2016 Sundar Kellaris JBE

J Bus Ethics
DOI 10.1007/s10551-015-2918-4
How Logo Colors Influence Shoppers Judgments of Retailer

Ethicality: The Mediating Role of Perceived Eco-Friendliness
Aparna Sundar1 James J. Kellaris2
Received: 6 February 2015 / Accepted: 18 October 2015

Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015
Abstract Despite the moral gravity and far-reaching

consequences of ethical judgment, evidence shows that
such judgment is surprisingly malleable, prone to bias,
informed by intuition and implicit associations, and swayed
by mere circumstance. In this vein, this research examines
how mere colors featured in logos can bias consumers
ethical judgments about a retailer. Exposure to a logo
featuring an eco-friendly color makes an ethically
ambiguous practice seem more ethical; however, exposure
to a logo featuring a non-eco-friendly color makes the same
practice seem less ethical (Study 1). This effect is due to
the embodied meaning of color, not referential meanings
associated with the names of colors, and it is mediated by
perceptions of a retailers eco-friendliness (Study 2a).
Furthermore, although the word green appears to influence ethical ratings of retail practices more than the word
blue, visual exposure to either color evokes similar
perceptions of eco-friendliness and influences ethical
judgments (Study 2b). Study 2c assesses and rules out
alternative explanations for this effect. Critically, an ecofriendly color can skew judgments even when the practices
judged are not ethically ambiguous (Study 3). Individual
differences in ethical sensitivity moderate the observed
effect, such that individuals who are less ethically sensitive
are less influenced by color (Study 4). The article concludes with a discussion on how logo colors shape consumers perceptions of retailer ethicality.
& Aparna Sundar
asundar@uoregon.edu
1
Lundquist College of Business, University of Oregon, 1208

University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403, USA
Lindner College of Business, University of Cincinnati,

Cincinnati, USA
Keywords Embodied meaning Ethical judgment

Retail branding
Introduction
In an attempt to control greenwashing, the United States
Patent and Trademark Organization (USPTO, 2013)
revised its guidelines to prevent companies that are not
environmentally friendly from using the word green in
their trademarks (Collen 2012). This restriction, however,
does not prohibit the use of the color green in visual
branding. Branding gurus such as Brandspark now report
measures of perceived green brands versus brands that
make an ecological difference to the consumer (Chan and
Prinz 2014). A trademark search on the USPTO website
(http://www.uspto.gov/) indicates that 21,194 company
trademarks include the word green. This is in stark
contrast with a color such as aquamarine, for example,
which is used in only 38 trademarks. Surprisingly, the word
blue appears 19,857 times on a word trademark search
but 155,881 times on a word and image search. The word
and image search for the term green yields 127,612
occurrences, slightly fewer than blue (USPTO, 2013).
These facts raise the question regarding the popularity of
the color green and, more importantly, about how color
itself (vs. the word used to describe a color) may influence
consumers.
Spence et al. (2014) summarize the different effects of
color on the types of judgments consumers make about a
brand or retailer. Research indicates that color is a powerful tool in shaping consumer perceptions (Bellizzi et al.
1983). Variations in color can influence overall evaluation
of the retailer, patronage, and even purchase intention
(Babin et al. 2003). Color influences arousal, which in turn
123
A. Sundar, J. J. Kellaris
influences the number of purchases, behaviors (e.g., purchase postponement), the time spent in a store (Bellizzi and
Hite 1992), and the bids that consumers are willing to place
(Bagchi and Cheema 2013). However, arousal is just one
way in which color influences consumers.
Linguists note that the meaning embodied in color can
influence perception formation (Labrecque and Milne
2012; Labrecque et al. 2013). The classic halo effect suggests that perceptions of the retailer should affect judgments of acts performed by the retailer (Haidt 2001, 2007;
Nisbett and Wilson 1977; Thorndike 1920). Thus, basic
elements of design such as shape, fonts, and colors used to
visually brand an entity should play an important role in
forming consumers perceptions of the retailer (Aaker
1997; Aaker et al. 2004; Bellizzi et al. 1983), particularly
when prior knowledge is lacking (e.g., new brands,
rebranding initiatives).
In this research, we examine the potential role of colors
embodied meaning in shaping judgments of ethically
ambiguous retail practices. Specifically, by investigating
the embodied versus referential meaning of color, we
demonstrate that whereas the visual use of color relies on
implied meaning, the verbal use of color enables semantic
coding associated with the word in informing judgments.
We further demonstrate that color can bias judgments even
when retailing practices are not ethically ambiguous.
Finally, we present evidence of the moderating influence of
individual differences in ethical sensitivity. This research
program establishes new links between color, ethical
judgment, and ethical sensitivity.
Conceptual Framework and Hypotheses

How Color Influences Ethical Judgments
An essential element in retail branding is the color of the
retailers logo (Henderson et al. 2004). Research suggests
that logo colors provide important information about a
retailers identity (Arnheim 1971) by influencing the
meaning communicated by the logo (Bottomley and Doyle
2006). Specifically, the color used in a logo has a connotative meaning that informs the perception of the retailer in
the consumers mind (Ailawadi and Keller 2004; Keller
1993). The color chosen to brand a retailer eventually
guides other areas of impression management, such as
advertising, store interiors, and even attire worn by customer service personnel (Ailawadi and Keller 2004; Bellizzi and Hite 1992; Keller 1993). The role of color is
especially critical when other diagnostic information about
a retailer is unavailable, as in the case of new or unfamiliar
stores.
123
Research on color spans the fields of psychophysics (the

way light is discerned by the eye and interpreted by the
brain); heuristics (Hawkins 2011); human evolution (as
pursuit of certain colors over others proved rewarding;
Aslam 2006; Jacobs et al. 1991; Neto 2002); social psychology (e.g., the meaning of color used in language;
Kinsch and Mangalath 2011); and colors behavioral,
affective, and cognitive influences (Elliot et al. 2007,
2009). What is consistent across these streams of research
is the valence associated with colors. The color red, for
example, is known to increase arousal and to instigate a
sense of danger (Elliot et al. 2009). In contrast, green has
positive connotations in general (De Bock et al. 2013).
Recent research suggests that the valence of color can
affect the moral acceptability of a behavior. Specifically,
De Bock et al. (2013) demonstrate that when good behavior
by customer service personnel is described against a green
background, consumers rate the behavior more positively.
Conversely, when bad behavior is described against a red
background, consumers view the behavior less negatively.
The authors argue that consumers tend to view undesirable
behavior as more acceptable when the background color on
which the behavior is described matches the valence of the
behavior itself. Although such research suggests that a
match between the act and colors can influence ethical
judgments, the need to understand the processes by which
color influences ethical judgment remains.
Consider the color green, for example. In a branding
context, a green brand image is a set of perceptions of a
brand in a consumers mind that is linked to environmental
commitments and environmental concerns (Chen 2010,
p. 312). In industrialized societies, the color green is used
to describe and represent eco-friendliness. The term
green is rooted in environmentally ethical considerations
(Crane 2001; Mazar and Zhong 2010) and is used to
describe eco-friendly practices, products, and customers
(Mazar and Zhong 2010). Thus, the color green in a logo
should make a retailer appear more eco-friendly and could
further convey a connotative meaning that the retailer is
socially responsible as well.
The classic halo effect suggests that when little else is
known about an entity, individuals anchor on certain
observable attributes of the entity to infer missing or
unobserved attributes (Asch 1946; Thorndike 1920). In
turn, such generalizations can inform subsequent judgments about unrelated attributes, such as intelligence,
competence, sociability, and friendliness (Dion et al. 1972;
Eagly et al. 1991). Thus, we propose that a retailer should
benefit from association with a color that cues the concept
of eco-friendliness. If a consumer believes that a retailer
possesses positive attributes on one dimension, he or she
will likely infer that the retailer possesses positive
How Logo Colors Influence Shoppers Judgments of Retailer Ethicality: The Mediating Role
attributes on other, unrelated dimensions (Gleim et al.

