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