Search

Although hedonic principles of emotion regulation suggest that people wish to feel good, the current research demonstrates that sometimes feeling good just seems wrong. Specifically, the authors argue that, immediately after viewing moralized content such as human suffering, consumers believe that it is morally appropriate to sustain negative emotions (Study 1). Thus, after exposure to content related to human suffering (vs. other negative content), consumers view subsequent mood-sustaining consumption as morally appropriate and hedonic consumption as morally inappropriate (Study 2). Consequently, they avoid repairing their emotions through hedonic consumption because of their preference to engage in morally appropriate behavior (Studies 3 through 4b); this is particularly true for individuals who view themselves as more moral (Study 4b). These effects are mitigated when the hedonic consumption is morally relevant (Study 4a), rather than prototypically frivolous. This research offers clear prescriptions to marketers about when and when not to offer hedonic consumption as mood repair. By allowing people to pay respect to suffering victims, marketers can give consumers needed space to feel their compassionate emotions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

People hold strong moral objections to commercial bodily markets—the buying and selling of the human body and its components (e.g., prostitution; commercial surrogacy; trade of kidneys, blood plasma, sperm, ovum, and hair). This research takes a descriptive approach to understand why people object to the marketing of the human body and how their moral objections differ across the political spectrum. The authors propose that liberals and conservatives find bodily markets to be morally wrong; however, the two groups object to bodily markets for different reasons. Liberals are more sensitive to exploitation concerns, but conservatives are more sensitive to violation of sanctity concerns in these markets. Real-world observational data and controlled experiments test these predictions. The findings show how sociopolitical leaders utilize the different moral objections to persuade their respective audiences, such as how conservative versus more liberal pastors sermonize differently on prostitution. Second, results show how targeted marketing campaigns encourage liberals and conservatives to participate in consumer advocacy and donate to political causes. Third, findings outline how liberals and conservatives support different regulatory laws that penalize buyers versus sellers. Finally, results show how the different moral objections manifest for live bodily products but not for dead bodily products. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

When do consumers experience offense due to another individual's choice, use, display, gifting, sharing, or disposal of a product? Why do they experience offense, and does it matter if they do? In this article, we first draw from past work in multiple disciplines to offer a unique conceptualization of consumption-based offense. We then develop a framework of types of violations that may generate consumption-based offense and propose a set of affective, consumption, and cognitive outcomes we anticipate may follow. We close by offering an agenda for future research that may establish the antecedents and consequences of different types of consumption-based offense, glean new insights from past findings through integration of this novel construct, and offer practical insights into the effects and management of consumption-based offense both in consumers' lives and in the marketplace. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Efforts to combat the COVID-19 crisis were characterized by a difficult trade-off: the stringency of the lockdowns decreased the spread of the virus, but amplified the damage to the economy. In this study, we analyze public attitude toward this trade-off using a survey-embedded experiment conducted with a quota sample of more than 7,000 respondents from Southeast Europe, collected in April and May 2020. The results show that public opinion generally favored saving lives even at a steep economic cost. However, the willingness to trade lives for the economy was greater when the heterogeneous health and economic consequences of lockdown policies for the young and the elderly were emphasized. Free-market views also make people more accepting of higher casualties, as do fears that the instituted measures will lead to a permanent expansion of government control over society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The availability of vaccines does not mean that people will be willing to get vaccinated. For example, different conspiracy beliefs on the adverse effects of vaccines may lead people to avoid collective health measures. This paper explores the role played by antecedents of COVID-related conspiracy beliefs, such as the role of political ideology and the endorsement of moral purity values, and the consequences of COVID-related conspiracy beliefs in terms of the acceptance of a COVID vaccine (when available) via structural equation modelling (SEM). A sample of 590 Italian participants filled in a questionnaire implemented using the Qualtrics.com platform, during the first Italian lockdown in April–May 2020. Results showed that endorsing purity values predicted stronger negative attitude towards COVID-vaccines. Moreover, conspiracy beliefs negatively predicted general attitudes toward vaccines. Faith in science negatively predicted general and COVID-related conspiracy beliefs, with those believing more in science also less endorsing general and COVID-related conspiracy beliefs. The attitudes towards the vaccines mediated the relationship between COVID-related conspiracy beliefs and attitudes towards COVID vaccine. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

By banishing decision-making in the face of uncertainty (risk) to the margins of tort theory, nonconsequentialist legal philosophers have obscured the quotidian, unavoidable, and ubiquitous tradeoffs we face in almost every arena of life. This article explores the historical antecedents of the marginalization of risk in contemporary moral philosophy, and details how legal philosophers have deflected the challenge that risk poses to any nonconsequentialist theory of tort liability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]