2013; Schuldt et al. 2012). Furthermore, when consumers
are unfamiliar with a retailer, they are likely to anchor on
observable attributes such as the color of the retailers logo.
A more eco-friendly color should lead them to infer a
positive image of the retailer; a less eco-friendly color
should cause them to infer a negative image. Thus, when
the actions of a retailer represented by an eco-friendly logo
color are ethically ambiguous, consumers are likely to
adopt a positive view of the retailers actions. In contrast,
consumers are likely to view the same ethically ambiguous
practices less positively when performed by a retailer
associated with a less eco-friendly logo color. Thus,
H1 Exposure to a more (vs. less) eco-friendly color in a
retailers logo will influence consumer judgments about the
retailers actions, such that ethically ambiguous business
practices will seem more (vs. less) ethical.
Transfer of Embodied versus Referential Meaning
Labrecque et al. (2013) note that color can bias consumer
perceptions by the transfer of embodied or referential
meaning. Embodied meaning refers to attributes embodied in the aesthetic stimulus, independent of context and
the semantic content it may evoke (Zeltner 1975,
pp. 4142). Concepts communicated by color are rooted in
universally innate experiences that are coded psychologically, anthropologically, and/or linguistically (Wierzbicka
1990). This is known as embodied meaning (Labrecque
et al. 2013). Conversely, referential meaning emerges
from the network of semantic associations or real-world
concepts that are drawn out by exposure to aesthetic
stimuli (Labrecque et al. 2013, p. 192).
Notably, consumers transfer embodied meaning
between different domains (Yee et al. 2012). Labrecque
et al. (2013) define embodied meaning in visual stimuli as
the attributes that are free from context or the semantic
meaning they evoke. In contrast, referential meaning is
semantic in nature. For example, in one study that drew
participants attention to the color of an object such as a
cucumber, exposing them to the word cucumber primed
them toward another object (e.g., emerald) that shared the
same diagnostic color as the cucumber. In contrast, referential meaning facilitates the activation of a new concept
that shares the actual color in semantic memory (Zhu and
Meyers-Levy 2005). This suggests that activation spreads
from one domain to another based on transfer of embodied
meaning.
Of interest in this research is the concept of ecofriendliness, which is well documented in the marketing
literature (Chen et al. 2006; Peattie and Charter 1994;
Porter and van der Linde 1995). This concept is cued by
both the color and the word green. However, although

we know that people use both visual and verbal information to form judgments (Childers et al. 1985), reading the
word blue would likely elicit a different meaning than
reading the word green. This is because the word blue is
not used as a semantic term to describe the concept of ecofriendliness. In contrast, seeing the color blue would cue
the embodied concept of eco-friendliness. Therefore, visual
versus verbal information regarding a retailer should bias
ethical judgments in different ways. If we were to manipulate the mode of presentation (i.e., visual vs. verbal) of
information about a retailers identity, we predict that
ethicality judgments would be influenced by transfer of the
embodied meaning of an eco-friendly color, which is
visual, and not by transfer of referential meaning, which is
semantic.
H2 Visual exposure to an eco-friendly color (vs. verbal
exposure to the word used to describe the color) will have a
positive influence on judgments of an ethically ambiguous
retailing practice.
Convergent literature streams note that when a concept
is visually represented by a brand or product, such representation influences interpretation of the brand. For
example, Huang et al. (2013) show that situating an image
of a consumer adjacent to an advertised product primes the
concept of intimacy; placing the image of the consumer
above the advertised product primes the concept of power.
Similarly, positioning a product to the right of an advertisement primes the concept of the future in cultures that
map time from left to right, which can influence product
evaluations (Chae and Hoegg 2013), and placing the image
of a product on the bottom or right-hand corner of a
package reinforces the concept of weight, which influences
consumption (Deng and Kahn 2009). Finally, locating a
logo at the top of the face of the packaging evokes the
concept of brand power, which influences brand preferences (Sundar and Noseworthy 2014). These examples
indicate that visual representation of a brand concept can
shape downstream judgments. Accordingly, we argue that
when a retailers logo uses an eco-friendly color, the color
primes an eco-friendly concept that becomes associated
with the retailer. The perceived eco-friendliness of the
retailer then causes downstream effects on judgmentsin
this case, judgments of the retailers ethicality. Consequently, we hypothesize that the mechanism underlying
colors influence on ethical ratings is consumers perceptions of a retailers eco-friendliness.
H3 Perceived eco-friendliness will mediate the effect of
color on ethical judgments about a retailers actions.
Many common retail practices are ambiguous, in that
they can be perceived as more or less ethically
123
acceptable (Dubinsky and Levy 1985). Consider, for

example, a store layout that places frequently purchased
dairy items at the rear of the store. This norm is commonly
attributed to practical considerations of store planning (e.g.,
refrigerated items grouped together). Yet some critics may
argue that placing this essential section at the rear of the
store is intended to force consumers to walk through the
store, thus increasing opportunities for unplanned purchases. In such cases, shoppers perceptions of the retailer
should influence ethical judgments of this otherwise ethically ambiguous practice. However, many practices could
be perceived as unambiguously ethical or unethical. In such
cases, an eco-friendly color could cause consumers to react
in a way that brings greenwashing tactics by marketers to
the forefront.
Growing skepticism about eco-friendly initiatives in
marketing and media coverage has made consumers more
sensitive to the moral hypocrisy of greenwashing practices
(Hsu 2001; Panwar et al. 2014). In the past decade, retailers
and policy makers have been particularly concerned with
the use of the color green. Although shoppers may view the
use of the color green in branding by retailers such as
Starbucks and Whole Foods favorably, as an authentic way
to communicate true corporate identity (Lindstrom 2005),
they tend to regard other corporations use of green with
skepticism (Imkamp 2000). For example, Shell Oil faced
strong criticism for advertising itself as a green company,
indicating a commitment to the environment, when critics
argued that its business practices harmed the environment
(Grandia 2007; Karliner 2001). Thus, we propose that an
eco-friendly color should evoke a contrast effect when
judging an unambiguously ethical practice.
H4 Exposure to a more (vs. less) eco-friendly color in a
retailers logo will influence consumer judgments such that
an ethical practice will seem less (vs. more) acceptable.
judgments when retail practices are not ethically ambiguous (Study 3). Finally, in Study 4 we assess the influence of
individual differences in ethical sensitivity on the observed
effect. To facilitate this program of research, we conducted
a series of pretests to develop and verify the integrity of the
manipulations and measures used in the studies (see
Appendix).
Study 1
Study 1 offers an initial test of H1 regarding the main effect
of color on ethical ratings. To test the hypothesis, we
designed an experiment in which we varied logo colors and
measured ethical judgments of an ethically ambiguous
retailing practice.
Pretests
To develop stimuli and measures for use in this and the
subsequent studies, we conducted an extensive program of
pretesting. Pretest 1a established the perceived ecofriendliness of colors used in the series of studies. Pretest
1b ruled out the possibility that participants would perceive
the colors used in the studies as associated with a specific,
identifiable retailer. Pretest 2 sought to determine ethical
perceptions of common retail practices representing ethically ambiguous (neutral, mid-scale) practices, as well as
those perceived as unambiguously more or less ethically
acceptable. Pretest 3a assessed the suitability of using a
single-item measure of perceived eco-friendliness by
comparing it with the multi-item Corporate Environmental
Performance scale (Trumpp et al. 2015). Similarly, Pretest
3b assessed the suitability of using a simple, single-item
ethical judgment scale by comparing it with a multi-item
scale (in terms of proportion of variance captured). The
Appendix provides more details of the pretests.
Overview of Studies
Method
The core proposition of this research is that when a retailers logo features colors that imply a level of eco-friendliness, judgments of ethicality should vary with color. In
Study 1, we test whether color used in a logo can sway
consumers reactions to ambiguous retailing practices. We
test the prediction that ethical ratings will be affected when
the exposure to color is visual (embodied meaning), but not
verbal (referential meaning; Study 2a). We also test the
prediction that the underlying mechanism of colors impact
on ethical ratings is perceptions of a retailers eco-friendliness (Study 2a and 2b). In Study 2c, we assess alternative
explanations for colors influence on ethical judgment. We
then evaluate whether exposure to color can bias ethical
Students (N = 80) participated in a brief online study in

exchange for extra course credit. This study used a
between-subjects design. Participants were exposed to a
profile of a fictitious retailer accompanied by a professionally designed logo featuring either a high or a low ecofriendly color. After completing the consent process, participants were told that the study was about common retail
practices; they would be presented with information about
a retailer and then would answer a series of questions about
its practices. Participants were then exposed to the retailer
profile (similar to Pretest 1a). This retailer information was
accompanied by a colored logo that was pretested as either
high (blue) or low in eco-friendly (red) ratings (Pretest 1a).
123
After reviewing the retailer profile and accompanying

logo, participants read a description of a retailing practice
pretested to be ethically ambiguous (determined in Pretest
2). To increase construct validity, we used multiple
exemplars of ethically ambiguous retailing practices. Each
participant read only one exemplar in a counterbalanced
design. Participants were told, This common retail practice is perfectly legal. However, opinions differ widely on
how ethical the practice is. How would you rate this
practice in terms of ethics? (anchored: 1 = not very
ethical, 7 = very ethical; adapted from Dabholkar and
Kellaris 1992). This question was embedded among several
other filler questions. After this, participants completed a
color blindness test (Birch 1997) and provided demographic information.
Results
After eliminating six responses because of self-identified
color blindness, we analyzed data from the remaining
sample of 74 participants (43.2 % female, Mage = 20.7).
As predicted, participants reported that the ethically
ambiguous practice seemed more ethical when the practice
was presented with a logo featuring a more eco-friendly
color (M = 5.59, SD = 1.32) than when it was presented
with a logo featuring a less eco-friendly color (M = 4.38,
SD = 1.76; t(1, 72) = 3.35, p \ .001). No effect of gender
emerged. Thus, H1 was supported.
Discussion
The results of this study are consistent with the hypothesis
that exposure to a more eco-friendly color in a retailers
logo will influence consumer judgments about the retailers
actions, such that ethically ambiguous business practices
will seem more ethical. Thus, this study shows that a more
eco-friendly color (blue) did indeed cast a positive halo on
judgments about the retailer. However, exposure to the less
eco-friendly color (red) did not make the ambiguous
practice seem less ethical (i.e., the less eco-friendly color
did not cast a negative halo). In general, negative halos
have a stronger effect than positive halos (Baumeister et al.
2001; Felps et al. 2006). Skowronski and Carlson (1989)
note that negative halos usually elicit less ambiguous
inferences. Therefore, the effect of the color red may not be
evident with ambiguous practices, but rather when the
practice described has an unambiguously positive or negative valance to start with. We test this proposition in Study
3. First, however, we conducted Study 2a and 2b to evaluate whether the positive effect of the more eco-friendly
color was due to the meaning of eco-friendliness
communicated semantically (vs. visually). In Study 2a, we

