1

Consumer Ethics among Youths in Indonesia: Do Gender and Religiosity Matter?

Fandy Tjiptono

Monash University Malaysia

Albert*

Semarang University (USM), Indonesia

Tita Elfitasari

Diponegoro University, Indonesia

Abstract

The current study aims to examine the role of religiosity and gender in affecting

consumer ethics among Indonesian youths. A convenience sample of 482 students in a large

private university in Semarang, Central Java, Indonesia, participated in the research.

Established scales were adopted to measure the key constructs. Intrinsic religiosity and

gender were used as the independent variables, while each dimension of consumer ethics was

treated as the dependent variables. The results of seven multiple regression analyses indicated

that gender and intrinsic religiosity influence consumer ethics dimensions significantly,

except for ‘downloading’. Individuals who live daily life according to their religion are less

receptive towards unethical activities than those who do not. Further, females were found to

be more ethical than male counterparts on five dimensions of consumer ethics. Males tended

to be more supportive of ‘doing good’ for the seller compared to females. In general, the

findings suggest that gender and religiosity do matter in influencing consumer ethics among

youths in Indonesia. These findings provide important insights for religious leaders,

university lecturers, and policy makers in their efforts to reduce unethical acts among the

young generation.

Keywords: consumer ethics, gender, religiosity, youth, Indonesia.

* Presenting author.

2

Introduction

Young consumers in developing countries are reported to be receptive towards

unethical behaviors such as downloading unauthorized digital materials, buying pirated

goods, and photocopying books illegally (Aleassa et al. 2011; Tjiptono et al. 2016). Indonesia

is one of the developing countries with a high level of piracy. For instance, about 84% of

software used in Indonesia was pirated versions (BSA 2014). In their latest report, IIPA

(2016) revealed that both physical and digital piracy in Indonesia remain rampant in 2015.

Interestingly, Indonesia is a religious country, where about 99% of its citizens claimed that

religion plays an important role in their daily life (Crabtree 2010). It poses an interesting

question on the role of religiosity in helping to reduce unethical behaviors.

The current study aims to examine the role of religiosity and gender in affecting

consumer ethics among youths in Indonesia. Religiosity has been suggested as an important

determinant of moral decision-making and moral behavior. However, empirical studies

produced mixed results where some highly religious individuals committed unethical acts

(Arli and Tjiptono 2014). Vitell and Paolillo (2003) suggested that more studies are needed to

examine the role of religiosity in influencing consumer beliefs regarding various questionable

consumer actions. Similary, despite gender is one of the most heavily studied variables in

business ethics (Roxas and Stoneback 2004), the relationship between gender and consumer

ethics may not be “as straightforward as one might presume” (Dalton and Ortegren 2011, p.

73). Some meta-analysis studies produced inconclusive results on gender differences in ethics

(Bossuyt and Van Kenhove 2016; You et al. 2011). Therefore, the present study aims to

address the following research question: “How do gender and religiosity influence consumer

ethics among youths in Indonesia?”

3

Literature Review

Consumer Ethics

The interest in consumer ethics studies has grown rapidly since 1990s (Vitell and

Muncy 1992, 2005; Vitell 2003). Consumer ethics can be defined as “the moral principles

and standards that guide behaviour of individuals or groups as they obtain, use and dispose of

goods and services” (Muncy and Vitell 1992, p. 298). Vitell (2015) argued that consumer

ethics represents consumer responsibility toward other stakeholders in his/her one-on-one

dyadic relationships.

The mostly adopted scale to measure consumer ethics is Muncy and Vitell’s (1992)

Consumer Ethics Scale (CES). It focuses on how consumers assess a wide range of situations

that have ethical contents that they may face as consumers. CES consists of: (1) actively

benefiting from illegal actions; (2) passively benefiting; (3) questionable but legal actions,

and (4) no harm/no foul activities. The scale has been widely used in a number of cultural

contexts (Arli and Tjiptono 2014; Al-Khatib et al. 1997; Polonsky et al. 2001; Rawwas et al.

1994, 1995, 1998). These studies suggested the relatively consistent dimension structure for

the CES (Vitell 2003). In a further development, Vitell and Muncy (2005) added three new

categories: (a) downloading copyrighted materials/buying counterfeit products; (b)

recycling/environmental awareness; and (c) doing the right thing/doing good.

