the Brand Morality (BM) Scale

Description

The Brand Morality (BM) Scale (Wei, Ekinci, & Sit, 2025) is designed to evaluate consumers’ perceptions of a brand’s moral actions. Its construction adhered to established principles by Churchill (1979) and DeVellis (2016) and was based on Moral Foundations Theory (MFT; Haidt & Graham, 2007) and Moral as Cooperation Theory (MAC; Curry et al., 2019). The scale comprises 12 items and was evaluated using a consumer panel (www.prolific.co) in the UK, and an online sample of consumers in China. The psychometric properties of these items, including factor analysis, reliability, and validity, were assessed.

Alternate Test Names

• BM Scale

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Brand Morality scale is to distinguish brand morality from brand ethics within the context of marketing literature.

Validity

The scale exhibits evidence of the following types of validity:

• Construct Validity: Factor analysis results support the scale’s construct validity.

• Convergent Validity: The factors demonstrate good convergent validity, with average variance extracted (AVE) scores exceeding 0.50.

• Discriminant Validity: The square roots of the AVEs for the factors surpass their inter-correlations and correlations with the five outcome factors: brand trust, brand honesty, brand reliability, customer satisfaction, and the likelihood of recommending a brand.

• Predictive Validity: Predictive validity is supported through linear regression analyses using the five outcome variables as dependent variables.

• Concurrent Validity: The BM scale shows satisfactory concurrent validity, with its three dimensions effectively explaining a significant portion of the variance in a single-item measure of BM (Brunk, 2012) (R2 = 0.63, p < 0.01).

Reliability

The internal consistency of the scale is demonstrated by Cronbach’s alphas and composite reliability values exceeding 0.70.

Factor Analysis

• Exploratory Factor Analysis: After item removal, the EFA revealed a 3-factor solution with a very promising explained variance (64%).

• Confirmatory Factor Analysis: After further item removal, the final 12-item, 3-factor structure exhibited a strong model fit (χ2/df = 2.07, p = 0.000, CFI = 0.96; RMSEA = 0.07; SRMR = 0.10; TLI = 0.95; GFI = 0.92). The factor structure was confirmed in the Chinese sample.

Test Methodology

The test methodology encompasses the following:

• Test Validity

• Concurrent Validity

• Construct Validity

• Convergent Validity

• Discriminant Validity

• Predictive Validity

• Test Reliability

• Internal Consistency

• Factor Analysis

• Confirmatory Factor Analysis

• Exploratory Factor Analysis

Population Details

• Respondents: Consumers

• Location: China; United Kingdom

Age Group

• Adulthood (18 yrs & older)

Population Group

• Human

• Male

• Female

Test Type

Original

Instrument Type

Inventory/Questionnaire

Format

Items are rated on a 7‐point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree). The administration method is electronic.

Language Available

Chinese; English

Keywords

Brand Competency; Brand Care; Brand Compliance; Moral as Cooperation Theory; Moral Foundations Theory; Brand Morality Assessment; Consumer Perceptions

Construct

Brand Morality

Test Year

2025

Author

Wei, Yunyi; Ekinci, Yuksel; Sit, Kokho (Jason)

Author ocrid Identifier

Ekinci, Yuksel: http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5063-013X
Sit, Kokho (Jason): http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3839-1046

Affiliation

Wei, Yunyi: School of Economics and Management, Department of Marketing, Yantai Institute of Technology
Ekinci, Yuksel: University of Portsmouth, School of Strategy, Marketing and Innovation (SMI)
Sit, Kokho (Jason): University of Portsmouth, Global School of Strategy, Marketing and Innovation (SMI)

Email

Sit, Kokho (Jason): [email protected]

Files

No data is Available

Permissions

May use for Research/Teaching

Fee

No

Correspondence Address

Sit, Kokho (Jason): University of Portsmouth, Global School of Strategy, Marketing and Innovation (SMI), Richmond Bldg, Portland St, Portsmouth, Hampshire, United Kingdom, PO1 3DE, [email protected]

Reference’s

Wei, Y., Ekinci, Y., & Sit, K. (J.). (2025). More than law‐abiding: A multi‐staged consumer study on brand morality. Psychology & Marketing, 42(2), 600–614. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.22139

items of the Brand Morality Scale

Perceived Brand Morality Scale (PBMS)

Instructions: The following statements inquire about your perceptions of a specific brand. Please think about Brand X [Researcher Note: Insert the specific brand name here before administering the scale]. Indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each statement as it applies to Brand X, using the 7-point scale below. Circle the number that best reflects your opinion for each statement. There are no right or wrong answers; we are interested in your genuine perceptions.

Response Scale:

1 = Strongly Disagree
2 = Disagree
3 = Slightly Disagree
4 = Neither Agree nor Disagree
5 = Slightly Agree
6 = Agree
7 = Strongly Agree

Items:

Subscale: Brand Care (BC)

1. This brand’s customer service makes me feel valued.
   1 — 2 — 3 — 4 — 5 — 6 — 7

2. This brand cares about the welfare of its customers.
   1 — 2 — 3 — 4 — 5 — 6 — 7

3. This brand demonstrates loyalty to its members and customers.
   1 — 2 — 3 — 4 — 5 — 6 — 7

4. This brand appears willing to sacrifice its own interests to protect consumer interests.
   1 — 2 — 3 — 4 — 5 — 6 — 7

Subscale: Brand Compliance (BCO)

1. This brand obeys relevant laws and regulations.
   1 — 2 — 3 — 4 — 5 — 6 — 7

2. This brand pays the appropriate taxes in the countries where it operates.
   1 — 2 — 3 — 4 — 5 — 6 — 7

3. This brand’s promotional activities (e.g., advertising) respect local cultures and regional customs.
   1 — 2 — 3 — 4 — 5 — 6 — 7

4. This brand treats its employees equitably.
   1 — 2 — 3 — 4 — 5 — 6 — 7

Subscale: Brand Competence (BCP)

1. This brand is competent in what it does.
   1 — 2 — 3 — 4 — 5 — 6 — 7

2. This brand is dependable.
   1 — 2 — 3 — 4 — 5 — 6 — 7

3. This brand offers good-quality products and/or services.
   1 — 2 — 3 — 4 — 5 — 6 — 7

4. This brand is an expert in its industry or field.
   1 — 2 — 3 — 4 — 5 — 6 — 7

Scoring:

• Subscale Scores: Calculate the mean (or sum) of the responses for the items within each subscale:

  • Brand Care (BC): Average of items 1, 2, 3, 4.

  • Brand Compliance (BCO): Average of items 5, 6, 7, 8.

  • Brand Competence (BCP): Average of items 9, 10, 11, 12.

• Total Perceived Brand Morality Score: While subscales measure distinct facets, a total score could potentially be calculated by averaging the scores across all 12 items, assuming theoretical justification for a higher-order construct. However, analyzing subscale scores separately is often more informative.

Note: This scale measures perceptions of brand morality and related dimensions (Care, Compliance, Competence). Higher scores indicate stronger agreement with the statements, suggesting a more positive perception on the respective dimension. The inclusion of Competence alongside Care and Compliance aligns with broader models of social perception (e.g., warmth/competence), although Competence is not always strictly defined as a moral dimension itself. Further psychometric validation (e.g., factor analysis, reliability testing, validity assessment) would be required before use in academic research.