examine the transfer of embodied meaning (through visual
processing) versus the transfer of referential meaning
(through verbal processing) for more versus less ecofriendly colors.
Study 2a
The purpose of Study 2a was to evaluate how people
process the meaning inherent in color to inform ethical
ratings. To this end, we manipulated the mode (visual vs.
verbal) in which the color of the logo was presented. We
used the same colors as in Study 1. We predicted that the
embodied meaning of color (conveyed by visual presentation), not the referential meaning of color (conveyed by
verbal presentation), would influence ethical judgments
about the retailer, per H2. Given that the color used for the
more eco-friendly color is blue (per Pretest 1a), reading the
word is not likely to transfer the meaning of eco-friendliness and thus should not lead to more positive judgments
about an ethically ambiguous retailing practice. We also
tested the prediction that perceived eco-friendliness of a
retailer would mediate the effect of color on ethical judgments about the retailers actions (H3).
Method
Participants (N = 191) were recruited from an online panel
in exchange for monetary payment. Participants were
randomly assigned to conditions in a 2 (presentation mode:
visual vs. verbal) 9 2 (logo color: highly eco-friendly vs.
low eco-friendly) between-subjects experimental design.
After providing consent, participants were told that they
were to review a new retailer. Similar to Study 1, they were
asked to read the retailer profile first. Manipulation of color
in the visual presentation mode was similar to Study 1.
However, when the presentation of color was verbal, a
description of the retailers logo was provided along with
the company description. After reviewing the retailer
information, participants were asked to read one of two
randomly assigned ambiguous retailing practices (see
statements 1 and 2 in Table 3). We captured ethical ratings
of the practice by asking participants, How would you
rate this practice in terms of ethics? (anchored: 1 = not
very ethical, 7 = very ethical; adapted from Dabholkar
and Kellaris 1992). In addition, we captured perceived ecofriendliness by asking participants, How eco-friendly do
you suppose DAVY Grocery Store is? (anchored:
1 = not at all eco-friendly, 7 = very eco-friendly).
Finally, participants completed a color blindness test (Birch
1997) and provided demographic information.
123
Fig. 1 Moderated mediation
Results
Ethical ratings After eliminating 11 responses because of
self-identified color blindness, we analyzed the data from
the remaining sample of 180 participants (59.4 % female,
Mage = 33.6). An analysis of variance (ANOVA) of ethical
ratings with presentation mode and logo color as the
independent variables revealed no main effect for the mode
of presentation (p = .35) and a directional effect of logo
color (F(1, 176) = 3.48, p = .06). Critical to our analysis,
a significant interaction between presentation mode and
logo color emerged (F(1, 176) = 4.42, p \ .05). When
statements were presented visually, participants assessed
the retail practice as being more ethical when the logo
color was blue (M = 5.19, SD = 1.10) than when it was
red (M = 4.43, SD = 1.06; F(1, 176) = 8.05, p \ .005).
There was no significant difference in the ethical ratings
between color conditions when the logo was described
under the verbal presentation condition (p = .86). In other
words, when the logo appeared in blue, participants perceived the retailer as more ethical (M = 5.19, SD = 1.10)
than when the logo was described as being blue (M = 4.61,
SD = 1.45; F(1, 176) = 4.61, p \ .05). However, there
was no effect of color on ethical ratings when the logo
appeared in the color red (M = 4.43, SD = 1.06) or was
verbally described as being red (M = 4.66, SD = 1.47,
p = .41). No effect of gender emerged.
Perceived Eco-Friendliness We submitted perceived ecofriendliness to a 2 9 2 ANOVA, with presentation mode
and logo color as the independent variables. This analysis
revealed a main effect for the mode of presentation (F(1,
176) = 5.58, p \ .05), but no main effect of logo color
(p = .13). Critically, the analysis yielded a significant
interaction between presentation mode and logo color (F(1,
176) = 3.69, p \ .05). When statements were presented
visually, participants rated the retailer as more eco-friendly
when the logo color was blue (M = 4.50, SD = 0.96) than
when it was red (M = 3.96, SD = 1.05; F(1, 176) = 5.96,
123
p \ .05). There was no significant difference in perceptions

of eco-friendliness of the retailer between color groups
when the logo was described in the verbal presentation
condition (p = .76). A contrast analysis across logo colors
revealed that when the logo appeared in blue, participants
perceived the retailer as more eco-friendly (M = 4.50) than
when the logo was described as being blue (M = 3.82,
SD = 1.45; F(1, 176) = 9.18, p \ .001). However, there
was no significant difference in perceptions of eco-friendliness of the retailer when the retailer logo appeared in the
color red (M = 3.95, SD = 1.05) or was verbally described
as being red (M = 3.88, SD = 1.14, p = .75). Visual
exposure to an eco-friendly color (vs. verbal exposure to
the word used to describe the color) influenced ethical
judgments of an ethically ambiguous retailing practice.
Moderated Mediation To determine whether eco-friendly
ratings accounted for ethical ratings, we conducted a
moderated mediation analysis (Hayes 2012; Model 8
bootstrapped with 5,000 draws). As we predicted, ecofriendliness mediated the relationship between logo color
and ethical ratings when the color appeared in the logo
(95 % CI -.52 to -.08), but not when the color was merely
described (95 % CI -.17 to .30). See Fig. 1.
Discussion
Consistent with Study 1, the results of this study lend
support to the prediction in H2 that visual exposure to an
eco-friendly color (vs. verbal exposure to the word used to
describe the color) would influence ethical judgments of an
ethically ambiguous practice. Furthermore, in support of
H3, perceptions of the retailers eco-friendliness mediated
the influence of color on judgments of retailer ethicality.
When people see the color of a logo, their perceptions of
retailer ethicality are more favorable when the color is
more eco-friendly. Thus, the results of Study 2a indicate
that the effect prevails when people see the color of the
retailers logo, but not when the color of a retailers logo is
described to them. As noted previously, the concept of ecofriendliness is often associated with the word green. To
determine whether the word green would promote
transfer of referential meaning of the concept of ecofriendliness, we conducted Study 2b. In uncovering this
pattern, Study 2b identifies an important boundary conditionnamely, that the perception of eco-friendliness is due
to transfer of embodied meaning rather than referential
meaning. We used the words green and blue because
they both hold the embodied meaning of eco-friendliness.
However, only the color green holds the referential
meaning of eco-friendliness. Thus, this study isolated the
effects of colors that hold the same embodied meaning, but
different referential meaning.
Study 2b
In this study, we aimed to evaluate the effect of the embodied
versus referential meaning of green on ethical ratings. To do
so, we tested the effect of visual versus verbal presentation of
the eco-friendly colors green and blue.
Method
Participants from an online panel (N = 147) were recruited
in exchange for monetary payment. Participants were
randomly assigned to one of four conditions in a 2 (presentation mode: visual vs. verbal) 9 2 (logo color: blue vs.
green) between-subjects design. The procedures and measures were similar to those in Study 1 and Study 2a. After
consent to participate in the study was obtained, the retailer
profile was presented. Manipulation of color in the visual
presentation mode was similar to that in Studies 1 and 2a.
We captured ethical ratings of the ambiguous retailing
practice with the item, How would you rate this practice
in terms of ethics? (anchored: 1 = not very ethical,
7 = very ethical; adapted from Dabholkar and Kellaris
1992). Finally, participants completed a color blindness
test (Birch 1997) and provided demographic information.
Results
Ethical Ratings and Eco-Friendly Ratings After eliminating eight responses because of self-identified color
blindness, we analyzed the data from the remaining sample
of 139 participants (43.9 % female, Mage = 33.1). As
expected, ANOVAs with ethical ratings or eco-friendliness
ratings as a function of presentational mode crossed with
logo color did not yield significant interactions. The only
significant effects were the distinction between ethical
ratings and eco-friendly perceptions under the verbal presentation conditions. Describing a retailers logo with the
word green influenced ethical ratings such that participants rated the practice as more ethical (M = 5.38,
SD = 1.49) when the retailer was described as having a
green logo, but not when it was described as having a blue
logo (M = 4.63, SD = 1.47; t(1, 66.8) = 2.10, p \ .05).
Similarly, participants perceived the logo described as
green as more eco-friendly (M = 5.32, SD = 1.32) than
the logo described as blue (M = 4.69, SD = 1.30;
t(66.8) = 2.02, p \ .05). No effect of gender emerged.
Discussion
Consistent with Pretest 1, visual exposure to either color
(blue or green) evoked similar perceptions of eco-friendliness (p = .80). The results of Study 2a show that this
pattern transfers to ethical judgments (p = .95) as well.
However, reading the word green (which operates via
transfer of referential meaning) influenced eco-friendliness
and ethical ratings more than reading the word blue.
This finding indicates that whereas metaphorical effects of
seeing the colors green and blue stem directly from the
perception of color, semantic presentations evoke distinct
reactions to the color metaphor. Exposure to green and blue
evokes similar perceptions of eco-friendliness, but the
words used to describe the two colors operate differently.
This study demonstrates that the word green evokes the
concept of eco-friendliness, but the word blue does not;
however, the embodied meaning of green and blue affects
ethical judgments similarly.
Alternative explanations, however, could account for the
observed phenomenon. For example, recent research has
highlighted the influence of color on emotion (De Bock
et al. 2013). Colors such as red are associated with fury or
anger (Elliot et al. 2009), and colors such as green are
associated with success (Moller et al. 2009). Thus, to rule
out alternative explanations, we conducted Study 2c.
Study 2c
The objective of Study 2c was to examine associations
other than eco-friendliness evoked by colors, to rule out
alternative accounts of the observed effects of color in the
previous experiments. Furthermore, we wanted to evaluate
whether color or mode of presentation would change the
way that color biases judgment.
Method
Students (N = 160) took part in the study in exchange for
course credit. We randomly assigned participants to a
between-subjects condition in a 2 (presentation: visual vs.
verbal) 9 3 (logo color: red vs. blue vs. green) experiment.
123
After providing consent, participants read the following