Gender and Consumer Ethics

Gender has been suggested as one of the most important factors influencing ethical or

moral reasoning (Robin and Babin 1997). According to Gilligan’s (1982) theory of female

moral development, men and women have different approaches to morality. While for men

morality is a matter of following impartial, impersonal, and abstract moral principles, women

tend to focus on caring and being responsible for those with whom they have personal

4

relationships (Gilligan 1982; Velasquez 2012).

Many studies indicated that gender is related to ethical beliefs, but to date the results

are not definitive (Robin and Babin 1997; Vitell 2003; You et al. 2011). Some research

concluded that females tend to be more ethical than males (Lane 1995; Liu and Chen, 2012;

Valentin, Godkin and Rittenburg 2008), while some other studies found insignificant

differences (Izreaeli and Jaffe 2000; Kracher et al. 2002; McCabe, Ingram and Dato-on

2006). Few studies suggested that males are more ethical than females (Bossuyt and Van

Kenhove 2016; Phau and Kea 2006). The mixed findings suggest that more research on

gender differences and consumer ethics are needed to re-examine these inconsistencies. For

the current study, the following hypotheses are proposed:

H1: Female youths will have a higher ethical belief than their male counterparts in terms of

each dimension of consumer ethics scale: (a) active benefiting; (b) passively benefiting;

(c) questionable action; (d) no harm/no foul; (e) downloading; (f) recycling; and (g)

doing good.

Religiosity and Consumer Ethics

Religiosity has a strong impact on consumer ethics and consumer decision making

(Vitell and Paolillo 2003). Religiosity can be defined as “a belief in God accompanied by a

commitment to follow principles believed to be set forth by God” (McDaniel and Burnett

1990, p. 103). It is a degree of being religious (O’Connell 1975) or the extent to which an

individual is committed to his/her religion, reflected in his/her attitude and behavior (Johnson

2001). Religiosity can also be defined as the extent to which a person lives out his or her

religious beliefs (Allport and Ross 1967). Allport and Ross (1967) suggested that religiosity

has two different dimensions: intrinsic religiosity and extrinsic religiosity. The “extrinsically

motivated person uses his religion, while intrinsically motivated person lives his religion”

(Allport and Ross 1967, p. 434). In other words, intrinsically motivated individuals tend to

5

internalize and use religious teachings more than their extrinsically motivated counterparts

(Wenger 2004).

Empirical studies seem to indicate that religiosity plays an important role in consumer

ethical beliefs and behaviors (Hunt and Vitell 1986, 2006; Vitell and Paolillo 2003), where

individuals with stronger religious beliefs tend to be more ethical and vice versa (Vitell 2015).

However, while several studies found that intrinsic religiosity significantly affects consumers’

ethical judgment (Arli and Tjiptono 2014; Kennedy and Lawton 1998; Vitell et al., 2005),

extrinsic religiosity seems to have only a very limited impact (Vitell 2014). Therefore, the

present study focuses on the impact of intrinsic religiosity on consumer ethics. The following

hypotheses are formulated:

H2: Intrinsic religiosity will negatively influence: (a) active benefiting; (b) passively

benefiting; (c) questionable action; (d) no harm/no foul; (e) downloading; and will

positively affect: (f) recycling; and (g) doing good.

Methodology

Research Context and Data Collection

Indonesia is the world’s fourth largest population with around 256 million people

(CIA, 2016) and is the largest economy in Southeast Asia with GDP of US$ 873 billion in

2015 (CIA, 2016) and Gross National Income (GNI) of US$ 9,788 per capita in 2011 (UNDP,

2016). Like many other developing countries, Indonesia has a young population: around 42%

of its people are under 25 years old.

Using a convenience sampling approach, 550 self-administered questionnaires were

distributed to undergraduate students at a large private university in Semarang, Central Java,

Indonesia. Semarang is the fifth most populous city in Indonesia (± 1.8 million people) and

the fifth largest Indonesian city (Wikipedia, 2016). Incomplete questionnaires were excluded,

resulting in 482 usable questionnaires (a response rate of 87.6%). The demographic profile of

6

respondents are as follows: 64.3% of the respondents were female, 37.8% of them aged 19

years old and 27% were 18 years old, 56.6% studied social sciences, about 66% had an

average monthly allowance of less than Rp 1 million (±US76.5), and 96.1% are Muslims.

Table 1 summarizes the profile of the respondents.

