The integration and testing of the Janus-Headed Model within marketing Connie Rae Bateman a, * , John Paul Fraedrich b,1 , Rajesh Iyer c,2 a Faculty of Marketing, Division of Organizational Systems and Technology, University of North Dakota, PO Box 8366, Grand Forks, ND 58202, USA b Department of Marketing, College of Business and Administration, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, IL 62901-4629, USA c Department of Marketing and Economics, College of Business Administration, Valdosta State University, Valdosta, GA 31698, USA Received 22 February 2001; accepted 17 April 2001 Abstract A review by Vitell and Ho [J Bus Ethics 16 (1997) 699] calls for more rigorous empirical testings of current ethical decision-making models (EDMMs). The study’s premise is that a more specific understanding of the moral reasoning processes leading to an ethical decision is necessary to bring greater understanding. We extend the current ethical nomological network in marketing with a model from management that describes eight components of moral reasoning. Four components representing rule-based and another four representing cost/benefit- based reasoning are tested across eight consumer situations. The results suggest that: (i) consumers make relative use of rule- and cost/ benefit-based reasoning processes when making an ethical decision; (ii) all ethical decisions are preceded by a combination of rule- and cost/ benefit-based reasoning processes with none preceded by a pure rule- or cost/benefit-based reasoning process; and (iii) the relative use of reasoning processes used by consumers changes across situation and information. D 2002 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved. Keywords: Janus-Headed Model; Ethical decisions; Reasoning 1. Introduction Ethical decision making, as a field of study in the marketing literature, is advancing, albeit at a slow rate. A review by Vitell and Ho (1997) suggests that although various theoretical models have been proposed, only limited interdisciplinary work has been done to develop scales and test models. Most of the research on rule-based moral reasoning have tested deontological theory (Ferrell et al., 1989; Hunt and Vitell, 1986; Schminke et al., 1997). Deontological theory has been criticized by Brady (1985, 1988, 1990) because it is based on a Kantian foundation, which premises a formal and impractical notion of universal values and a priori judgments (Boyce and Jensen, 1978). Kant (1959) himself admitted the impracticality of the deontological assumption in an essay entitled, ‘‘On the old saw: that may be right in theory but it won’t work in practice.’’ Research on cost/benefit-based moral reasoning has been criticized because it is based on a utility-driven reasoning process that maximizes results after a thorough evaluation of all alternatives (Boyce and Jensen, 1978; Frisch, 1993; Johnson-Laird and Shafir, 1993; Tversky and Kahneman, 1981, 1986; Von Neumann and Morgen- stern, 1947). Although both deontological and teleological theories have some empirical support, it is argued that ethics should be grounded in practicality in order to bring the empirical testing of the ethical decision-making models (EDMMs) to a higher level. Furthermore, empirical research has historically treated rule- and cost/benefit-based reason- ing styles as mutually exclusive. Recent research has begun to question this assumption and theorize an interaction between them. However, little significant results have been found (Boyce and Jensen, 1978; Brady, 1985, 1988, 1990; Evans et al., 1993; McDonald and Beck-Dudley, 1994). This study introduces and tests a model from manage- ment, the Janus-Headed Model (JHM), in a consumer ethics context. The JHM (Brady, 1985, 1988, 1990) argues for measurable components of rule- and cost/benefit-based reasoning styles, as well as an interaction between styles. It theorizes that moral reasoning styles will measurably change across situations and information. Three research questions emerge from the ethics area and the JHM: (1) How much relative use is made of differing moral reasoning styles? (2) Are these styles used together or 0148-2963/02/$ – see front matter D 2002 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/S0148-2963(01)00270-3 * Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-701-777-4201; fax: +1-701-777- 2526. E-mail addresses: connie _ bateman@und.nodak.edu (C.R. Bateman), fraedric@cba.siu.edu (J.P. Fraedrich), riyer@valdosta.edu (R. Iyer). 1 Tel.: + 1-618-453-7786; fax: + 1-618-453-7747. 2 Tel.: + 1-229-219-1385; fax: + 1-229-245-2248. Journal of Business Research 56 (2003) 587 – 596