A tangled web: views of deception from the customer's perspective

• Published date: 01 April 2016
• Date: 01 April 2016
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/beer.12068

A tangled web: views of

deception from the customer’s

perspective

Erin Adamson Gillespie1, Katie Hybnerova2,

Carol Esmark3and Stephanie M. Noble4

1. Martha and Spencer Love School of Business, Elon University, Elon, NC, USA

2. College of Business, University of North Alabama, Florence, AL, USA

3. College of Business, Mississippi State University, Starkville, MS, USA

4. College of Business Administration, The University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN, USA

While there has been extensive research on deception, extant literature has not examined how deception is

processed solely from the customer’s perspective. Extensive qualitative interviews were conducted and ana-

lyzed to inform the proposed framework. Cognitive dissonance theory and attribution theory are used to

frame the process consumers go through when deception is perceived. When consumers perceive deceit, they

will consider attribution before determining intentionality. Internal attributions relieve the company of

wrongdoing to some extent, whereas external attributions lead consumers to examine several elements of

deception including intent. Unintentional deceit will trigger assessments of magnitude, stability, and switching

costs; while less is considered when deceit is intentional. The findings of this research are important for

advancing theory in relation to deceit and for helping practitioners understand the importance of changing

consumer cognitions before consumers decide to change their behavior by discontinuing the relationship.

‘Oh, what a tangled web we weave when first we

practice to deceive’ – Sir Walter Scott

Introduction

Consider the following example: a consumer has

purchased a product that comes with a rebate. The

company is to send the information on how to

redeem the rebate to the customer’s email address.

The company records the wrong email address, so

the customer does not receive the information. The

company, although recognizing the error, refuses to

honor the rebate since the redemption period has

passed. The consumer feels that she should still be

able to use the rebate since the company made the

mistake. This is a real consumer complaint drawn

from interviews done by the researchers. Is this a

deceptive act? What factors are considered? Who is

to blame here? How does it impact the relationship?

These are the questions that will be investigated in

this research.

More formally, our research questions stem from

unanswered questions in the deception literature

stream, which will be described in more detail in the

literature review section, and are as follows:

RQ1: What is the meaning of perceived deception

for consumers, and is intent a necessary com-

ponent of deception?

RQ2: What factors do consumers consider when a

deception occurs?

RQ3: How do these various factors of deception

differentially affect the outcome of the

Business Ethics: A European Review

Volume •• Number •• •• 2014

© 2014 The Authors

Business Ethics: A European Review © 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road,

Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main St, Malden, MA 02148, USA

doi: 10.1111/beer.12068

1

V

C2014 The Authors

Business Ethics: A European Review V

C2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road

Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main St, Malden, MA 02148, USA

doi: 10.1111/beer.12068

198

Business Ethics: A European Review

Volume 25 Number 2 April 2016

relationship between the consumer and

the salesperson/company involved in the

deception?

There are several contributions of this research.

The findings of this research provide a framework

for understanding the thought processes that con-

sumers undergo when a perceived deception occurs

and the possible outcomes of deception. This

research will demonstrate that deception does not

necessarily have to be detrimental to the relationship

between the consumer and business and that intent is

not a necessary component of deception. Addition-

ally, our flowchart implements cognitive dissonance

and attribution theory as theoretical frameworks

into consumers’ processing of deceptive acts. From

a managerial perspective, our findings will provide

a better understanding of how consumers process

deception, especially when the deceptive act was

unintentional. This flowchart of processing decep-

tion is important for managers because it clearly

shows that consumers either change their cognitions

or their behavior to resolve dissonant beliefs about

deception.

Literature review

According to Harrington (2009), definitions of

deception vary across disciplines, time periods, and

cultures. Harrington noted that deception is not nec-

essarily lying, which requires intent; instead, decep-

tion can take place without the intent to deceive and

even without the deceiver’s awareness; however,

whether intent is necessary or not is a highly debated

point that will be discussed in further detail later.

Deception is a general phenomenon that can occur in

virtually any form of communication through a con-

flict of interest (Johnson et al. 2001). Although there

is no widely accepted definition of deception, it can

be said that deception usually involves interaction

between two or more parties, with the amount and

type of deception in any given case shaped by the

context. Deception can also be viewed broadly as an

act that misleads the target party (Aditya 2001).

Deception comes in a wide variety of forms and is

not just simply an outright lie. Among the features

that differentiate the various forms of deception are

the amount and sufficiency of information, degree of

truthfulness, clarity, relevance, and intent (Roman

2010). No matter the deception type, the occurrence

causes a number of ethical questions and issues for

companies, consumers, and policy makers (Roman

2010). In the marketing discipline, deception has

been most frequently discussed in the context of

advertising (e.g. Gardner 1975).

Deception is relatively commonplace among inter-

actions between consumers and businesses, particu-

larly in sales due to high performance pressure

(Schwepker & Good 2011). For instance, salespeople

may use closed influence tactics, which can be

described as deceptive and characterized by hidden

objectives, in order to make a favorable impression

upon a customer (Brown 1990). An example of such

a closed influence tactic would be a salesperson mis-

leading the customer about her own personal use of

a product (e.g. perhaps saying that the product has

changed her life, when in actuality she rarely uses it).

The negative ramifications of such tactical deception

have been noted (Xie et al. 2013). In addition,

research has found that people deceive others about

three times in the course of a 10-min conversation

(Feldman 2009). If people participate in deception

this often in their personal lives, employees and sales-

people are likely to deceive their customers often as

well. Furthermore, in a recent poll of US marketing

executives, 42% noted that deceptive sales and mar-

keting practices were one of the top ethical concerns

facing US businesses (Crittenden et al. 2010). Due to

the frequency of such deceptions in the interactions

between consumers and businesses, it is important to

understand the impact that such deceptions have

on the relationship between the business and the

consumer.

Past research has focused on five main areas of

deception, including (1) typologies of deception,

such as Goffman’s (1974) use of benign versus

exploitive fabrications (Goffman 1974; Gardner

1975; Linskold & Walters 1983; Seiter et al. 2002);

(2) outcomes of deception (Gibbins 1992; Roman &

Ruiz 2005; Darke & Ritchie 2007; Ramsey et al.

2007; Roman 2010); (3) definitions and background

of deception (Aaker 1974; Gardner 1975; Aditya

2001; Feldman 2009; Harrington 2009; Patwardhan

et al. 2009); (4) characteristics that might lead to the

utilization of deception (Spiro & Perreault 1979;

Kim 2007), such as reputation of the company

Business Ethics: A European Review

Volume •• Number •• •• 2014

© 2014 The Authors

Business Ethics: A European Review © 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

2

Business Ethics: A European Review

Volume 25 Number 2 April 2016

V

C2014 The Authors

Business Ethics: A European Review V

C2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd 199