The Brand Morality (BM) Scale

Abstract

The Brand Morality (BM) Scale (Wei, Ekinci, & Sit, 2025) is a robust, 12-item psychometric instrument developed to measure consumers’ perceptions of a brand’s moral actions. Its theoretical foundation integrates principles from two major frameworks: Moral Foundations Theory (MFT; Haidt & Graham, 2007) and Moral as Cooperation Theory (MAC; Curry et al., 2019). The scale’s development followed established measurement principles outlined by Churchill (1979) and DeVellis (2016).

The scale, also known as the BM Scale, comprises three factors: Brand Care, Brand Compliance, and Brand Competence. Initial validation utilized consumer samples recruited via Prolific in the UK, alongside an independent online sample of consumers in China. This process confirmed its cross-cultural applicability and demonstrated strong psychometric properties, including high reliability and various forms of validity.

Keywords

Brand Competency, Brand Care, Brand Compliance, Moral as Cooperation Theory, Moral Foundations Theory, Brand Morality Assessment, Consumer Perceptions, BM Scale, Marketing, Psychometrics

Authors

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

Purpose

The primary objective of the Brand Morality Scale is to provide a dedicated, theoretically grounded instrument for evaluating consumer perceptions of brand morality. This scale is specifically designed to delineate the concept of brand morality from the broader notion of brand ethics within contemporary marketing and consumer behavior literature, allowing researchers to explore the unique impact of moral perception on consumer outcomes.

By focusing on three core dimensions—Brand Care, Brand Compliance, and Brand Competence—the scale offers a nuanced perspective on how consumers judge a brand’s goodness and trustworthiness, moving beyond mere legal compliance to include relational and functional competence aspects.

Construct

The central construct measured is Brand Morality, defined as the consumer’s perception of a brand’s commitment to moral actions and principles. The scale operationalizes this construct across three distinct, yet related, subscales, which align conceptually with aspects of social perception and moral psychology, drawing heavily on the foundations of MFT and MAC.

The three measured dimensions are: Brand Care (BC), focusing on loyalty and welfare toward customers; Brand Compliance (BCO), centered on adherence to laws, regulations, and equitable treatment of employees; and Brand Competence (BCP), relating to the brand’s ability to deliver quality and expertise reliably.

Validity

Extensive validation procedures confirmed the scale’s measurement quality across multiple dimensions, providing strong evidence of its utility in academic research.

• Construct Validity: Supported by the results of the factor analysis, which confirmed the hypothesized three-factor structure underlying the 12 items.

• Convergent Validity: Demonstrated through high factor loadings and Average Variance Extracted (AVE) scores, with all AVE values exceeding the recommended threshold of 0.50, indicating that the items strongly represent their respective constructs.

• Discriminant Validity: Established by verifying that the square roots of the AVEs for each factor were greater than their inter-correlations. Furthermore, the factors showed appropriate distinction from five key outcome variables: brand trust, brand honesty, brand reliability, customer satisfaction, and the likelihood of recommending a brand.

• Predictive Validity: Confirmed via linear regression analyses, where the BM scale dimensions successfully predicted variance in the five aforementioned outcome variables.

• Concurrent Validity: The scale demonstrated satisfactory concurrent validity, with the three dimensions collectively explaining a significant portion of the variance (R² = 0.63, p < 0.01) in a previously established single-item measure of brand morality (Brunk, 2012).

Reliability

The internal consistency and stability of the Brand Morality Scale were verified using standard psychometric properties indicators. Both Cronbach’s alphas and Composite Reliability values for all dimensions exceeded the minimum acceptable threshold of 0.70, confirming the high reliability of the 12 items in measuring their respective subscales.

Factor Analysis

The development process utilized a two-stage factor analytic approach to establish the dimensional structure of the scale.

• Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA): Initial EFA, conducted after preliminary item refinement, identified a clear 3-factor solution. This solution accounted for a promising 64% of the total variance, strongly supporting the separation of Brand Care, Brand Compliance, and Brand Competence.

• Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA): The final 12-item, 3-factor structure was rigorously tested using CFA. The model achieved a strong fit in the primary sample (χ²/df = 2.07; CFI = 0.96; RMSEA = 0.07; TLI = 0.95; GFI = 0.92). Crucially, this robust factor structure was cross-validated and confirmed using an independent sample of Chinese consumers, demonstrating cross-cultural invariance.

Instrument

Test Type: Original

Format: The scale is an Inventory/Questionnaire where items are rated on a 7-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The administration method is electronic.

Language Available: Chinese, English

Population Group: Human (Male, Female)

Age Group: Adulthood (18 years and older)

Population Details: The scale was validated using consumer respondents in two distinct geographic locations: the United Kingdom (via a consumer panel like www.prolific.co) and China (via an online sample).

Test Methodology: The development process encompassed rigorous psychometric properties testing, including Test Validity (Construct, Concurrent, Convergent, Discriminant, Predictive), Test Reliability (Internal Consistency), and detailed Factor Analysis (Exploratory and Confirmatory).

Keywords

Consumer Perception, Brand Trust, