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

Helmut SchneiderJohn Krieger

Azra Bayraktar

ABSTRACT. Intrinsic religiosity drives ethical con-

sumer behavior; however, previous studies regarding this

connection are limited solely to a Christian cultural

context. This comparative study instead includes Chris-

tian Consumers from Germany and Moslem Consumers

from Turkey to determine if a specific religious com-

munity 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, reli-

gion, 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 lit-

erature 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

behavior of consumers. Various intercultural com-

parative 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 con-

victions 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 identi-

fied in literature, also applies to Moslem consumers.

We also hope to contribute to a greater under-

standing of consumer ethics in an Islamic cultural

area, which is not only meaningful conceptually but

also has practical relevance, considering the increas-

ing economic importance of Moslem consumers.

Journal of Business Ethics � Springer 2011DOI 10.1007/s10551-011-0816-y

The intended isolation of the religious commu-

nity’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 repre-

sents a 99% Moslem country (Srnka et al., 2007).

Turkey is especially qualified as a standard of com-

parison 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 struc-

tured 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 the-

oretical perspective, a society consists of various

subsystems (Luhmann, 2008). In addition, the eco-

nomic 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 con-

sumer 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 purpose-

fully 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 ap-

pear 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

(Pasa et al., 2001). Members of individualistic cul-

tures 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 collec-

tivistic societies. Therefore, we decided to spare the

survey of the dimension active benefiting/legal.

However, Muncy and Vitell’s measure of con-

sumers’ ethical convictions has been used widely,

including in some intercultural studies (e.g., Al-

Khatib 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 funda-

mental determinant of social behavior. Research in

various disciplines, like psychology and sociology,

therefore considers the influence of religious value

Helmut Schneider et al.

systems on human actions (Allport, 1950; Anderson,

1970; Greeley, 1977; Patai, 1977; Weaver and Agle,

2002). In economic research into consumer behav-

ior, 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 com-

pare consumer ethics with intercultural standards and

occasionally address religion in a country context

(Babakus et al., 2004; Cornwell et al., 2005) – reli-

giosity as a determinant of ethical convictions has

been ignored (e.g., Ekin and Tezolmez, 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 religi-

osity 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 distin-

guished (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 behav-

ior 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 religios-

ity. 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 religi-

osity 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 vari-

ables, are important with regard to the behavior of

consumers. If religion dictates a code of values, de-

fined by God, the individual degree of intrinsic

religiosity determines the extent to which a con-

sumer 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

The Impact of Intrinsic Religiosity on Consumers’ Ethical Beliefs

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 re-

fuse 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 con-

sumer 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 indi-

vidual 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 situa-

tional circumstances (Rawwas, 1996). Miskawayh

(1968) identifies a crucial motivation to adopt a rel-

ativistic 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 value-

added 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

intrinsicreligiosity

Consumers´Ethical Beliefs

H1Consumers

Christian Consumers

Moslem Consumers

more religious Christian Consumers/Moslem Consumers

less religious Christian Consumers/Moslem Consumers

Consumersintrinsic

religiosity

intrinsicreligiosity

H2

high

low

Consumers´Ethical Beliefs

high

low

Idealism vs. Relativism

Norm relevance for individual behavior

Figure 1. Study framework.

Helmut Schneider et al.

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) well-

known empirical culture classification, which sup-

ports 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 pre-

disposition generally express an ‘‘emotional need for

rules’’ (Hofstede, 1997, p. 125; Sims and Gegez, 2004).

Moreover, the stronger collectivism orientation

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 con-

sumers in ethical decision situations tend to follow

defined rules rather than make decisions on their

own. In contrast, consumers in individualistic soci-

eties, 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 ques-

tionnaires were shared out. Afterward the partici-

pants filled the questionnaires on their own. Initially

the questionnaire was prepared in English on the

basis of the original scales. Afterward the question-

naire was translated by members of the author-team,

whose mother tongue is German or Turkish, into

the language of the respective survey group. A back-

translation followed to minimize any bias derived

from the translation (Green and White, 1976). All

respondents took part voluntarily without incen-

tives. 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

TABLE I

Scores on Hofstede’s culture dimensions: Germany and

Turkey

Germany Turkey

Power distance (PDI) 35 66

Collectivism (low scores) -

individualism (high scores) (IDV)

67 37

Uncertainty avoidance (UAI) 65 85

Femininity (low scores) -

masculinity (high scores) (MAS)

66 45

The Impact of Intrinsic Religiosity on Consumers’ Ethical Beliefs

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 generaliz-

ability of the results. In total 51.0% of the partici-

pants 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 cal-

culated 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 = ‘‘re-

fusal’’; 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 re-

search. 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?’’