Insert Table 1 about Here

Measures

Established measures were adopted, i.e. Consumer Ethics Scale (Muncy and Vitell

1992; Vitell and Muncy 2005) and Religious Orientation Scale (Allport and Ross 1967). The

items of both scales were translated into Bahasa Indonesia and back-translated into English as

required to ensure consistency. The Consumer Ethics Scales (CES) consist of seven

dimensions: (1) ‘Actively Benefiting from Illegal Activities’ (e.g., returning damaged

merchandise when the damage is your fault); (2) ‘Passively Benefiting’ (e.g., getting too

much change and not saying anything); (3) ‘Questionable Action’ (e.g., not telling the truth

when negotiating the price of a new automobile); (4) ‘No Harm/No Foul’ (e.g. using a

computer software or games that you did not buy); (5) ‘Downloading’ (e.g., downloading

music from the internet instead of buying it); (6) ‘Recycling’ (e.g., purchasing something

made of recycled materials even though it is more expensive); and (7) ‘Doing Good’ (e.g.,

correcting a bill that has been miscalculated in your favor). The intrinsic religiosity

dimension of the Religious Orientation Scale consists of items such as “I enjoy reading about

my religion” and “It is important to me to spend time in private thought and prayer”.

Intrinsic religiosity and gender were used as the independent variables, while each

dimension of consumer ethics (i.e. ‘actively benefiting’, ‘passively benefiting’, ‘questionable

action’, ‘no harm/no foul’, ‘downloading’, ‘recycling’, and ‘doing good’) were treated as the

dependent variables. Seven multiple regression analyses were conducted to examine the

impact of gender and intrinsic religiosity on consumer ethics.

7

Results

Cronbach’s Alpha was used to examine the reliability of the constructs (see Table 2).

The results show that all constructs are reliable with Cronbach’s Alpha between 0.636

(Downloading) to 0.789 (Doing Good). Composite item scores were calculated for each

construct by adding the relevant items and calculating the mean scores for the construct for

each individual.

Insert Table 2 about Here

The two hypotheses (H1 and H2) were tested using seven multiple regression analyses

(see Table 3 for a summary of the hypothesis testing results). The results show that gender

has a significant impact on actively benefiting, passively benefiting, questionable action, no

harm/no foul, recycling, and doing good. Female youths were found to have a higher ethical

belief on the actively benefiting, passively benefiting, questionable action, no harm/no foul,

and doing good than males. These findings were confirmed with independent t-tests showing

that females had significantly more negative perception toward unethical actions (actively

benefiting, passively benefiting, questionable action, and no harm/no foul) and stronger

support for doing the right thing/doing good (see Table 4). Males tend to be more supportive

for recycling. However, the effect of gender on downloading dimension was insignificant.

Therefore, H1a, H1b, H1c, H1d, and H1g were supported, while H1e and H1f were not supported.

The effects of intrinsic religiosity on consumer ethics dimensions were found to be

significant for all dimensions, except for downloading. Higher intrinsic religiosity is strongly

associated with higher ethical beliefs and vice versa. Hence, H2a, H2b, H2c, H2d, H2f,and H2g

were supported, while H2e was not supported.

Insert Table 3 and Table 4 about Here

8

Findings and Discussion

Consumer Ethics among Youth in Indonesia

Both female and male youths in Indonesia believe that actively benefiting, passively

benefiting, questionable action, and no harm/no foul are unethical practices (the means are

between 1.69 and 2.80; see Table 4), while recycling and doing good are ethical activities (the

means are between 3.62 and 4.20; see Table 4). However, young people in Indonesia tend to

have a neutral perception on downloading dimension (an average of 3.06 for males and 2.94

for females; see Table 4). They considered ‘downloading music from the internet instead of

buying it’ to be acceptable (an average of 3.29; see Table 2). It may suggest that digital piracy

(i.e. buying, copying, uploading, downloading, and/or sharing illegal digital materials) is still

a serious issue in Indonesia. In fact, a recent report from International Intellectual Property

Alliance (IIPA, 2016) highlights that physical and digital piracy levels remain rampant in

Indonesia. Ironically, book piracy seems to be a common practice in and around campuses in

the country. It is relatively easy for students and lecturers to photocopy books, journals, and

course packs in nearby copy centers providing “print or copy to order” services (IIPA, 2016).

Previous studies in different contexts suggested that universities were considered to represent

an ideal proliferation place for digital piracy (Cheng et al. 1997), as a result of high-speed

network connections (Wade 2004).

