‘The Muncy–Vitell Consumer Ethics Scale: A Modification and Application’

311 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Understanding consumers’ intention to use plastic bags: using an extended theory of planned behaviour model (2017, methodology): “Three items are used to measure ethical belief, and they are adopted from Vitell and Muncy (2005).”
The Role of Spiritual Well-Being and Materialism in Determining Consumers’ Ethical Beliefs: An Empirical Study with Australian Consumers (2012, methodology): “Appendix 3: Measurement Scale for Consumers’ Ethical Beliefs (Muncy and Vitell 1992; Vitell and Muncy 1992, 2005) Active/Illegal Dimension 1.”
Moral disengagement, the dark triad, and unethical consumer attitudes (2015, methodology): “The Muncy–Vitell Consumer Ethics Scale: (CES: Vitell & Muncy, 2005).”
Why bad feelings predict good behaviours: The role of positive and negative anticipated emotions on consumer ethical decision making (2019, methodology): “…we analysed situations containing the three most contrasting types of questionable consumer behaviours as proposed by Muncy and Vitell (1992) and Vitell and Muncy (2005)—actively benefiting from illegal activities (price tag switching scenario); passively benefiting (keeping extra money…”