Analysis and results

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.

TABLE 2

Cronbach’s a for the consumers’ ethical belief dimen-

sions

Dimension Number of items Cronbach’s a

Turkey Germany

Active benefiting 6 0.867 0.745

Passive benefiting 4 0.834 0.687

No harm 6 0.808 0.648

TABLE III

Descriptive statistics for the ethical consumer behavior

Complete sample Germany Turkey

n Mean SD n Mean SD n Mean SD

Active benefiting 471 1.65 0.70 240 1.79 0.61 231 1.50 0.75

Passive benefiting 471 2.18 0.99 240 2.69 0.83 231 1.65 0.85

No harm 471 3.70 0.93 240 4.14 0.67 231 3.26 1.00

Helmut Schneider et al.

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 con-

sumer 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 signifi-

cant. 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

separately.5 We again calculated ANOVAs, separately

for both religious communities, with regard to the

connection between religiosity and consumer behav-

ior 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 influ-

enced 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 pro-

vide 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 sup-

port for H2a and H2c but must reject H2b.

TABLE IV

Descriptive statistic for intrinsic religiosity

Complete sample

(n = 471)

Mean (SD)

Germany

(n = 240)

Mean (SD)

Turkey

(n = 231)

Mean (SD)

I enjoy reading about my religion 2.92 (1.16) 2.42 (0.86) 3.45 (1.20)

It is important for me to spend time in

private thought and prayer

3.21 (1.21) 2.81 (1.11) 3.61 (1.18)

I have often had a strong sense of God’s presence 3.40 (1.47) 2.43 (1.11) 4.42 (1.05)

I try hard to live all my life according to

my religious beliefs

2.41 (1.26) 1.89 (0.93) 2.96 (1.32)

My religion is important because it answers many

questions about the meaning of life

3.19 (1.28) 2.62 (1.12) 3.78 (1.18)

I would rather join a Bible study group than a

church social group

2.46 (1.18) 1.95 (0.85) 2.99 (1.24)

My whole approach to life is based on my religion 2.23 (1.31) 1.58 (0.85) 2.90 (1.36)

Prayers I say when I am alone are as important

to me as those I say in church

3.51 (1.32) 3.19 (1.366) 3.84 (1.18)

Mean 2.91 (0.93) 2.35 (0.67) 3.49 (0.80)

The Impact of Intrinsic Religiosity on Consumers’ Ethical Beliefs

Discussion and limitations

Our empirical analysis generates three major results.

First, we identify noticeable differences in the eth-

ical evaluations of active benefiting, passive bene-

fiting, and no harm, regardless of the religious

community or extent of religiosity. Active benefit-

ting 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 respon-

dents avow, we find strong positive correlations of all

three dimensions of ethical convictions and intrinsic

religiosity. With increasing intrinsic religiosity, con-

sumers increasingly reject unethical behavior. These

general results, as well as the intensity of the corre-

lations, 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

TABLE V

Variance analysis: connection between religiosity and consumer behavior ethics

Intrinsic religiosity F p g2

Low High

n = 211 n = 235

Mean

Active benefiting 1.80 1.51 19.583 <0.000 0.04

Passive benefiting 2.55 1.82 71.577 <0.000 0.14

No harm 3.97 3.45 37.853 <0.000 0.09

Christians

Moslems

active benefiting

1.811.78

1.30

1.67

1

2

3

4

5

morereligious

lessreligious

ethicalbeliefs

unethicalbeliefs

2.56

2.81

1,37

1,88

passive benefiting

morereligious

lessreligious

4.114.16

3.05

3.43

no harm

morereligious

lessreligious

G: F(1,238)=.784, n.s., Eta2=.00

TR: F(1,229)=14.131, p=.000, Eta2=.06

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

G=GermanyTR=Turkey

Figure 2. Results of variance analyses: connection between religiosity and consumers’ ethical beliefs, comparison of

Christians and Moslems.

Helmut Schneider et al.