As a consequence, universities (including their academic staff) have to be role models

in compliance with copyright laws and regulations. Initiatives such as using only original

software and textbooks need to be put in place. For policy makers, a clear rule and regulation

supported by consistent law enforcement and stricter codes of conduct pertaining to the

protection of intellectual property rights are essential to reduce unethical acts among young

generation in Indonesia. Such actions will help Indonesian youths to understand that a

copyright is not the same as “a right to copy”.

9

The Role of Gender and Intrinsic Religiosity

The present study found that females tend to be more ethical than male counterparts.

This result confirms previous findings (e.g., Bateman and Valentine 2010; Liu and Chen

2012; Suar and Gochhayat 2016; Tjiptono et al. 2016). In general, it supports gender

socialization theory, which argues that males and females have different judgments and

attitudes toward ethical issues due to their differences in socialization (Gilligan 1987).

Furthermore, intrinsic religiosity was found to be a significant predictor of consumer

ethics. Individuals who live daily life according to their religion (Vitell et al. 2005) are less

receptive towards unethical activities than those who do not. As an implication, religious

leaders play an important role in helping young people to better understand about ethical and

unethical practices.

Conclusions and Future Research Direction

The findings of the current study suggest that gender and religiosity do matter in

influencing consumer ethics among youths in Indonesia. However, as with any other research

project, the present study has some limitations which, in turn, provide opportunities for future

research. The use of a convenience sample of undergraduate students from a university in one

city in Indonesia may limit the generalizability of the findings. Future studies may focus on

more cities and/or countries as well as include non-student samples. Furthermore, gender has

been suggested as a complex social-psychological construct (McCabe et al. 2006). Instead of

treating gender as a dichotomous variable (i.e. biological gender), future research may

explore the use of a multidimensional measure of gender. Finally, future studies may also

investigate other potential determinants of consumer ethics, such as age and income (Vitell

and Paolillo 2003), materialism and long-term orientation (Arli and Tjiptono 2014).

10

References

Aleassa, H., Pearson, J. M., & McClurg, S. (2011). Investigating software piracy in Jordan:

An extension of the theory of reasoned action. Journal of Business Ethics, 98(4), 663-676.

Al-Khatib, J. A., Rawwas, M. Y. A., & Vitell, S. J. (1997). Consumer ethics: A cross-cultural

investigation. European Journal of Marketing, 31, 736-767.

Allport, G. W., & Ross, J. M. (1967). Personal religious orientation and prejudice. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 5, 447-457.

Arli, D., & Tjiptono, F. (2014). The end of religion? Examining the role of religiousness,

materialism, and long-term orientation on consumer ethics in Indonesia. Journal of Business

Ethics, 123, 385-400.

Bateman, C. R., & Valentine, S. R. (2010). Investigating the effects of gender on consumers’

moral philosophies and ethical intentions. Journal of Business Ethics, 95, 393-414.

Bossuyt, S., & Van Kenhove, P. (2016). Assertiveness bias in gender ethics research: Why

women deserve the benefit of the doubt. Journal of Business Ethics, doi: 10.1007/s10551-

016-3026-9.

BSA (2014). The compliance gap: BSA global software survey June 2014. Washington, DC:

BSA.

Cheng, H. K., Sims, R. R., & Teegen, H. (1997). To purchase or to pirate software: An

empirical study. Journal of Management Information System, 13(4), 49-60.

CIA (2016). The world factbook: Indonesia. Resource document.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/resources/the-world-factbook/geos/id.html.

Accessed 25 May 2016.

Crabtree, S. (2010). Religiosity highest in world’s poorest nations. Resource document.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/142727/religiosity-highest-world-poorest-nations.aspx. Accessed

13 October 2016.

Dalton, D., & Ortegren, M. (2011). Gender differences in ethics research: The importance of

controlling for the social desirability response bias. Journal of Business Ethics, 103, 73-93.

Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Gilligan, C. (1987). Moral orientation and moral development. In Kittay, E.F. and Meyers,

D.T. (Eds.), Women and moral theory (pp. 19-23). Totowa, NJ: Rowman & Littlefield.

Hunt, S. D., & Vitell, S. (1986). A general theory of marketing ethics. Journal of

Macromarketing, 6(1), 5-16.

11

Hunt, S. D., & Vitell, S. J. (2006). The general theory of marketing ethics: A revision and

three questions. Journal of Macromarketing, 26(2), 143-153.

International Intellectual Property Alliance (2016). Indonesia: International Intellectual

Property Alliance (IIPA) 2016 special 301 report on copyright protection and enforcement.

Resource document. http://www.iipawebsite.com/rbc/2016/2016SPEC301INDONESIA.PDF.

Accessed 6 June 2016.

Izraeli, D., & Jaffe, E. D. (2000). Are there gender differences in the ethics judgments of

marketing managers? International Journal of Value-Based Management, 13, 159-172.

Johnson, B. R., Jang, S. J., Larson, D. B., & De Li, S. (2001). Does adolescent religious

commitment matter? A reexamination of the effects of religiosity on delinquency. Journal of

Research in Crime and Delinquency, 38(1), 22-44.

Kennedy, E. J., & Lawton, L. (1998). Religiousness and business ethics. Journal of Business

Ethics, 17(2), 163-175.

Kracher, B., Chatterjee, A., & Lundquist, A. R. (2002). Factors related to the cognitive moral

development of business students and business professionals in India and the United States:

Nationality, education, sex and gender. Journal of Business Ethics, 35(4), 255-268.

Lane, J. C. (1995). Ethics of business students: Some marketing perspectives. Journal of

Business Ethics, 14(7), 571-580.

Liu, X., & Chen, Y. (2012). Information ethics: A cross-cultural study of ethical decision-

making between U.S. and Chinese business students. International Journal of Business and

Social Science, 3(8), 51-60.

McCabe, A. C., Ingram, R., & Dato-on, M. C. (2006). The business of ethics and gender.

Journal of Business Ethics, 64, 101-116.

McDaniel, S. W., & Burnett, J. J. (1990). Consumer religiosity and retail store evaluative

criteria. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 18(2), 101-112.

Muncy, J. A., & Vitell, S. J. (1992). Consumer ethics: An investigation of the ethical beliefs

of the final consumer. Journal of Business Research, 24, 297–311.

O’Connell, B. J. (1975). Dimensions of religiosity among Catholics. Review of Religious

Research, 16(3), 198-207.

Phau, I., & Kea, G. (2007). Attitudes of university students toward business ethics: A cross-

national investigation of Australia, Singapore and Hong Kong. Journal of Business Ethics,

72, 61-75.

Polonsky, M. J., Brito, P. Q., Pinto, J., & Higgs-Kleyn, N. (2001). Consumer ethics in the

European Union: A comparison of Northern and Southern view. Journal of Business Ethics,

31, 117-130.

Rawwas, M. Y. A, Patzer, G. L., & Vitell, S. J. (1998). A cross-cultural investigation of the

12

ethical values of consumers: The potential effect of civil war and civil disruption. Journal of

Business Ethics, 17, 435–448.

Rawwas, M. Y. A., Patzer, G. L. and Klassen, M. L. (1995). Consumer ethics in cross-cultural

settings: Entrepreneurial implications. European Journal of Marketing, 29, 62–78.

Rawwas, M. Y. A., Vitell, S. J., & Al-Khatib, J. (1994). Consumer ethics: The possible effects

of terrorism and civil unrest on the ethical values of consumers. Journal of Business Ethics,

13, 223-231.

Robin, D., & Babin, L. (1997). Making sense of the research on gender and ethics in

business: A critical analysis and extension. Business Ethics Quarterly, 7(4), 61-90.

Roxas, M. L., & Stoneback, J. Y. (2004).“The importance of gender across cultures in ethical

decision making. Journal of Business Ethics, 50(2), 149-165.

Suar, D., & Gochhayat, J. (2016). Influence of biological sex and gender roles on ethicality.

Journal of Business Ethics, doi: 10.1007/s10551-014-2424-0.

Tjiptono, F., Arli, D., & Viviea (2016). Gender and digital piracy: Examining determinants of

attitude toward digital piracy among youths in an emerging market. International Journal of

Consumer Studies, 40(2), 168-178.

UNDP (2016). UNDP human development reports: Indonesia. Resource document.

http://hdr.undp.org/en/countries/profiles/IDN. Accessed 6 June 2016.

Valentine, S., Godkin, L., Page, K., & Rittenburg, K. (2008). Gender and ethics: Ethical

judgements, ethical intentions, and altruism among healthcare professionals. Gender in

Management: An International Journal, 24(2), 112-130.