instructions: Different colors evoke different thoughts and
associations. For example, colors may convey different
levels of Eco-friendliness (environmentally friendly or
unfriendly colors). How would you rate the following color
in terms of the Eco-friendliness it conveys? Then, a square
appeared on the screen that corresponded to the condition to
which participants were assigned. Participants were then
asked to rate the color they just reviewed on the following
items: eco-friendly (anchored: 1 = not very eco-friendly,
7 = very eco-friendly), warm (anchored: 1 = cold,
7 = warm), like (anchored: 1 = dislike, 7 = like),
pleasant (anchored: 1 = not very pleasant, 7 = pleasant), strong (anchored: 1 = weak, 7 = strong), and
positive (anchored: 1 = negative, 7 = positive).
Finally, participants completed a color blindness test (Birch
1997) and provided demographic information.
Results
After eliminating eight responses because of self-identified
Of the dependent variables tested, the interaction between
color and mode of presentation was significant only for the
adjective warm (F(1, 146) = 3.96, p \ .05), such that
only for the color red did participants rate the color
(M = 5.58) as warmer than the word (M = 4.48; F(1,
146) = 5.71, p \ .05). Contrast comparisons indicated no
differences between modes of presentation for either the
green (p = .55) or the blue (p = .16) treatment groups. No
effect of gender emerged.
Study 3
Method
The purpose of Study 3 was to evaluate whether the
observed effect of color on ethical ratings would persist
when the practice was otherwise perceived as unambiguously ethical or unethical. We conducted an experiment
using a 2 (retailer practice: ethical vs. unethical) 9 2 (logo
color: green vs. other) between-subjects design. Students at
a large Midwestern college (N = 156) took part in this
study in exchange for extra credit.
After providing consent to participate, participants read
a scenario describing a retailer and a practice, the ethicality
of which they rated. Depending on the condition to which
participants were exposed, they were asked to read one of
two statements pretested to have a high ethical rating
(M = 5.50 and 5.17) or low ethical rating (M = 3.70 and
4.20). We selected statements analyzed in Pretest 2 for use
in this study. As before, the retailer information was
accompanied by a logo featuring a color that was shown in
pretests to be either high or low in eco-friendliness. The
logos used in this study were similar to those in Studies 1
and 2a2c. After reviewing the retailer profile and
accompanying logo, participants were asked to read a
description of a retailer practice. Participants were told,
This common retail practice is perfectly legal. However,
opinions differ widely on how ethical the practice is. How
would you rate this practice in terms of ethics? (anchored:
1 = not very ethical, 7 = very ethical; adapted from
Dabholkar and Kellaris 1992). This question was embedded among several filler questions. After this, participants
completed a color blindness test (Birch 1997) and provided
demographic information.
Discussion
Results
The findings show that with the exception of the adjective
warm, no other adjectives were primed when participants were exposed to the three colors used in this series of
studies. Moreover, if the adjective warm had influenced
the results of the previous studies, we would have expected
to find the opposite of what we observed. Therefore, we
conclude that the effects observed are not a result of having
primed concepts other than eco-friendliness. In Study 3, we
aimed to evaluate whether the effect observed with an ecofriendly color would influence perceptions of retailer ethicality when unambiguously more versus less ethical
practices were presented. We also wanted to determine
whether the less eco-friendly color or the negative influence of the color halo would affect more versus less ethical
practices differently than ambiguous practices.
123
After eliminating nine responses because of self-identified

An ANOVA with ethical judgment as the dependent variable yielded a significant retailer practice 9 logo color
interaction (F(1, 143) = 4.80, p \ .05). Moreover, among
participants judging a more ethical retail practice, those
primed with a more eco-friendly color rated the practice as
less ethical (M = 4.20, SD = 0.90) and those primed with
a less eco-friendly color rated the practice as more ethical
(M = 4.79, SD = 1.36; t(72) = 2.18, p \ .05). There was
no effect of logo color among those judging an unethical
practice (p = .24) and no effect of gender. Thus, H4 was
supported.
Discussion
The results of this study provide evidence that the more
eco-friendly color affected ethical ratings of the unethical
practice, but not enough to make it significantly different
from the effect of the low eco-friendly color. However,
directional evidence shows that the use of the more ecofriendly color biased consumer judgments of the retailer.
This means that colors do not evoke a contrast effect when
people judge an unethical practice, because the (lack of)
ethicality overwhelms any subtle effect of color (i.e., floor
effect); rather, colors evoke a contrast effect when people
judge a more ethically acceptable practice. This is because
an eco-friendly color raises expectations of ethicality,
thereby making the ethical practice seem less so. In contrast, the less eco-friendly color lowers expectations of
ethicality, thereby making ethical behavior seem more so.
As a next step, we wanted to investigate whether individual differences would moderate the observed effect.
Consistent with the premise of Lewins (1939) Field Theory, we anticipated that colors featured in logos would
interact with personal traits to shape ethical judgments. An
individual difference that provides a suitable test of the
mindless influence of color is ethical sensitivity (Yetmar
and Eastman 2000). Specifically, eco-friendly colors
should have a greater impact on the ethical judgments of
individuals with higher ethical sensitivity because the
embodied meaning of color should be more likely to cue
eco-friendliness. Thus,
H5 Ethical sensitivity will moderate the effect of ecofriendly colors on ethical judgments, such that when ethical
sensitivity is higher (vs. lower), the effect will be stronger
(vs. weaker).
After providing consent, participants were told that the

study was about common retail practices. They were asked
to fill out a four-item, 5-point Likert scale measuring ethical sensitivity (anchored: 1 = completely disagree;
5 = completely agree), in terms of the extent to which
they agreed with the following statements: When making
a decision, I tend to give ethical considerations higher
priority than financial considerations; I prefer not to do
business with stores that dont treat their employees well;
I go out of my way to do business with companies that
have the best records of corporate social responsibility;
and I am uncomfortable making compromises when there
is both good and bad in a choice option.
Participants were then told that they would be presented
with information about a retailer and would answer a series
of questions about its practices. Participants were then
exposed to the retailer profile similar to that in Studies 13.
The retailer information was accompanied by a colored
logo that was pretested as either high or low in eco-friendly
ratings (similar to Studies 1, 2a, and 3).
After reviewing the retailer profile and accompanying
logo, participants read a description of a retailing practice
pretested to be ethically ambiguous. Similar to Studies 1
and 2a2c, to increase construct validity, we used multiple
exemplars of ethically ambiguous retailing practices. Each
participant read only one exemplar in a counterbalanced
design. Participants were told, This common retail practice is perfectly legal. However, opinions differ widely on
how ethical the practice is. How would you rate this
ethical, 7 = very ethical; adopted from Dabholkar and
Kellaris 1992). After this, participants completed a color
blindness test (Birch 1997) and provided demographic
information.
Study 4
Results
Study 4 evaluates the moderating role of individual differences in shaping reactions to colors. Specifically, we
examine the role of ethical sensitivity as a boundary condition governing the influence of color on ethical judgments of an ethically ambiguous retailing practice.
Method
Participants (N = 239) took part in an online study in
exchange for monetary payment. Participants were randomly assigned to one of two conditions: one with a
highly eco-friendly logo color or one with a low ecofriendly logo color. In addition, we captured individual
differences on an ethical sensitivity scale and measured
ethical judgments.
After eliminating sixteen responses because of self-identified color blindness, we analyzed data from the remaining
The effect of color on ethical judgments replicated as
expected (M = 4.84, SD = 1.48 vs. M = 4.42, SD = 1.41;
t(1, 215.19) = 2.16, p \ .05). We conducted an analysis of
covariance in which the logo color and ethical sensitivity
score (a = .76) predicted ethical ratings in a full factorial
model. The two-way interaction was significant (F(1,
219) = 6.69, p \ .01). A spotlight analysis at one standard
deviation above the mean ethical sensitivity score revealed
that participants with a high ethical sensitivity score provided different ethical ratings when the logo color presented was more eco-friendly (M = 5.23, SD = 1.41) than
123
when the logo color presented was less eco-friendly

