47 Chapter 3 donating behavior. However, Jin et al. (2021) argue that other-benefit frames are only effective under certain circumstances. In light of ethical consumption, Ryoo, Sung, and Chechelnytska (2020) found an effect of self-benefit advertisements, while, conversely, Yucel-Aybat and Hsieh (2021) only found an effect of other-benefit frames. Thus, it can be concluded that both advertising frames potentially enhance consumers’ ability to act upon their urges. Nevertheless, it remains unclear which advertising frame softens the vice/virtue response conflict the most, thereby evoking the most convincing justifications to buy the product, and which frame, therefore, is more effective in enhancing sales for sustainability-driven companies. Advertising frames elicit different types of justifications We propose that advertising frames (self-benefit versus other-benefit) evoke different types of justifications. For example, Patagonia, the outdoor clothing and gear brand, occasionally advertises its products through not only self-benefit frames (“Patagonia gives you the comfort, quality, and durability you need”) but also other-benefit frames (“Protect your playground”). Arguably, the self-benefit slogan evokes a different reason to buy a Patagonia product on impulse (e.g., “I hike occasionally, so I deserve good quality clothes. Therefore, it is okay for me to buy this Patagonia product”), than the other-benefit slogan (e.g., “I agree that is important to protect our environment. Therefore, it is okay for me to buy this Patagonia product”). The easier it is to justify a behavior, the greater the chance that consumers give in to their (conflicting) urges (Mukhopadhyay & Johar, 2009; Akamatsu & Fukuda, 2022). We distinguish between two types of justifications: deservingness justification and moral justification. Deservingness justification refers to all forms of justifications related to why someone might deserve to engage in hedonic impulse buying. Research shows that people are quite creative when it comes to generating reasons for why they deserve what they want. For example, they use the questionable argument of counterfactual sins, such as not eating a snack in the past (Effron et. al., 2013) or prior shopping restraint (Mukhopadhyay & Johar, 2009), as a justified reason to indulge oneself (“I did not eat a cookie yesterday, so I am allowed to eat it today”). In fact, people tend to amplify the sins they do not commit to build a stronger case for their future indulgent behavior. Effron et. al. (2013) show that people exaggerate the unhealthiness of foods they do not eat and use this as a justified reason to impulsively indulge. Surprisingly, people also tend to use prior indulgent choices to justify a subsequent indulgent choice (Akamatsu & Fukuda, 2022). In addition, consumers feel they deserve indulgence, like luxury goods, when they put effort into a task, even if this task is not that demanding (Kivetz & Simonson, 2002). Moreover, they argue that they deserve to self-gift when they have accomplished something (Mick & DeMoss, 1990; Londoño & Ruiz de Maya, 2022), or feel that they are entitled to spoil themselves with hedonic products when they are in a bad mood (Taylor et al., 2014). Tezer and Sobol (2021) even show that consumers exaggerate the severity of their daily problems to justify why they deserve to indulge. Presumably, deservingness justifications for impulse buying are more often elicited by self-bene-
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjY0ODMw