While everybody is affected by COVID-19, there are differences in individual experience of pandemic severity, from vulnerability to the disease to duration of lockdown. We report two studies that explore ethical judgments in this context, finding that the marketing of controversial products were judged less unethical by those who had been longer in lockdown and those in larger households. There was also less ethical concern where participants reported higher degrees of negative affect and lower ratings of overall wellbeing. Analyses of the effects of lockdown duration and household size on ethical evaluations reveal a mediating effect of vulnerability to COVID-19 and the likelihood of experiencing financial difficulties. Overall, our findings suggest that ethical judgment might be compromised under pandemic conditions, with implications for policymakers and marketing practitioners.
|Publication status||Published - 22 Aug 2021|
|Event||Subjective Probability Utility and Decision Making Conference - University of Warwick, Warwick, UK United Kingdom|
Duration: 23 Aug 2021 → …
|Conference||Subjective Probability Utility and Decision Making Conference|
|Abbreviated title||SPUDM 2021|
|Country/Territory||UK United Kingdom|
|Period||23/08/21 → …|