(M = 4.07, SD = 1.77; F(1, 98) = 10.20, p \ .005). In
contrast, no distinction emerged in ethical ratings between
the two color conditions among participants characterized
by low ethical sensitivity (p = .42). No effect of gender
emerged.
Discussion
Table 1 Ethical ratings across all studies

Red
Blue
Green
Pretest of Logo Color
3.85 (1.61)
5.00 (1.22)
4.87 (1.02)
Study 1
4.38 (1.76)
5.59 (1.32)
Visual
4.43 (1.06)
5.19 (1.10)
Verbal
4.66 (1.47)
4.61 (1.45)
Visual
5.19 (1.43)
5.27 (1.35)
Verbal
4.63 (1.47)
5.38 (1.49)
4.79 (1.36)
4.20 (0.96)
3.84 (1.42)
4.20 (1.47)
High ethical sensitivity
4.07 (1.77)
5.23 (1.41)
Low ethical sensitivity
5.03 (0.92)
4.60 (1.55)
Study 2a
Study 2b
The results of this study show an important contingency

governing the influence of color on ethical judgment.
Evidence shows that individual differences in ethical
sensitivity moderate the effect of color on the ethical
ratings. The main effect of color is qualified by ethical
sensitivity, such that we observe the effect among individuals characterized by high (but not low) ethical sensitivity. Whereas the dispersion in ethical judgment scores
was greater among participants with higher ethical sensitivity, it may be that such individuals are prone to more
extreme judgments. Participants with lower ethical sensitivity scores seemed to gravitate to the mean, with less
dispersion about the mean. Ethical sensitivity motivates
individuals to be more condemning or affirming (i.e.,
greater dispersion in ethical judgment and more extreme
judgment). Good seems better and bad seems worse
among individuals whose sensitivity amplifies their
judgment, because they pay closer attention to or process
more information. Table 1 provides the ethical ratings
across all conditions.
General Discussion
Evidence from a series of studies suggests that logo colors
can evoke embodied meaning that influence perceptions of
retailer ethicality. Study 1 shows that when participants
viewed a profile of a retailer represented by a logo featuring an eco-friendly color, they rated the retailers ethically ambiguous practice as more ethical than that of a
retailer represented by a logo featuring a less eco-friendly
color. Furthermore, mode of presentation (visual exposure
versus verbal description) affected reactions to an ecofriendly (vs. non-eco-friendly) color (Study 2a), suggesting
the effect of color stems from the embodied meaning it
conveys. Study 2bs findings show that perceptions of ecofriendliness mediate the effect of color on ethical judgments when a logo is presented visually (vs. described
verbally). Study 2c reveals that the color green is an
exception, in that it evokes eco-friendliness through
transfer of both embodied and referential meaning. Critically, an eco-friendly color can skew judgments even when
practices are not ethically ambiguous (Study 3). Finally,
individual differences in ethical sensitivity moderate the
123
Study 3
Very ethical
Not very ethical
Study 4
Standard deviations are in parentheses
observed effect, such that logo color biases ethical judgments of individuals who are more ethically sensitive
(Study 4).
Theoretical Implications
This research advances the literature on how contextual
cues can shape intuitive ethical judgment (Dedeke 2015)
by demonstrating that the eco-friendliness concept is
inherently grounded in intuitive associations with colors
(i.e., embodied meaning). Furthermore, this research shows
that although a similar meaning is inferred from exposure
to the colors blue and green (i.e., eco-friendliness), only the
word green evokes that concept referentially, demonstrating the power of contextual cues to shape responses
without the reinforcement of words. This research
demonstrates that the metonymic transfer of the meaning of
eco-friendliness is possible because of the conative meaning inherent in the color green. The color green is associated with environmentalism (Garner 1996). Thus, although
it is well known that the word green is used in branding
and rebranding strategies as a way to evoke inferences
about a companys environmental responsibility, the present research shows that logo color in identity branding can
have far-reaching effects on ethical judgment.
The meaning people infer from color varies across
cultures (Aslam 2006; Jacobs et al. 1991; Neto 2002). The
meaning of the color green as eco-friendly, however, is
certainly relevant in industrial cultures, and thus, the
implications of this research should hold in most industrialized contexts. Moreover, concepts can exist before words
are invented in language. For example, the word mind
existed long before the computer was invented; however,
the metaphor the mind as computer is common in the

English language (Lakoff and Johnson 1980). What is
important to note in this article is that embodied meaning is
innate and thus universally human. The sky and water are
blue and vegetation is green on most of our planet. Thus,
blue and green seem likely to evoke earth and eco-concepts
across many cultures. Therefore, we speculate that as other
cultures become more familiar with the concept of ecofriendliness, this color-based metaphor should become
universally meaningful.
Managerial and Policy Implications
Branding research has emphasized color as an integral part
of corporate identity (Lindstrom 2005). Retailers often
adopt the color green to reinforce an eco-friendly image
(Imkamp 2000); however, if an eco-friendly identity is not
part of the retailers image, the use of green could hurt the
brand (Bottomley and Doyle 2006). Importantly, this
research demonstrates that colors evoke concepts that can
influence intuitive ethical judgments. Adding to the literature that indicates that color can influence downstream
effects, such as price perceptions (Puccinelli et al. 2013),
this research is the first to demonstrate that color can play
an important role in biasing shoppers ethical judgments
about retailers. When the colors of eco-friendliness appear
in logos, consumers draw inferences about the retailer
represented by the logo. An ambiguous action is deemed
more acceptable when performed by an eco-friendly
organization and less acceptable when performed by a noneco-friendly organization. Thus, color cues influence ethical judgment by priming the embodied meaning of ecofriendliness, which then transfers to businesses associated
with the color.
British Petroleums act of donating to the National Fish
and Wildlife Foundation was viewed skeptically, given the
companys history of negative environmental impact and
its tarnished brand image (Pine 2010), than the same act of
donation by FedEx (Alley 2013). Although organizations
can use visual branding strategies such as colors to maintain positive consumer perceptions, they should be aware
of the hazards of the disingenuous use of color (Bellizzi
et al. 1983; Schmitt and Simonson 1997).
This research yields useful ethical insights for marketers
and designers engaged in identity branding. Building on
prior literature on logo and typeface design in branding
(Henderson et al. 2004), the studies reported herein inform
the role of eco-branding in the architecture of a brands
positioning. Not all companies are positioned to be ecofriendly. However, given the metaphorical connections that
consumers make with the color green and eco-friendliness,
this research indicates that companies should be cautious in
their use of the colors green and blue. Although using the
color green to position the company as eco-friendly could

certainly work in favor of the retailer, marketers must be
mindful of the original positioning of the company. There
are many ways of positioning to convey moral merit other
than being eco-friendly. Marketers might choose to make
use of the positive attributions the color provides, but they
should also consider how eco-friendliness aligns with the
overall strategy of the firm, as a disingenuous green strategy could easily (and rightly) backfire.
In recognizing the role of color on perceived ecofriendliness and ethical judgment, an important caveat we
explored post hoc was whether the effect of color would
persist even when participants could not recall the color to
which they were exposed or falsely remembered seeing a
different color. We conducted an additional study in which
participants (N = 147) either saw an image of or read a
verbal description of the retailer logo, along with a short
description of the retailer. They then rated perceived ethicality and perceived eco-friendliness (as in the previous
studies), after which they engaged in a distractor task (to
rate various ads for the level of humor). Finally, participants were asked to provide demographic information and
feedback on the survey and asked to recall the color of the
logo presented. The findings reveal that when the logo was
the color blue, 80 % of participants recalled the right color
(14.3 % recalled the wrong color, and 5.7 % could not
recall the color). When the logo was described as blue,
86.1 % recalled the right color (11.1 % recalled the wrong
color, and 2.8 % could not recall the color). In contrast,
when the logo was the color green, 78.4 % recalled the
right color (31.6 % recalled the wrong color). When the
logo color was described as green, 87.2 % recalled the
right color (12.8 % recalled the wrong color). Given the
low percentage of participants who could not recall the
color, the influence of this variable on ethicality judgments
was negligible. We coded the responses in which the color
recalled was wrong and found that neither the main effect
of color (p = .69) nor any of the interactions were significant (p = .17). This result indicates that a majority of
participants tend to recall logo color accurately in a protocol designed to induce memory decay. Whereas color is a
very fundamental attribute of a visual stimulus, this high
level of recall should not be surprising.
We offer a word of caution at this stage. In the large
scheme of impression-forming tools at retailers disposal,
colors play a lesser role in determining ethical perceptions
than, for example, the impact of goodwill generated by
corporate social responsibility efforts. This does not mean
that color does not play a role in shaping human judgment.
According to Langer (1978), many behaviors that are
ostensibly mindful are automatic, non-conscious, and
mindless; we contend that colors cue an automatic,
mindless response, not a rational evaluation.
123
We acknowledge that consumers are informed by past

