Ethical consumption (in)decisons

Consumers’ indecisions about the ethical value of their choices are amongst the highest concerns regarding ethical products’ purchasing. This is especially true for Fair Trade certified products where the ethical attribute information provided by the packaging is often unacknowledged by consumers. While well-informed consumers are likely to generate positive consumer reactions to ethical products and increase its ethical consumption, less knowledgeable buyers show different purchasing patterns. In such circumstances, decisions are often driven by socio-cultural beliefs about the low functional performance of ethical or sustainable attributes. For instance, products more congruent with sustainability (e.g., produce) are considered to be simpler but less tasty than less sustainable products. Less sustainable products instead, are considered to be more sophisticated and to provide consumers with more hedonic pleasures (e.g., chocolate mousse). The extent that ethicality is linked with experiences that provide consumers with more pain than pleasure is also manifested in pro-social social behaviors. More specifically through conspicuous self-sacrificial consumption experiences like running for charity in marathons with wide public exposure. The willingness of consumers to engage in such costly initiatives is moderated by gender differences and further, mediated by the chronic productivity orientation of some individuals to use time in a productive manner. Using experimental design studies, I show that consumers (1) use a set of affective and cognitive associations with on-package elements to interpret ethical attributes, (2) implicitly associate ethicality with simplicity, and that (3) men versus women show different preferences in their forms of contribution to pro-social causes.

Choosing between past and future regret

Sometimes decisions imply trade-offs that force people to accept missing an opportunity in the past or in the future. It has not yet been clarified whether a past miss or a future miss elicits more regret. In a direct comparison, Shani, Danziger, and Zeelenberg found support for the greater impact of future misses. In an experimental design with 216 students, we replicated their study and tested the strength of the future miss in a separate evaluation and with different periods. The results show that future misses cause less regret than past misses do when evaluated separately. However, future misses made participants change their feelings of regret more than past misses did. Feelings of regret did not decrease when future misses were further away. Our findings support the strength of future misses on regret but also show contrasting effects when evaluated separately. This indicates the further need for research in this topic.