When do consumers value ethical attributes? The role of perceived quality in gift-giving
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Although research demonstrates the importance of ethical product attributes for consumers, a prior study has not examined the role of consumption target (i.e. self-purchases vs gift-giving) on consumers’ preference for products with ethical attributes. Notably, consumers’ preference for quality can differ between self-purchases and gifts, and the presence of ethical attributes can impact product quality perceptions. The purpose of this paper is to examine how the presence of ethical attributes alters decision-making in a gift-giving context using perceptions of product quality as an explanatory variable for these differences. Design/methodology/approach One field study and two controlled experiments test the proposed hypotheses. The experiments were conducted across different product categories and samples. Findings Results showed that the presence of an ethical attribute leads to higher purchase intentions for products in a gift-giving context compared to self-purchase. Perceived quality mediates this effect. Further process evidence through moderation, including resource synergy beliefs, support the findings. This paper discusses the theoretical, managerial and societal implications of these results. Research limitations/implications Although care was taken to select products to enhance generalizability, the studies presented here are limited to two products. Further, although the present research includes a field study with actual charity-related purchases, the role of time pressures is not explicitly explored. Finally, the role of brand-self connections is not explored in the current research. The ability for a donor to integrate the mission of a charity into their self-perception or the potential for social normative influences to impact behaviors remains open for exploration. Practical implications Charities are facing increasing pressures to raise sustainable funds to support their missions. The research provides guidance to marketers and fundraisers in the non-profit sector that allows them to direct more focused fundraising appeals to donors and adapt their fundraising efforts to create a fit between their audience and fundraising appeals. Originality/value This research demonstrates that consumption target (purchasing for the self versus purchasing for others) is a vital contextual factor that influences customer preference for ethical attributes. These results complement the extant literature by exploring the underlying mechanism behind consumers’ responses to the ethical attributes in the case of self-purchase and other-purchase. The underlying effect is supported theoretically by resource synergy beliefs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".