Ethical vs unethical minded consumer groups: Effects through the mediation of the Theory of Planned Behaviour on the Intention to Purchase during price promotion periods in the United Kingdom
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Title: Ethical vs unethical minded consumer groups: Effects through the mediation of the Theory of Planned Behaviour on the Intention to Purchase during price promotion periods in the United Kingdom. Date of the Seminar: 4th June 2020 Course: BUSN39 Degree project in Global Marketing Authors: Agathe Dugleux and Puteri Nur Najwa Megat Husni Supervisor: Javier Cenamor Keywords: Consumer behaviour, Ethicality in consumption, Price promotion effects, Theory of Planned Behaviour, Structural Equation Model. Thesis purpose: To understand the relationship between ethical approaches and purchase intention through the use of the Theory of Planned Behaviour, showing differences in attitudes, social norms, and perceived control. Methodology: Quantitative study using Structural Equation Model by the mean of an online survey. Measurements used are Ethical Minded Consumer Behaviour Scale (Sudbury-Riley and Kohlbacher, 2015), TPB (Ajzen, 2019), and Susceptibility to Inter-personal Influence (Bearden et al, 1989). Theoretical perspective: This research has focused on the impact of Ethicality on Intention to Purchase during price promotion periods with Theory of Planned Behaviour (Ajzen, 1991) as the mediator. Empirical data: This research was carried through primary data collected by online questionnaire. The main finding was the validation of a mediation relationship between Ethicality and Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) on the Intentions to purchase during price promotion periods. Conclusion: This research concluded that the more ethical a person is, the less likely they are to buy units during the price promotion periods due to their ethical concerns that make them reduce their consumption level. On top of this, the study displayed a clear validation that there is a mediation relationship between Ethicality, TPB and the intention to purchase during price promotion periods. The study also analysed the differences in behaviour between genders. Practical Implications: This study brings awareness on the need for literature to focus more on TPB relating to Ethicality, as it was found in our results that the more ethical a person is, the more their behaviour is affected by TPB.
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 | 0.004 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".