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)

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

TABLE VI

MANOVA results: influence of religiosity on consumer behavior ethics

Active benefiting Passive benefiting No harm

F p F p F p

Religious community (Christians vs. Moslems) 22.981 0.000 187.819 0.000 125.781 0.000

Religiosity (strong vs. weak) 7.318 0.007 25.740 0.000 7.257 0.007

Religious community 9 Religiosity 9.566 0.002 2.756 0.098 6.307 0.012

TABLE VII

Comparison of study results

Year n Measurements Results

Independent variable (a) Dependent variable (a) Correlation (r) p

Vitell et al.

2005 114 Allport–Ross scale of intrinsic religiosity (0.796) Active/illegal (0.663) -0.191 <0.05

Passive (0.765) -0.293 <0.05

Active/legal (0.603) -0.274 <0.05

No harm (0.587) -0.140 n.s.

2006 127 Allport–Ross scale of intrinsic religiosity (0.831) Active/illegal (0.811) -0.232 <0.01

Passive (0.830) -0.446 <0.05

Active/legal (0.759) -0.488 <0.05

No harm (0.754) -0.187 <0.01

2007 Ibid. 2006 (with additional independent variable: attitude toward business)

This study

Complete sample

471 Allport–Ross scale of intrinsic religiosity Active/illegal -0.229 0.000

Passive -0.446 0.000

Active/legal not included

No harm -0.348 0.000

Turkey

231 Allport–Ross scale of intrinsic religiosity (0.805) Active/illegal (0.867) -0.263 0.000

Passive (0.834) -0.242 0.000

Active/legal not included

No harm (0.808) -0.160 0.015

Germany

240 Allport–Ross scale of intrinsic religiosity (0.779) Active/illegal (0.745) 0.037 0.564

Passive (0.687) -0.116 0.073

Active/legal not included

No harm (0.648) 0.012 0.849

The Impact of Intrinsic Religiosity on Consumers’ Ethical Beliefs

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 Scan-

dinavian, U.S., British, and Irish managers. The

sole significant connection between religiosity and

passive benefiting in the Christian subsample indi-

cates 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-determin-

ing 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 re-

sults may stem from the differences in the exam-

ined 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 analy-

ses 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 religi-

osity (in our case Turkey) are less exposed to con-

sumer-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 espe-

cially 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 limita-

tions. 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, espe-

cially 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 ori-

entation.

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

Helmut Schneider et al.

between Catholic and Protestant Christians or Sunni

and Shiitic Moslems. For the analysis of the influ-

ence 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 dif-

ferent 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 connec-

tion, 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 benefit-

ing (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 SSbetween

SStotal

(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 differ-

ence 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 com-

pany 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 Con-

sumer Ethics in Arab Countries’, International Business

Review 14(4), 495–516.

The Impact of Intrinsic Religiosity on Consumers’ Ethical Beliefs

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. Schle-

gelmilch: 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 Per-

sonality Scales’, Journal of Personality 54(1), 106–148.

Buehner, M. and M. Ziegler: 2009, Statistik fur Psycholo-

gen und Sozialwissenschaftler (Pearson, Munich).

Chamberlain, K. and S. Zika: 1992, ‘Religiosity, Mean-

ing 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 Mar-

keting 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 Reli-

giousness: Review and Meta-Analysis’, Journal of Per-

sonality 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. Tezolmez: 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, Cam-

bridge, 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 Ideolo-

gies’, 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. Gurel, C. Eryigit and O. O. 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 all-

gemeinen Theorie, 12th Edition (Suhrkamp, Frankfurt

am Main).

Helmut Schneider et al.

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, Mar-

keting 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’, Interna-

tional 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 Con-

sumer’, Journal of Business Ethics 24(4), 297–311.

Oumlil, A. B. and J. L. Balloun: 2009, ‘Ethical Decision-

Making Differences Between American and Moroccan

Managers’, Journal of Business Ethics 84(4), 457–478.

Pasa, 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 Com-

parison 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 Con-

sumers’, 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 Per-

spective: 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 Con-

sumer 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 Ethi-

cal 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 Applica-

tion’, 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 Inter-

actionist 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

The Impact of Intrinsic Religiosity on Consumers’ Ethical Beliefs

Consumer Research’, Journal of the Academy of Mar-

keting Science 14(1), 47–56.

Younis, T.: 1997, ‘Turkey: The State Apparatus, and

Islamisation’, Civil Service Systems in Comparative Per-

spective, 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

Helmut Schneider et al.