992; Vitell & Muncy, 2005; Neale & Fullerton, 2010

Buying items for single use, and then returning them

Fullerton & Punj, 2004; Wilkes, 1978

47

Behaviour Source

Evading fare on public transport This study

Intentionally taking someone else's takeaway order

This study

Drinking a can of soda in a supermarket without paying for it

Muncy & Vitell, 1992; Vitell & Muncy, 2005; Wilkes, 1978

Changing price-tags on merchandise in a retail store

Mitchell & Chan, 2002; Fullerton & Punj, 2004; Muncy & Vitell, 1992; Wilkes, 1978

Not claiming an item when buying groceries through the self-checkout

This study; Wilkes, 1978 (shoplifting)

Impersonating someone else by using their credit card to purchase goods on the internet without permission

Mitchell & Chan, 2002; Freestone & Mitchell, 2004

Using stolen credit cards to order goods over the internet

Mitchell & Chan, 2002; Freestone & Mitchell, 2004

48

Appendix B. Card sort results

Source Behaviour Number of times it appeared in a category

Acceptable Questionable Unacceptable

This study Using the 4 cents fuel voucher from the grocery store to buy petrol

29 100% 0 0% 0 0%

Mitchell & Chan, 2002; Muncy & Vitell, 1992; Vitell & Muncy, 2005

Taping a movie off the television

26 90% 2 7% 1 3%

This study Buying movie tickets online to jump the queue at the cinemas

26 90% 3 10% 0 0%

This study Only buying products from companies if you are part of their loyalty programs

25 86% 4 14% 0 0%

Muncy & Vitell, 1992; Vitell & Muncy, 2005

Spending over an hour trying on different t-shirts and not purchasing any

22 76% 6 21% 1 3%

Neale & Fullerton, 2010

Claim a purchase price is better at a competing retailer in order to get a discount

15 52% 9 31% 5 17%

Mitchell & Chan, 2002; Muncy & Vitell, 1992; Wilkes, 1978

Tasting grapes in a supermarket and not buying any

12 41% 10 34% 7 24%

This study Creating a fake US iTunes account to access and pay for content not available in Australia

9 31% 13 45% 7 24%

Muncy & Vitell, 1992; Vitell & Muncy, 2005

Returning merchandise to a store by claiming it was a gift when it was not

7 24% 13 45% 9 31%

Fullerton & Punj, 2004; Freestone & Mitchell, 2004; Vitell &

Illegally downloading TV shows from the internet for free, for

7 24% 9 31% 13 45%

49

Source Behaviour Number of times it appeared in a category

Acceptable Questionable Unacceptable

Muncy, 2005 personal consumption

This study Creating a fake account on social networking site

4 14% 12 41% 13 45%

Fullerton & Punj, 2004; Muncy & Vitell, 1992; Vitell & Muncy, 2005; Wilkes, 1978

Using an expired coupon for merchandise

3 10% 16 55% 10 34%

Neale & Fullerton, 2010; Wilkes, 1978

Return used goods for a refund

3 10% 11 38% 15 52%

Freestone & Mitchell, 2004

Purchasing organs for transplant over the internet

1 3% 16 55% 12 41%

Mitchell & Chan, 2002; Muncy & Vitell, 1992; Vitell & Muncy, 2005; Neale & Fullerton, 2010

Lying about a child's age in order to get a lower price

1 3% 15 52% 13 45%

This study Saying there are only 2 people staying in a holiday apartment when there are really 4

1 3% 16 55% 12 41%

Mitchell & Chan, 2002; Muncy & Vitell, 1992; Vitell & Muncy, 2005; Neale & Fullerton, 2010; Wilkes, 1978

Not saying anything when the waitress miscalculates the bill in your favour

1 3% 11 38% 17 59%

Mitchell & Chan, 2002; Fullerton & Punj, 2004

Cutting in front of someone in a queue

1 3% 6 21% 22 76%

Muncy & Vitell, 1992

Breaking a bottle of salad dressing in a supermarket and doing nothing about it

0 0% 11 38% 18 62%

This study Taking someone's 0 0% 10 34% 19 66%

50

Source Behaviour Number of times it appeared in a category

Acceptable Questionable Unacceptable

vegetarian meal at a conference

Mitchell & Chan, 2002; Muncy & Vitell, 1992; Vitell & Muncy, 2005

Giving misleading price information to a clerk for an un-priced item

0 0% 7 24% 22 76%

Mitchell & Chan, 2002; Muncy & Vitell, 1992; Vitell & Muncy, 2005; Neale & Fullerton, 2010

Reporting a lost item as 'stolen' to an insurance company to collect the money

0 0% 5 17% 24 83%

Fullerton & Punj, 2004; Wilkes, 1978

Buying items for single use, and then returning them

0 0% 3 10% 26 90%

This study Evading fare on public transport

0 0% 3 10% 26 90%

This study Intentionally taking someone else's takeaway order

0 0% 3 10% 26 90%

Muncy & Vitell, 1992; Vitell & Muncy, 2005; Wilkes, 1978

Drinking a can of soda in a supermarket without paying for it

0 0% 2 7% 27 93%

Mitchell & Chan, 2002; Fullerton & Punj, 2004; Muncy & Vitell, 1992; Wilkes, 1978

Changing price-tags on merchandise in a retail store

0 0% 2 7% 27 93%

This study; Wilkes, 1978 (shoplifting)

Not claiming an item when buying groceries through the self-checkout

0 0% 0 0% 29 100%

Mitchell & Chan, 2002; Freestone & Mitchell, 2004

Impersonating someone else by using their credit card to purchase goods on the internet without permission

0 0% 0 0% 29 100%

Mitchell & Chan, 2002; Freestone & Mitchell, 2004

Using stolen credit cards to order goods over the internet

0 0% 0 0% 29 100%