experiences with familiar retailers. The findings herein thus
have implications for when a new brand or retailer identity
is being developed. When little prior information about a
brand or retailer exists, color can play an important role in
shaping perceptions and biasing judgments.
Further research could identify contradictory visual
elements that reinforce visual brand identity. Specifically,
research could investigate situations when the retailers
core values do not align with eco-friendliness. Research
could also evaluate consumer expectations against brand
promises that retailers explicitly or implicitly communicate
(Punjaisri and Wilson 2007). For example, Starbucks does
not position itself as a green company, but it likely benefits
in situations that call for ethical judgments. Similarly,
companies such as Kohls and Trader Joes, which incorporate eco-friendliness in their practices, may not be given
due credit because of erroneous color use in their branding.
Implications of the current research are by no means
limited to color. Henderson et al. (2004) stress that other
aspects of a logo, such as typeface, can influence impression management endeavors. Indeed, Cian et al. (2015)
demonstrate the effect of dynamic iconography on consumer behavior. Therefore, the principles underlying the
influences of color as demonstrated in this work may apply
to other design elements that similarly shape the formation
of impressions and, by extension, ethical judgments.
Appendix: Summary of Pretests

Pretest 1a
We exposed participants (n = 239) to a logo featuring one
of 16 different colors adopted from various retailer logos,
selected to represent the full range of the color spectrum.
Participants were recruited from an online panel and were
given monetary compensation for their participation. After
providing consent, participants reviewed the following
profile of a fictitious retailer:
DAVY Grocery Store operates 109 supermarkets in
the Houston, Austin, and Dallas-Fort Worth areas
under the DAVY Flagship banners. DAVY employs
more than 10,000 associates. Most stores include
fresh seafood, floral, cosmetic, bakery, and film
processing departments. The premium DAVY Flagship stores have expanded their take-out departments
to provide fresh-made pizza, pasta, and barbecue.
Many locations offer bank branches, ATMs, coffee
shops, 1-h photograph processing, drive-through
pharmacy windows, fueling stations, and full-service
counters where a customer can purchase lottery or
123
movie tickets, pay utility bills, and renew car

licenses.
This profile was accompanied by a colored logo. Each
participant saw only one of the 16 colors tested, in a
between-subjects design. A professional designer created a
test logo in which the graphical composition was ambiguous with respect to eco-friendliness. Designed on a circular
template, half the logo consisted of the outline of a cogged
wheel, and the other half consisted of the outline of a globe
(see Fig. 2). Participants were asked to evaluate How ecofriendly do you suppose DAVY Grocery Store is?
(anchored: 1 = not at all eco-friendly, 7 = very ecofriendly).
We eliminated responses of self-identified color blind
participants from the analysis. We present the mean ecofriendly ratings in Table 2. Participants rated the retailer as
most eco-friendly when it was represented by a logo featuring blue (M = 5.00, SD = 1.22). The two colors rated
lowest in eco-friendliness were both shades of red: Trader
Joes red (M = 3.85, SD = 1.61) and Target red
(M = 3.78, SD = 1.84). Thus, we used blue and red as the
high and low eco-friendly colors, respectively, in Studies 1,
2a, 2c, 3, and 4, because they differed statistically in perceived eco-friendliness (t(25) = 2.06, p \ .05). In Studies
2b, 2c, and 4, we used the color green (M = 4.87,
SD = 1.02), which did not differ statistically from the
color blue (p = .77).
Pretest 1b
To rule out the possibility that any of the colors used in the
studies would be associated with a specific, identifiable
retailer, we conducted a follow-up pretest (n = 154) with
the three colors mentioned previously (blue, green, and
red). After eliminating six responses because of self-identified color blindness, we examined 148 responses (43.2 %
female, Mage = 20.08). The six stimuli used consisted of
the words red, green, or blue or visual exposure to
the actual color red, blue, or green. Each participant was
exposed to one of the six stimuli in a randomized, betweensubjects design. After viewing the stimuli, participants
performed a sentence completion task: I associate this
color with retailers such as _______ (list one or more
stores). This item was presented among filler items
(How typical is this practice? How creative is this
practice? How interesting does the store sound? How
useful do you think the store is to shoppers? We selected
these fillers from a pretest that showed no difference in
conditions). The order of presentation of the stimuli was
randomized.
We found similar results for participants exposed to the
actual color (vs. the word used to describe the color); no
Aldi Blue 1
Food Lion Blue
Sams Green
Trader Joes Red
Aldi Blue 2
Old Food Lion Yellow
Aldi Orange 1
Kroger Blue
Target Black
Target Red
Wal-Mart Blue
Wal-Mart Orange
Aldi Orange 2
Sams Blue
Trader Joes Beige
Whole Foods Green
Fig. 2 Logo colors used in Pretest 1
one retailer was associated with a given color by the

majority of participants. The largest percentage of associations were as follows: word red: 19 % of participants
associated it with Target; color red: 21 % associated it with

Target; word blue: 15 % associated it with Wal-Mart;
color blue: 16 % associated it with Wal-Mart and 15 %
123
high nor low (Ms = 4.65 and 4.82), and thus were deemed
ethically ambiguous, as stimuli for Study 1. These two
statements were as follows:
Table 2 Eco-friendly ratings

Retailer color
Aldi blue 1
M = 4.64, SD = 1.21
Aldi blue 2
M = 4.07, SD = 1.71
Aldi orange 1
M = 4.40, SD = 1.04
Aldi orange 2
M = 4.35, SD = 1.66
Food Lion blue
M = 4.40, SD = 1.05
Old Food Lion yellow
M = 4.50, SD = 0.96
Kroger blue
M = 4.66, SD = 1.54
Sams blue
M = 4.42, SD = 1.08
Sams green
M = 4.87, SD = 1.02
Target black
M = 4.11, SD = 1.21
Target red
Trader Joes beige
M = 3.78, SD = 1.84
M = 4.52, SD = 1.54
Trader Joes red
M = 3.85, SD = 1.61
Wal-Mart blue
M = 5.00, SD = 1.22
Wal-Mart orange
M = 4.44, SD = 0.90
Whole Foods green
M = 4.16, SD = 1.50
associated it with Kroger; word green: 19 % associated

it with Dollar General; color green: 12 % associated it with
Dicks Sporting Goods. The pretest also confirmed that
participants were not primed to rate a target positively or
negatively because of the fillers used. Therefore, we carried
these colors forward to the studies as exemplars of high
(blue and green) and low (red) eco-friendly colors.
Pretest 2
We conducted this pretest (n = 226) to determine ethical
perceptions of common retail practices that could be construed as ethically controversial. The goal of this pretest
was to select exemplars of ethically ambiguous (mid-scale)
practices for use in the main studies. We also wanted to
identify practices that were judged as unambiguously ethical or unethical (for Study 3). We formulated 10 statements describing common, ethically controversial retailer
practices from consumer blog sites. See Table 3. Participants were randomly assigned to read one statement in a
between-subjects design. Participants were told, This
common retail practice is perfectly legal. However, opinions differ widely concerning how ethical the practice is.
How would you rate this practice in terms of ethics?
(anchored: 1 = not ethical at all, 7 = very ethical;
adapted from Dabholkar and Kellaris 1992; this article lists
20 scenarios in personal selling and asked participants to
rate each from very unethical to very ethical. In the
current research, we reworded the scale description to
capture judgments of ethicality of the retailer).
Table 3 summarizes the results. On the basis of these
results, we selected two statements that averaged neither
123
Supermarkets and grocery stores typically have floor

