Deviant Consumer Behaviour:
A Qualitative Exploration
Paula Dootson
BBus(Hons), BBus
Queensland University of Technology
1
2
Presentation Overview
Literature
Review
Methodology
Results
Implications
3
Literature Review
 Deviant consumer behaviour: Behaviour that 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)
 Muncy and Vitell (1992) – Consumer Ethics Scale (CES)
1. Proactively benefiting at the expense of the seller (reporting a lost item as ‘stolen’ to
an insurance company to collect the money)
2. Passively benefiting at the expense of the seller (Not saying anything when the
waitress miscalculates the bill in your favour)
3. Deceptive practices (Using an expired coupon for merchandise)
4. 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
PURPOSE
Explore consumer perceptions of right and wrong
METHOD
Interviews with card sort activity
SAMPLE
29 participants, males and females living in Australia over
18yo
Purposive and snowballing
ANALYSIS
Thematic analysis using Nvivo software
LIMITATIONS
Cross-sectional,
culturally homogenous
Table 1. Sample demographics
Age
Males
Females
Total
18-34
5
4
9
35-50
4
5
9
51-66
5
4
9
67+
1
1
2
Total
15
14
29
7
Results
Perceived
fairness
Perceived
outcomes
Perceived
prevalence
Official
classification
Perceived
risk
Values
Definition
Ease of
justification
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
Example: Illegal downloading of TV shows
UNACCEPTABLE
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
Example: Illegal downloading of TV shows
UNACCEPTABLE
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
Example: Illegal downloading of TV shows
UNACCEPTABLE
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
Example: Illegal downloading of TV shows
UNACCEPTABLE
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
Example: Illegal downloading of TV shows
UNACCEPTABLE
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
Example: Illegal downloading of TV shows
UNACCEPTABLE
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 categorising behaviours (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
 Humanising the organisation- leveraging leverages the identifiable
victim effect
 More emphasis to be placed self-regulation
23
QUESTIONS?
Card sort behaviours
24

Not saying anything when the waitress miscalculates the bill in your favour

Spending over an hour trying on different t-shirts and not purchasing any

Using an expired coupon for merchandise

Changing price tags on merchandise in a retail store

Returning merchandise to a store by claiming that it was a gift when it was not

Buying movie tickets online to jump the queue at the cinemas

Return used goods for a refund

Reporting a lost item as “stolen” to an insurance company in order to collect the money

Using stolen credit cards to order goods over the Internet

Tasting grapes in a supermarket and not buying any

Claim a purchase price is better at a competing retailer in order to get a
discount

Creating a fake U.S. iTunes account to access and pay for content not available in
Australia

Purchasing organs for transplant over the Internet

Creating a fake account on a social network site (e.g. dating website, Facebook etc.)
Illegally downloading TV shows from the Internet for free for personal
consumption

Cutting in front of someone in a queue

Impersonating someone else by using their credit card to purchase goods e.g.
family members, without permission

Evading fare on public transport e.g. taking public transport without a ticket or GoCard

Breaking a bottle of salad dressing in a supermarket and doing nothing about it

Not claiming an item when buying groceries through the self-checkout

Buying items such as a dress or a power tool, for a single use, and then
returning them

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


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