Deviant Consumer Behaviour : A Qualitative Exploration

1. Deviant Consumer Behaviour: A Qualitative Exploration Paula Dootson BBus(Hons), BBus Queensland University of Technology

2. Presentation Overview

3. Literature Review • Deviant consumer behaviour: Behaviourthat is against the law, a regulation, or violates generally accepted norms of conduct (Elliott, Ageton & Canter, 1979; Fullerton & Punj, 1993; Gibbs, 1981; Kaplan & Lin, 2000; Laub & Sampson, 2001; Moschis & Cox, 1989). • Stream of research: behaviour classifications • Wilkes (1978) • Muncyand Vitell (1992) – Consumer Ethics Scale (CES) • Proactively benefiting at the expense of the seller (reporting a lost item as ‘stolen’ to an insurance company to collect the money) • Passively benefiting at the expense of the seller (Not saying anything when the waitress miscalculates the bill in your favour) • Deceptive practices (Using an expired coupon for merchandise) • No harm/no foul (Installing software on your computer without buying it)

4. Literature Review • Post Muncy and Vitell (1992) – descriptive research on Consumer Ethics Scale • Demographics: age, gender, income (mixed results) • Machiavellianism • Ethical Ideology: idealism, relativism • Religiosity: intrinsic, extrinsic • Behavioural intentions • Cultural comparisons How do consumer define right and wrong consumption behaviours?

5. Why do we care?????? • Need to understand what influences perceptions – enables companies to challenge “incorrect” perceptions • Helps understand what informs the type of justification consumers use to enable them to perform behaviours they know are wrong, but do them anyway • Informs more effective deterrence strategies

6. Methodology Table 1. Sample demographics

7. Results • Figure 1. Defining acceptable, questionable, and unacceptable consumption behaviours

8. (1) Official Classification • Official Classification refers to the law, policy, codes, and regulations of an exchange setting. • When defining acceptable and unacceptable behaviour, participants took into account the official classification of the behaviour, however the weighting placed on it varied among behaviours. “It’s [the law is] almost like implicit …in how you think what is right and what is wrong… the start starting ground, that…probably categorises stuff straight away, and then it’s—you can kind of like deviate from that or like apply to that depending on the context.” (#10)

9. (1) Official Classification UNACCEPTABLE Example: Illegal downloading of TV shows QUESTIONABLE ACCEPTABLE

10. (2) Perceived Prevalence • Perceived prevalence of the behaviour was suggested to infer social norms, and social support for the behaviour. • Conflict arose when prevalence of a behaviour contradicted its official classification, shifting the behaviour from ‘unacceptable’ to ‘questionable’ categories “I think trying to encourage someone to do it would be easier than trying to discourage because I think there’s the kind of societal view that hey everyone does it.” (#9)

11. (2) Perceived Prevalence UNACCEPTABLE Example: Illegal downloading of TV shows QUESTIONABLE ACCEPTABLE

12. (3) Perceived Fairness • Perceived fairness refers to how fair an individual perceives a behaviour to be in response to an unfair consumption situation. • This includes, but is not limited to, pricing, and consumption constraints. “I would make a judgment myself as to why that [hotel policy] has been stipulated, why only two people could stay in there, and I’d make my judgment on that. If I felt there was no real reason why they should stipulate that, then I’d be quite happy to have four people going in there [but saying there are only 2].” (#1) “Well if you’re not going to provide service I’m going to go take a different route to get something I want.” (#3)

13. (3) Perceived Fairness UNACCEPTABLE Example: Illegal downloading of TV shows QUESTIONABLE ACCEPTABLE

14. (4) Perceived Outcomes • Perceived outcomes refer to the outcome of performing a behaviour as it (a) affects themselves and (b) others involved. “…you tend to think that organisations can handle it more, like maybe they’ve got some funding set aside to handle things that you might do … individual people don’t generally have any kind of protection against that. And then there’s just the perception I suppose that companies don’t really have a human face…It’s being able to personally identify people that magnifies everything.” (#5)