plans that place dairy, eggs, produce, bread, and meat
(staples) at the periphery of the store. Other
products, such as snacks, candy, and seasonal items,
are placed in areas shoppers must pass through on
their way to find staples or checkout lanes. Stores
have learned through experience that such floor plans
help maximize sales by increasing the probability of
shoppers making unplanned purchases.
Shelf design is an important aspect of retail store
design. Products can be at, below, or above eye level.
Eye-level shelf spaces are often reserved for higherpriced products. Less expensive alternatives are often
displayed on lower shelves.
This program of pretesting resulted in exemplars of low
and high eco-friendly colors and descriptions of ethically
ambiguous retailing practices for use in the main studies.
Pretest 3a
In this pretest, we wanted to examine the portion of variance in a multi-item eco-friendly rating scale captured by a
single-item scale to be used in the studies. Students
(N = 70) were asked to review the three colors described
in Pretest 1a. Participants were asked to evaluate How
eco-friendly do you suppose DAVY Grocery Store is?
(anchored: 1 = not at all eco-friendly, 7 = very ecofriendly). Participants also rated a 32-item, 7-point Corporate Environmental Performance scale (anchored
1 = completely disagree, 7 = completely agree;
adapted to describe the retailer; Trumpp et al. 2015).
Results indicate that the single-item measure captured a
high percentage of variance in the multi-item measure
(Pearson correlation = 0.92, p \ .001). Thus, we adopted
the single-item measure in the main studies.
Pretest 3b
In this pretest, we wanted to examine the variance on a
multi-item ethical rating scale versus a single item to be
used in the studies. Students (n = 67) were asked to review
one of the two ethically ambiguous statements described in
Pretest 2. Participants were told, This common retail
practice is perfectly legal. However, opinions differ widely
on how ethical the practice is. How would you rate this
ethical, 7 = very ethical; adopted from Dabholkar and
Kellaris 1992). They also rated the practice on a five-item,
7-point scale (ethical/unethical, positive/negative,
Table 3 Ethical ratings for business practices
Statements of retailer practice
Ethicality ratings
1. Supermarkets and grocery stores typically have floor plans that place dairy, eggs, produce, bread, and meat
(staples) at the periphery of the store. Other products, such as snacks, candy, and seasonal items, are placed in areas
shoppers must pass through on their way to find staples or checkout lanes. Stores have learned through experience that
such floor plans help maximize sales by increasing the probability of shoppers making unplanned purchases
M = 4.65, SD = 1.74
2. Shelf design is an important aspect of retail store design. Products can be at, below, or above eye level. Eye-level
shelf spaces are often reserved for higher-priced products. Less expensive alternatives are often displayed on lower
shelves
M = 4.82, SD = 1.18
3. In-store lighting is an important aspect of store design. It helps improve general visibility and can be used to
illuminate products to advantage. Special lighting can be used to showcase focal displays; to differentiate shopping
areas; and to make produce look very fresh, vivid, and appealing
M = 5.08, SD = 1.41
4. End-of-aisle displays are commonly used to showcase products that are new, on sale, or otherwise on promotion.
Popular wisdom holds that such displays increase store revenues by encouraging unplanned purchases
M = 5.50, SD = 1.18
5. Shopping carts facilitate shopping by making products easy to gather and transport to the checkout counter.
Experience has taught retailers that the size of carts can influence how much the average shopper buys. For example,
when grocery carts are bigger, people tend to buy more. Thus, retailers often use carts that are larger than necessary to
encourage additional, unplanned purchases
M = 5.17, SD = 1.19
6. Retailers sometimes offer special deals to increase sales of inventory they wish to move. A common example is the
10 for $10 deal. Shoppers do not have to purchase 10 of the promotional item to get the $1 per unit price; however,
in practice, many consumers automatically buy 10 units when they see this offer
M = 4.83, SD = 1.61
7. Retailers often use promotional fliers to highlight products that are on sale. Such fliers may also feature information
on new products that are available, seasonal items, and so forth. Not everything featured on a flier is necessarily on
sale at a reduced price. Yet many consumers naturally assume that any product featured on a promotional flier is on
sale
M = 4.26, SD = 1.21
8. Retailers commonly work with suppliers to determine the best in-store location to showcase a product. Consider the
case of SunnyD. This product is primarily water, high fructose corn syrup, and dyes, with less than 2 % orange juice. It
does not have to be refrigerated; however, the supplier prefers the product to be placed next to Tropicana and Floridas
Natural in open refrigerator cases, so that it will catch the attention of consumers searching for the lowest-price
alternative
M = 3.70, SD = 1.52
9. Retailers often play background music in stores. Background music can help create a pleasant atmosphere, thereby
making shopping a more pleasant experience. However, music also ties up a portion of shoppers cognitive resources,
such that less brain power is available to evaluate products. This may increase the probability of shoppers making
unplanned purchases
M = 4.52, SD = 1.70
10. Grocers routinely spray fresh vegetables with cold water. This helps maintain the freshness and appearance of the
produce. However, it can also increase the weight of the produce, making it cost more at checkout
M = 4.20, SD = 2.84
right/wrong, appropriate/inappropriate, and good/

bad; Jung and Kellaris, 2002). An analysis of the results
showed a high percentage of variance and the multi-item
measure (Pearson correlation = 0.89, p \ .001). Thus, we
adopted the single-item measure in the main studies.
References
Aaker, J. L. (1997). Dimensions of brand personality. Journal of
Marketing Research, 34(3), 347356.
Aaker, J. L., Fournier, S., & Brasel, A. S. (2004). When good brands
do bad. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(1), 116.
Ailawadi, K. L., & Keller, K. L. (2004). Understanding retail
branding: Conceptual insights and research priorities. Journal of
Retailing, 80(4), 331342.
Alley, R. J. (2013). Corporate contribution: FedEx employees
volunteer for Wolf River cleanup. Memphis Daily News, (April
22), Retrieved April 15, 2014, from https://www.memphisdaily
news.com/news/2013/apr/22/corporate-contribution/.
Arnheim, R. (1971). Art and visual perception: A psychology of the