Velasquez, M. G. (2012). Business ethics: Concept and cases, 7th

ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ:

Pearson Education, Inc.

Vitell, S. J. (2003). Consumer ethics research: Review, synthesis and suggestions for the

future. Journal of Business Ethics, 43(1), 33-47.

Vitell, S. J. (2015). A case for consumer social responsibility (CnSR): Including a selected

review of consumer ethics/social responsibility research. Journal of Business Ethics, 130(4),

767-774.

Vitell, S. J., & Muncy, J. (2005). The Muncy-Vitell consumer ethics scale: A modification and

application. Journal of Business Ethics, 62, 267-275.

Vitell, S. J., & Paolillo, J. G. P. (2003). Consumer ethics: The role of religiosity. Journal of

Business Ethics, 46(2), 151-162.

Vitell, S. J., & Muncy, J. (1992). Consumer ethics: An empirical investigation of factors

influencing ethical judgments of the final consumer. Journal of Business Ethics, 11(8), 585-

597.

13

Wade, J. (2004). The music industry’s war on piracy. Risk Management Magazine, February,

10-15.

Wenger, J. L. (2004). Research: The automatic activation of religious concepts: Implications

for religious orientations. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 14(2),

109-123.

Wikipedia (2016). Semarang. Resource document. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semarang.

Accessed 11 October 2016.

You, D., Maeda, Y., & Bebeau, M. J. (2011). Gender differences in moral sensitivity: A meta

analysis. Ethics and Behavior, 21(4), 263-282.

14

Appendices

Table 1. Demographic Profile of the Respondents (n=482)

Description Frequency Percentage

Gender

Male 172 35.7

Female 310 64.3

Age

17 years old 15 3.1

18 years old 130 27.0

19 years old 182 37.8

20 years old 124 25.7

21 years old 15 3.1

22 years old 7 1.5

23 years old 5 1.0

24 years old 2 0.4

25 years old 2 0.4

Major

Social Sciences 273 56.5

Science and Engineering 209 43.4

Average Monthly Allowance

Less than Rp 1 million 316 65.6

Rp 1,000,000 – Rp 1,999,999,00 145 30.1

Rp 2,000,000 – Rp 2,999,999,00 12 2.5

Rp 3,000,000 – Rp 3,999,999,00 9 1.9

Religion

Islam 463 96.1

Christian (Protestant) 13 2.7

Catholic 5 1.0

Hinduism 1 0.2

15

Table 2. Scale Items

Dimensions and Items Means

(S.D.)

Factor

Loadings

Cronbach’s

Alphas

Active Benefiting

0.639 Returning damaged merchandise when the damage is your fault. 1.97 (0.893) 0.747

Giving misleading price information to a clerk for an unpriced item. 2.14 (0.897) 0.735

Using a long distance access code that does not belong to you. 2.00 (0.741) 0.815

Passively Benefiting

0.742

Lying about a child’s age in order to get a lower price. 1.78 (0.664) 0.730

Not saying anything when the waitress miscalculates the bill in your

favor. 1.87 (0.732) 0.830

Observing someone shoplifting and ignoring it. 1.70 (0.697) 0.666

Getting too much change and not saying anything. 1.70 (0.648) 0.774

Questionable Action

0.755

Using an expired coupon for merchandise. 1.79 (0.630) 0.704

Returning merchandise to a store by claiming it was a gift when it

was not. 1.84 (0.696) 0.741

Using a coupon for merchandise you did not buy. 2.19 (0.783) 0.739

Not telling the truth when negotiating the price of a new automobile. 1.99 (0.834) 0.687