15. (4) Perceived Outcomes UNACCEPTABLE Example: Illegal downloading of TV shows QUESTIONABLE ACCEPTABLE

16. (5) Perceived Risk • Perceived risk has to do with an individual’s perceptions of the probability of being caught and the severity of punishment. “It’s quite easy, not a lot of chance of getting caught. The punishment may not even be enough to warrant not doing it, at least for the first time anyway…there’s a good chance he’ll get away with it…the punishment for doing something like that would be a lot less than if you went and robbed a grocery store.” (#23)

17. (5) Perceived Risk UNACCEPTABLE Example: Illegal downloading of TV shows QUESTIONABLE ACCEPTABLE

18. (6) Values • Values refer to the beliefs a consumer holds about a behaviour. “On the inside of it I knew I was breaking my own values and core beliefs in what was right and wrong, so there was discomfort from that.” (#18) “Yeah you just feel like this is just not right, this just doesn’t feel right. … you don’t do something like this.” (#24)

19. (6) Values UNACCEPTABLE Example: Illegal downloading of TV shows QUESTIONABLE ACCEPTABLE

20. (7) Ease of Justification • Ease of justification refers to the ability of the individual to employ neutralisation techniques to reduce dissonance caused by knowing a behaviour is wrong yet performing it anyway. “I put it in questionable because I know it’s the wrong thing to do, but I can rationalise it in certain circumstances.” (#14)

21. Implications • Theoretical implications • Findings support and extend on the conceptual suggestions made about the underlying reasons for categorisingbehaviours(e.g. Amine & Gicquel, 2011; Cox, Cox & Moschis, 1990; Muncy& Vitell, 1992; Vitell & Muncy, 1992;2005; Wilkes, 1978). • Start answering the ‘why’- underlying factors driving perceptions of right and wrong and how they inform behaviour • Neutralisation techniques are used when there is contradictory information about a behaviours rightness or wrongness • Paves way for future research • Which factors do’ Machivellian, relativistic, non religious, young males’ take into account, and • Then test interventions/deterrence strategies to better deter consumer deviance

22. Implications • Practical implications • Can’t rely on the ‘it’s wrong, don’t do it’ or solely on ‘risk’ • Multi-level approach, justifications people use who are actually engaging in consumer deviance • Suggestions: • Social proofs • Humanisingthe organisation- leveraging leverages the identifiable victim effect • More emphasis to be placed self-regulation

23. QUESTIONS?

24. Card sort behaviours Not saying anything when the waitress miscalculates the bill in your favour Using an expired coupon for merchandise Returning merchandise to a store by claiming that it was a gift when it was not Return used goods for a refund Using stolen credit cards to order goods over the Internet Claim a purchase price is better at a competing retailer in order to get a discount Purchasing organs for transplant over the Internet Illegally downloading TV shows from the Internet for free for personal consumption Impersonating someone else by using their credit card to purchase goods e.g. family members, without permission Breaking a bottle of salad dressing in a supermarket and doing nothing about it Buying items such as a dress or a power tool, for a single use, and then returning them Giving misleading price information to a clerk for an un-priced item Taping a movie off the television Drinking a can of soda in a supermarket without paying for it Lying about a child’s age in order to get a lower price Spending over an hour trying on different t-shirts and not purchasing any Changing price tags on merchandise in a retail store Buying movie tickets online to jump the queue at the cinemas Reporting a lost item as “stolen” to an insurance company in order to collect the money Tasting grapes in a supermarket and not buying any Creating a fake U.S. iTunes account to access and pay for content not available in Australia Creating a fake account on a social network site (e.g. dating website, Facebook etc.) Cutting in front of someone in a queue Evading fare on public transport e.g. taking public transport without a ticket or GoCard Not claiming an item when buying groceries through the self-checkout Intentionally taking someone else’s takeaway order Only buying products from companies if you are part of their loyalty programs Saying there are only 2 people staying in a holiday apartment when there are really 4 Using the 4 cents fuel voucher from the grocery store to buy petrol Taking someone’s vegetarian meal at a conference