Abstract

Consumer choice decisions often involve a tradeoff between an alignable difference (a difference along a shared attribute) and a nonalignable difference (a difference between unique attributes of each alternative). For example, Café A provides friendly service, while Café B offers unwelcoming service (an alignable difference). However, Café A occasionally makes billing errors, and Café B has comfortable seating (a nonalignable difference). Prior research shows that alignable differences tend to have a greater impact on choice than nonalignable differences (known as the “alignability effect”). Yet, little research has examined tradeoffs involving moral attributes. Contrary to the prevailing evidence, eight studies (N = 2,861) demonstrate that in moral attribute tradeoffs, nonalignable (vs. alignable) differences have a greater impact on choice (termed the “nonalignability effect”). Consequently, consumers prefer an alternative that is superior on a nonalignable moral difference but inferior on an alignable moral difference. Moreover, in moral–quality tradeoffs, where one alternative is more ethical but is of lower quality, consumers show a stronger preference for the ethical alternative when its moral superiority is represented by a nonalignable (vs. alignable) difference. The nonalignability effect is driven by consumers’ unique decision process in making moral attribute tradeoffs, characterized by categorical valence coding and attribute-by-attribute win–loss counting.

This article is published and distributed under the terms of the Oxford University Press, Standard Journals Publication Model (https://academic.oup.com/pages/standard-publication-reuse-rights)
Editor: Margaret C Campbell,
Margaret C Campbell
Editor
Search for other works by this author on:
Bernd Schmitt
Bernd Schmitt
Editor
Search for other works by this author on:

Associate Editor: Rebecca Walker Reczek
Rebecca Walker Reczek
Associate Editor
Search for other works by this author on:

You do not currently have access to this article.