Stretching the truth on an income tax return. 1.63 (0.658) 0.697

No Harm/No Foul

0.742

Installing software on your computer without buying it. 2.64 (0.807) 0.795

Burning a CD instead of buying it. 2.49 (0.863) 0.789

Using computer software or games that you did not buy. 2.74 (0.901) 0.829

Spending over an hour trying on different dresses and not purchasing

any. 2.86 (0.894) 0.586

Downloading

0.636 Downloading music from the internet instead of buying it. 3.29 (0.893) 0.856

Buying counterfeit goods instead of buying the original

manufacturers’ brand. 2.67 (0.875) 0.856

Recycling

0.708

Buying products labeled as “environmentally friendly” even if they

do not work as well as competing products. 3.25 (0.856) 0.629

Purchasing something made of recycled materials even though it is

more expensive. 3.59 (0.871) 0.767

Buying only from companies that have a strong record of protecting

the environment. 3.59 (0.801) 0.793

Recycling materials such as cans, bottles, newspapers, etc. 4.38 (0.690) 0.738

Doing Good

0.789 Returning to the store and paying for an item that the cashier

mistakenly did not charge you for. 4.22 (0.779) 0.909

Correcting a bill that has been miscalculated in your favor. 4.07 (0.786) 0.909

Intrinsic Religiosity

0.771

I enjoy reading about my religion. 4.26 (0.691) 0.763

It is important to me to spend time in private thought and prayer. 4.05 (0.774) 0.743

I have often had a strong sense of God’s presence. 4.35 (0.661) 0.793

I try hard to live all my life according to my religious beliefs. 4.55 (0.594) 0.690

My whole approach to life is based on religion. 4.20 (0.755) 0.638

16

Table 3. Regression Results

(a) Dependent variable: Actively Benefiting

Standardized β t value Sig.

Constant 3.327 12.528 0.000

Intrinsic Religiosity -0.184 -4.132 0.000**

Gender -0.130 -2.914 0.004**

R2 = 0.050 F-value = 12.631

Adjusted R2 = 0.046 Significance = 0.000

(b) Dependent variable: Passively Benefiting

Standardized β t value Sig.

Constant 2.988 14.285 0.000

Intrinsic Religiosity -0.209 -4.758 0.000**

Gender -0.178 -4.044 0.000**

R2 = 0.074 F-value = 19.252

Adjusted R2 = 0.071 Significance = 0.000

(c) Dependent variable: Questionable Action

Standardized β t value Sig.

Constant 3.449 16.861 0.000

Intrinsic Religiosity -0.274 -6.368 0.000**

Gender -0.207 -4.810 0.000**

R2 = 0.116 F-value = 31.454

Adjusted R2 = 0.112 Significance = 0.000

(d) Dependent variable: No Harm/No Foul

Standardized β t value Sig.

Constant 3.576 13.200 0.000

Intrinsic Religiosity -0.107 -2.387 0.017*

Gender -0.134 -2.978 0.003**

R2 = 0.029 F-value = 7.192

Adjusted R2 = 0.025 Significance = 0.001

(e) Dependent variable: Downloading

Standardized β t value Sig.

Constant 3.499 10.981 0.000

Intrinsic Religiosity -0.051 -1.119 0.264

Gender -0.073 -1.613 0.107

R2 = 0.008 F-value = 1.904

Adjusted R2 = 0.004 Significance = 0.150

(f) Dependent variable: Recycling

Standardized β t value Sig.

Constant 3.477 14.302 0.000

Intrinsic Religiosity 0.118 2.635 0.009**

Gender -0.180 -4.042 0.000**

R2 = 0.047 F-value = 11.779

Adjusted R2 = 0.043 Significance = 0.000

(g) Dependent variable: Doing Good

Standardized β t value Sig.

Constant 2.366 8.186 0.000

Intrinsic Religiosity 0.254 5.787 0.000**

Gender 0.102 2.320 0.021*

R2 = 0.074 F-value = 19.264

Adjusted R2 = 0.071 Significance = 0.000

Notes: ** significant at α = 1%; * significant at α = 5%. The coding for gender: 1 = male, 2 = female.

17

Table 4. Gender and Consumer Ethics

Dimension Mean (S.D.)

t-value (Sig.) Male Female

Actively Benefiting 2.14 (0.72) 1.97 (0.59) 2.814 (0.005)**

Passively Benefiting 1.88 (0.58) 1.69 (0.46) 3.896 (0.000)**

Questionable Action 2.03 (0.60) 1.81 (0.44) 4.545 (0.000)**

No Harm/No Foul 2.80 (0.71) 2.62 (0.61) 2.933 (0.004)**

Downloading 3.06 (0.84) 2.94 (0.70) 1.518 (0.130)

Recycling 3.84 (0.62) 3.62 (0.56) 3.936 (0.000)**

Doing Good 4.05 (0.73) 4.20 (0.70) -2.143 (0.033)*

Notes: A 5-point scale was used, where 1 indicates the action was perceived to be wrong and 5 indicates that

the action was believed to be acceptable.

S.D. = Standard Deviation; Sig. = Significance.

** significant at = 0.01; * significant at = 0.05.