How Belief in Divine Intervention Shapes the Way Consumers Judge Corporate Misconduct

New research is offering a closer look at a surprisingly influential factor in how people respond to corporate wrongdoing: their belief in divine intervention. When a company commits an unethical act and then experiences an unexpected misfortune, many consumers don’t simply see coincidence. Instead, depending on their spiritual beliefs, they may assume a higher power has stepped in—dramatically changing how they believe the company should be punished.

This idea is at the center of a recent study led by Andrew Gershoff, a marketing professor at the University of Texas at Austin’s McCombs School of Business. The project was conducted with Jae-Eun Namkoong from the University of Nevada, Reno, and Jerry Han from Sungkyunkwan University Business School in South Korea. Their work investigates a gap in marketing research: while a large share of people around the world identify as spiritual or as believing in a higher power, few studies explore how these beliefs influence everyday consumer decisions.

The researchers wanted to understand something very specific—how spiritual beliefs impact the way people evaluate and punish companies that behave unethically. Their study reveals that strong believers in divine intervention interpret corporate misfortunes differently from weak believers, and this difference affects how strictly they think companies should be penalized.

The Study Behind the Insight

Across four controlled studies involving 844 total participants, the researchers presented fictional scenarios that followed a simple pattern:

A company commits an unethical act, such as dumping toxic chemicals into a river to save money.
Soon after, the company experiences a misfortune, like having its facilities damaged by a severe storm.

Participants were then asked how much punishment the company deserved. The central question was whether the perceived coincidence between the wrongdoing and the misfortune affected people’s judgment—and whether the strength of a person’s belief in a higher power influenced that effect.

To explore this, the researchers intentionally manipulated the level of coincidence in the scenarios. For example, the misfortune could occur in the same physical location as the wrongdoing, or the financial loss from the storm might closely match the amount of money the company saved through unethical behavior. These details were subtle but important, because people who strongly believe in divine intervention are more likely to see meaning or supernatural causation in coincidental events.

Their findings were clear:

Participants with strong belief in a higher power tended to view high-coincidence events as signs of divine punishment.
Because of this interpretation, they were less likely to recommend harsh penalties such as boycotts or high fines.
On average, strong believers recommended fines that were $40,000 lower than those suggested by weak believers, on a scale that ranged up to $2 million.

However, when coincidence was low, strong believers responded very differently. In those cases, they suggested penalties that were equal to or even higher than those recommended by people with weaker spiritual beliefs. In other words, if nothing indicated that a higher power had intervened, strong believers judged the corporate misconduct just as critically—or more critically—than others.

This dual response pattern reveals a fascinating cognitive process. Strong believers are not automatically more forgiving. Instead, they update their reaction based on whether they interpret the company’s misfortune as divinely orchestrated.

Why This Matters for Understanding Consumer Behavior

The study’s authors emphasize that consumer reactions play a large role in how companies recover from public scandals. Boycotts, reputation decline, and negative jury decisions can significantly damage a firm’s financial health. Understanding how people arrive at these punitive decisions is therefore valuable not only for marketers, but for policymakers and consumer advocates.

The research highlights an overlooked psychological mechanism: the belief that a higher power has already delivered punishment, making additional human-imposed punishment feel unnecessary. This belief directly affects how much consumers think a company should suffer for its wrongdoing.

These findings also raise questions about how companies might exploit such beliefs. While the authors do not encourage manipulation, they acknowledge that organizations could theoretically emphasize their misfortunes—such as major losses, disasters, or setbacks—to soften public perception after wrongdoing. By drawing attention to these losses, companies may unintentionally or intentionally trigger the belief that they have “paid their dues.”

The researchers hope their work will help both consumers and regulators recognize when these biases may be influencing their judgment. Understanding one’s own belief-based reactions can lead to more consistent and fair decision-making.

A Broader Look: How Spiritual Beliefs Influence Consumer Decisions

While this study focuses on punishment, it fits into a growing body of research showing that spirituality and belief systems influence consumer behavior in many ways. Here are some relevant broader insights:

1. Spiritual beliefs shape perceptions of fairness and justice

People who believe events have moral or divine meaning often evaluate outcomes differently. For example, they may interpret positive or negative events as deserved, even when there is no logical connection.

2. Consumers with strong religious or spiritual identities often process information differently

They may rely more on moral intuition, see patterns where non-believers see randomness, or connect real-world events to moral lessons. This affects how they judge companies, advertisements, public figures, and even products.

3. Belief in supernatural causation influences risk assessment

Some studies show that strong believers perceive certain risks as more controllable through moral behavior, prayer, or fate, and this can influence what products they buy and how they respond to crises.

4. Marketing rarely considers spirituality despite its prevalence

Despite the large number of people who identify as spiritual, many marketing models omit belief systems entirely. This study helps fill that gap by showing how powerful these beliefs can be—even in contexts like legal judgments or corporate ethics.

Practical Implications for Consumers and Policymakers

The research suggests several practical takeaways:

Consumers should be aware of how their belief systems may shape their reactions to unethical corporate behavior. Recognizing this can help ensure fairer and more consistent decisions when deciding whether to boycott or support a company.
Policymakers might consider how different belief groups will interpret corporate penalties. A fine or sanction that seems proportionate to one group may feel too harsh or too lenient to another.
Companies should not see this research as a way to escape accountability. Instead, understanding how the public interprets misfortune can help them communicate transparently and avoid the appearance of exploiting beliefs.

What This Means for Future Research

The authors note that their findings open new avenues for studying how spirituality intersects with consumer psychology. Possible future research questions include:

How do different religious traditions interpret corporate misfortunes?
Do people distinguish between natural disasters and man-made setbacks when assigning divine meaning?
How do beliefs about karma or moral balance differ from beliefs in divine intervention?
Can increased awareness of these biases reduce their impact on decision-making?

As spiritual beliefs continue to play a role in societies around the world, understanding how they intersect with modern consumer behavior will remain essential.

Research Reference

A Sign of Divine Intervention: Supernatural Interpretation of Coincidence Lowers Consumer Punishment of Unethical Firms — Journal of Consumer Behaviour (2025)
https://doi.org/10.1002/cb.70019