creative eye. Berkley: University of California Press.
Asch, S. E. (1946). Forming impressions of personality. Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology, 41(3), 258290.
Aslam, M. M. (2006). Are you selling the right colour? A crosscultural review of colour as a marketing cue. Journal of
Marketing Communications, 12(1), 1530.
Babin, B. J., Hardesty, D. M., & Suter, T. A. (2003). Color and
shopping intentions: The intervening effect of price fairness and
perceived affect. Journal of Business Research, 56(7), 541551.
Bagchi, R., & Cheema, A. (2013). The effect of red background color
on willingness-to-pay: The moderating role of selling mechanism. Journal of Consumer Research, 39(5), 947960.
Bellizzi, J. A., Crowley, A. E., & Hasty, R. W. (1983). The effects of
color in store design. Journal of Retailing, 59(1), 2145.
Bellizzi, J. A., & Hite, R. E. (1992). Environmental color, consumer
feelings, and purchase likelihood. Psychology & Marketing,
9(5), 347363.
Birch, J. (1997). Efficiency of the Ishihara test for identifying redgreen colour deficiency. Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics,
17(5), 403408.
Bottomley, P. A., & Doyle, J. R. (2006). The interactive effects of
colors and products on perceptions of brand logo appropriateness. Marketing Theory, 6(1), 6383.
123
Chae, B. G., & Hoegg, J. (2013). The future looks right: Effects of
the horizontal location of advertising images on product attitude.
Journal of Consumer Research, 40(2), 223238.
Chan, E., & Prinz, D. (2014). Whats your impact? Best Global Green
Brands 2014. Retrieved August 15, 2014, from http://www.
interbrand.com/en/best-global-brands/Best-Global-Green-Brands/
2014/articles-and-interviews/whats-your-impact.aspx.
Chen, Y.-S. (2010). The drivers of green brand equity: Green brand
image, green satisfaction, and green trust. Journal of Business
Ethics, 93(2), 307319.
Chen, Y.-S., Lai, S.-B., & Wen, C.-T. (2006). The influence of green
innovation performance on corporate advantage in Taiwan.
Journal of Business Ethics, 67(4), 331339.
Childers, T. L., Houston, M. J., & Heckler, S. E. (1985). Measurement
of individual differences in visual versus verbal information
processing. Journal of Consumer Research, 12(2), 125134.
Cian, L., Krishna, A., & Elder, R. S. (2015). A sign of things to come:
Behavioral change through dynamic iconography. Journal of
Consumer Research, 41(6), 14261446.
Collen, J. (2012). Gang green: Rules are tightening. Dont say green if
you dont mean green. Forbes, (October 4). Retrieved April 15,
2014, from http://www.forbes.com/sites/jesscollen/2012/10/04/
theres-no-debate-about-this-you-cant-call-your-pesticide-greenand-ask-the-trademark-office-to-help-you/.
Crane, A. (2001). Unpacking the ethical product. Journal of Business
Ethics, 30(4), 361373.
Dabholkar, P. A., & Kellaris, J. J. (1992). Toward understanding
marketing students ethical judgment of controversial personal selling practices. Journal of Business Research, 24(4),
313329.
De Bock, T., Pandelaere, M., & Van Kenhove, P. (2013). When
colors backfire: The impact of color cues on moral judgment.
Journal of Consumer Psychology, 23(3), 341348.
Dedeke, A. (2015). A cognitive-intuitionist model of moral judgment.
Journal of Business Ethics, 126(3), 437457.
Deng, X., & Kahn, B. E. (2009). Is your product on the right side?
The location effect on perceived product heaviness and
package evaluation. Journal of Marketing Research, 46(6),
725738.
Dion, K., Berscheid, E., & Walster, E. (1972). What is beautiful is
good. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 24(3),
285290.
Dubinsky, A. J., & Levy, M. (1985). Ethics in retailing: Perceptions
of retail salespeople. Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 13(12), 116.
Eagly, A. H., Ashmore, R. D., Makhijani, M. G., & Longo, L. C.
(1991). What is beautiful is good, but: A meta-analytic review
of research on the physical attractiveness stereotype. Psychological Bulletin, 110(1), 109128.
Elliot, A. J., Maier, M. A., Binser, M. J., Friedman, R., & Pekrun, R.
(2009). The effect of red on avoidance behavior in achievement
contexts. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35(3),
365375.
Elliot, A. J., Maier, M. A., Moller, A. C., Friedman, R., & Meinhardt,
J. (2007). Color and psychological functioning: The effect of red
on performance attainment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 139(3), 399417.
Garner, R. (1996). Environmental politics. Bath: Prentice Hall.
Gleim, M. R., Smith, J. S., Andrews, D., & Cronin, J. J, Jr. (2013).
Against the green: A multi-method examination of the barriers to
green consumption. Journal of Retailing, 89(1), 4461.
Grandia, K. (2007). Shells greenwashing advertisements misleading.
desmogblog.com, (July 17). Retrieved April 15, 2014, from
http://www.desmogblog.com/shells-greenwashing-advertisementsmisleading.
123
Haidt, J. (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social
intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review,
108(4), 814834.
Haidt, J. (2007). The new synthesis in moral psychology. Science,
316(5827), 9981002.
Hawkins, S. L. (2011). William James, Gustav Fechner, and early
psychophysics. Frontiers in Physiology, 2, 1129.
Hayes, A. F. (2012). PROCESS: A versatile computational tool for
observed variable mediation, moderation, and conditional process modeling. White paper. Retrieved April 15, 2014, from
http://www.afhayes.com/public/process2012.pdf.
Henderson, P. W., Giese, J. L., & Cote, J. A. (2004). Impression
management using typeface design. Journal of Marketing, 68(4),
6072.
Hsu, T. (2001). Skepticism grows over products touted as ecofriendly. Los Angeles Times, (May 21). Retrieved April 15, 2014,
from
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/may/21/business/la-figreenwash-20110521.
Huang, X., Li, X., & Zhang, M. (2013). Seeing the social roles of
brands: How physical positioning influences brand evaluation.
Journal of Consumer Psychology, 23(4), 509514.
Imkamp, H. (2000). The Interest of consumers in ecological product
information is growing: Evidence from two German surveys.
Journal of Consumer Policy, 23(2), 193202.
Jacobs, L., Keown, C., Worthley, R., & Gyhmn, K. (1991). Crosscultural color comparisons: Global marketers beware! International Marketing Review, 8, 2130.
Jung, J. M., & Kellaris, J. J. (2002). Scale for a new millennium: A
psychometric measure of ethical judgment using the Dalai
Lamas universal criteria. In W. J. Kehoe & J. H. Lindgren
(Eds.), 2002 AMA summer educators conference: enhancing
knowledge development in marketing (Vol. 13, pp. 117118).
Chicago: American Marketing Association.
Karliner, J. (2001). A brief history of greenwash, CorpWatch, (March
22). Retrieved April 15, 2014, from http://www.corpwatch.org/
article.php?id=243.
Keller, K. L. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing
customer-based brand equity. Journal of Marketing, 57(1), 122.
Kinsch, W., & Mangalath, P. (2011). The construction of meaning.
Topics in Cognitive Science, 3, 346370.
Labrecque, L. I., & Milne, G. R. (2012). Exciting red and competent
blue: the importance of color in marketing. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 40(5), 711727.
Labrecque, L. I., Patrick, V. M., & Milne, G. R. (2013). The
marketers prismatic palette: A review of color research and
future directions. Psychology & Marketing, 30(2), 187202.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). The metaphorical structure of the
human conceptual system. Cognitive Science, 4(2), 195208.
Langer, E. J. (1978). Rethinking the role of thought in social
interaction. In J. Harvey, W. Ickes, & R. Kidd (Eds.), New
directions in attribution research (Vol. 2, pp. 3558). Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Lewin, K. (1939). Field theory and experiment in social psychology.
American Journal of Sociology, 44(6), 868896.
Lindstrom, M. (2005). Brand sense: How to build powerful brands
through touch, taste, smell, sight & sound. New York: Kogan Page.
Mazar, N., & Zhong, C.-B. (2010). Do green products make us better
people? Psychological Science, 21(4), 494498.
Moller, A. C., Elliot, A. J., & Maier, M. A. (2009). Basic huemeaning association. Emotion, 9(6), 898902.
Neto, F. (2002). Colors associated with styles of love. Perceptual and
Motor Skills, 94, 13031310.
Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977). The halo effect: Evidence for
unconscious alteration of judgments. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 35(4), 250256.
Panwar, R., Paul, K., Nybakk, E., Hansen, E., & Thompson, D.
(2014). The legitimacy of CSR actions of publicly traded
companies versus family-owned companies. Journal of Business
Ethics, 125(3), 481496.
Peattie, K., & Charter, M. (1994). Green marketing. The Marketing
Book, 5, 726755.
Pine, G. (2010). BP has donated $10 million to wildlife fund so far but
may owe at least $52 million. Huffington Post, (August 3).
Retrieved April 15, 2014, from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/
2010/08/02/bp-has-donated-10-million_n_667759.html.
Porter, M. E., & van der Linde, C. (1995). Toward a new conception
of the environmentcompetiveness relationship. Journal of
Economic Perspectives, 9(4), 97118.
Puccinelli, N. M., Chandrashekaran, R., Grewal, D., & Suri, R.
(2013). Are men seduced by red? The effect of red versus black
prices on price perceptions. Journal of Retailing, 89(2),
115125.
Punjaisri, K., & Wilson, A. (2007). The role of internal branding in
the delivery of employee brand promise. Journal of Brand
Management, 15(1), 5770.
Schmitt, B., & Simonson, A. (1997). Marketing aesthetics: The
strategic management of brands, identity, and image. New York:
Free Press.
Schuldt, J. P., Muller, D., & Schwarz, N. (2012). The fair trade
effect health halos from social ethics claims. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 3(5), 581589.
Spence, C., Puccinelli, N. M., Grewal, D., & Roggeveen, A. L.

(2014). Store atmospherics: A multisensory perspective. Psychology & Marketing, 31(7), 472488.
Sundar, A., & Noseworthy, T. J. (2014). Place the logo high or low?
Using conceptual metaphors of power in packaging design.
Journal of Marketing, 78(5), 138151.
Thorndike, E. L. (1920). A constant error in psychological ratings.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 4(1), 2529.
Trumpp, C., Endrikat, J., Zopf, C., & Gunether, E. (2015). Definition,
conceptualization, and measurement of corporate environmental
performance: A critical examination of a multidimensional
construct. Journal of Business Ethics, 126(2), 183204.
Wierzbicka, A. (1990). The meaning of color terms: Semantics,
culture, and cognition. Cognitive Linguistics, 1(1), 99150.
Yee, E., Ahmed, S. Z., & Thompson-Schill, S. L. (2012). Colorless
green ideas (can) prime furiously. Psychological Science, 23(4),
364369.
Yetmar, S. A., & Eastman, K. K. (2000). Tax practitioners ethical
sensitivity: A model and empirical examination. Journal of
Business Ethics, 26(4), 271288.
Zeltner, P. M. (1975). John Deweys aesthetic philosophy. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Zhu, R., & Meyers-Levy, J. (2005). Distinguishing between the
meanings of music: When background music affects product
perceptions. Journal of Marketing Research, 42(3), 333345.
123

2016 Sundar Kellaris JBE

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

2016 Sundar Kellaris JBE

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

J Bus Ethics

How Logo Colors Influence Shoppers Judgments of Retailer

Received: 6 February 2015 / Accepted: 18 October 2015

Abstract Despite the moral gravity and far-reaching

Lundquist College of Business, University of Oregon, 1208

Lindner College of Business, University of Cincinnati,

Keywords Embodied meaning Ethical judgment

Conceptual Framework and Hypotheses

Research on color spans the fields of psychophysics (the

attributes on other, unrelated dimensions (Gleim et al.

both the color and the word green. However, although

acceptable (Dubinsky and Levy 1985). Consider, for

Students (N = 80) participated in a brief online study in

After reviewing the retailer profile and accompanying

communicated semantically (vs. visually). In Study 2a, we

p \ .05). There was no significant difference in perceptions

After providing consent, participants read the following

After eliminating nine responses because of self-identified

After providing consent, participants were told that the

when the logo color presented was less eco-friendly

Table 1 Ethical ratings across all studies

Pretest of Logo Color

High ethical sensitivity

Low ethical sensitivity

The results of this study show an important contingency

Standard deviations are in parentheses

the metaphor the mind as computer is common in the

color green to position the company as eco-friendly could

We acknowledge that consumers are informed by past

Appendix: Summary of Pretests

movie tickets, pay utility bills, and renew car

Food Lion Blue

Trader Joes Red

Old Food Lion Yellow

Trader Joes Beige

Whole Foods Green

Fig. 2 Logo colors used in Pretest 1

one retailer was associated with a given color by the

associated it with Target; color red: 21 % associated it with

Table 2 Eco-friendly ratings

Food Lion blue

Old Food Lion yellow

Trader Joes red

Whole Foods green

associated it with Kroger; word green: 19 % associated

Supermarkets and grocery stores typically have floor

right/wrong, appropriate/inappropriate, and good/

Arnheim, R. (1971). Art and visual perception: A psychology of the

Spence, C., Puccinelli, N. M., Grewal, D., & Roggeveen, A. L.

Você também pode gostar