A corporation decides to dump toxic waste into a nearby river because it is cheaper than disposing of it safely. Shortly afterwards, a powerful storm sweeps through the area, damaging its facilities and causing costly disruptions. To some observers, these two events seem like unlucky timing. Others may see them as connected: wrongdoing followed by disaster, as if a higher power had delivered its verdict. Whether people interpret such incidents as coincidence or cosmic punishment is at the heart of new research by Andrew Gershoff, professor of marketing at Texas McCombs. His work suggests that a consumer’s belief in divine intervention may influence how harshly they judge a company that has already suffered misfortune.

Gershoff’s findings show that consumers who believe strongly in a higher power are more inclined to view a company’s losses as a form of justice. If an unethical act is followed by an accident, these individuals are less likely to demand further punishment. Instead of boycotting products or supporting hefty fines in a legal case, they perceive the firm’s suffering as the universe balancing the scales. Gershoff notes that consumers routinely want to retaliate against companies that cross ethical boundaries, yet this instinct weakens when they feel that a higher power has already intervened. For these believers, additional penalties can seem unnecessary: punishment, they assume, has already been delivered.

The effect emerges because moral judgment can shift when wrongdoing appears to have been met with consequences. When losses strike close to the offence — for example, occurring in the exact location or mirroring the amount of illicit gain — firm believers are especially inclined to see these events as meaningful. They interpret them as signs of intervention rather than chance. In this way, their decisions about fairness become tied to their spiritual beliefs. If they perceive that the company has “paid its dues,” they no longer feel responsible for adding punishment themselves.

Gershoff conducted this research with former McCombs doctoral students Jae-Eun Namkoong of the University of Nevada, Reno, and Jerry Han of Sungkyunkwan University Business School in South Korea. Across four studies involving 844 participants, the team presented fictional cases of corporate wrongdoing followed by misfortune. By varying the degree of coincidence between the two events, they examined whether belief in a higher power would influence the level of punishment participants chose. The results were striking: when coincidence seemed high, firm believers imposed significantly lighter penalties, on average $40,000 less in fines that could reach $2 million. Yet when coincidence was low, these same individuals recommended penalties equal to, or even greater than, those suggested by weaker believers.

The researchers warn that such tendencies could be manipulated. A firm caught polluting a river, for instance, might choose to publicise its losses to reduce public anger. Gershoff hopes the research will lead consumers and policymakers to be more aware of their own biases. He encourages people to reflect on their beliefs before deciding whether justice has already been served. The goal, he stresses, is not to help companies escape accountability but to ensure that fairness is determined by reasoned judgement, not by assumptions of cosmic intervention.

More information: Jae-Eun Namkoong et al, A Sign of Divine Intervention: Supernatural Interpretation of Coincidence Lowers Consumer Punishment of Unethical Firms, Journal of Consumer Behaviour. DOI: 10.1002/cb.70019

Journal information: Journal of Consumer Behaviour Provided by University of Texas at Austin