In most cultural contexts, consuming ethically is socially desirable and reporting favorable attitudes is relatively cost-free. Thus, consumers have incentives to state favorable attitudes toward ethical products despite barriers to actual purchase. This attitude-behavior gap in ethical consumption presents a global challenge to socially responsible marketing (Carrington et al., 2010, 2014, 2016). Several explanations for this gap have been offered. The current research draws from these explanations and—based on literature in psychometrics and attitude formation—develops a novel measurement tool based on the Affect Misattribution Procedure (AMP; Payne et al., 2005). We aim to capture consumers’ implicit ethical product attitudes which have otherwise evaded marketers (Zollo, 2021). Further, using samples of consumers in both the US and Italy, the current research examines the predictive power of this measure in predicting consequential ethical consumption choices. We conclude with a proposal for additional studies to further validate the procedure in more ecologically valid contexts.

In ethical consumerism, the issue of ethical attitudes not translating to ethical behaviors has been highly debated. While previous studies attribute this attitude-behavioral mismatch to the lack of education, hypocrisy, or low commitment, we propose a novel approach of applying Moral Foundation Theory (MFT) to account for the phenomenon. MFT identifies two dimensions of morality: individualizing moral foundations (INDI) which focuses on justice and harm, and binding moral foundations (BIND) which emphasizes authority and loyalty. Using responses from more than 4,000 consumers from four culturally and regionally diverse markets, we investigate the differing roles of moral foundations in response to a scenario on a sweatshop issue of a supplier whose factory is in a developing country. We use the mediator-moderator model of MFT-anticorporate attitude-boycott behavioral intention sequence to examine the differing role of INDI and BIND. Our results show that INDI and BIND are both positively related to anticorporate attitude; However, BIND is negatively related to boycott behavioral intention while INDI is positively related. That is, consumers with a strong BIND may show an attitude-behavioral mismatch although they are highly ethical.

The Main objective of this study is to find consumer attitude toward the Sanitary Regulation of Foods. In view of consumerism, this result will be used in re-regulating the law. Among the Sanitary Regulation of Foods, this study focuses on the Standard of prepackaged Food Labelling, because it is related both with the advertising from the food manufacturer's point of view and with the perception about the food itself from the consumer's point of view. After reviewing the previous studies and related provisions about the Standard of Prepackaged food Labelling, and compare other sanitary regulation of foods in developed countries (U.S.A. and Japan), basic research framework was derived. The research framework focuses on the user perception about the validity of provisions about the Standard of Prepackaged Food Labelling, and on the existance of exaggeration in food advertising using prepackaged foods. Data were collected through questionaires from the sample covering 374 food customers. The data were analyzed by frequency test and the important findings of this study are as follows. Most food consumers consider such provisions as date of manufacturing, circulation time limit, cautions for food handling, price, and manufacturer as important factors in buying food products. Among these factors, the date of manufacturing and circulation time limit are most critical factors, and must be labelled correctly on the prepackaged food cover. But other provisions which do not affect on consumer's buying decision (e.g. business admission number, self standard number) need not be labelled. From this study, we can conclude that the provisions about the standard of prepackaged Food Labelling currently used must be devided into two parts. One is 'mandatory provisions' which must be obeyed by all food manufacturets, and the other is 'autonomous provisions' which need not be obeyed by all food manufacturers. And mandatory provisions need to be regylated more strongly than now.