Study shows how moral judgements shape everyday consumption practices

The study, published in the Journal of Consumer Research, shows that consumers navigate moral judgments even in seemingly mundane choices about personal care and well-being, says Colleen Harmeling, Associate Professor of Marketing at Florida State University. 

“What makes this research so compelling is that we weren’t initially searching for a moral narrative,” Harmeling explains. “We were studying how people care for themselves and, suddenly, morality emerged in unexpected spaces.” 

The study builds on Harmeling’s growing emphasis on morality, digital environments, intricate social systems, and consumers’ health decision-making. 

In the study, Harmeling and co-authors Rachel E. Hochstein from the University of Missouri-Kansas City and Ela Veresiu from York University discovered that people often unknowingly hold different meanings for concepts central to their consumption – such as ‘self’ and ‘care’. 

Vulnerable life transitions – for example becoming a parent, when individuals get bombarded with opposing advice about care for themselves and their families – can bring these conflicting meanings to the forefront and trigger deep introspection.  

These conflicting meanings can be a source of imagined or realised confrontations with others that lead consumers to moralise and to categorise their consumption practices as either ‘right’ or ‘wrong’. 

The study identified four primary strategies consumers use to justify their self-care choices. These are: denouncing (asserting moral righteousness); positioning (indicating moral inclusivity); balancing (employing moral licensing); and ritualising (expressing moral autonomy). 

Researchers drew data from various sources such as the news media, social media advertisements, consumer-generated content, interviews, and personal diaries. 

The great breakfast debate is an example 

To illustrate the key focus of the study, Harmeling uses a historical debate about eating breakfast. 

“Consumers must reconcile perspectives about [the] reported health benefits of intermittent fasting and suggestions to skip breakfast entirely, [versus] cultural forces that trumpet breakfast as the most important meal of the day,” she says. 

“We discovered that how you decide to care for yourself largely depends on what you find is morally good. We often get advice that’s completely counter to that, and so we have to make a choice.” 

Harmeling continues: “Some might balance the conflicting perspectives by eating a nutritious breakfast four days a week and fasting [for] three days, while others might position their choice as just one valid approach among many.” 

The study authors observed that the moralisation process they identify in their research relates to how consumers see themselves and their roles in society. 

“We find that nearly every choice can be moralised by someone,” Harmeling emphasises. “Thus, the process we uncover has implications for how consumers see themselves, the world and their roles in it.  

“Ultimately, understanding this deeply imbedded moral system can profoundly shape our ability to nurture a compassionate world.” 

You can find out more about the study, titled ‘Moralising Everyday Consumption: The Case of Self-Care’, here.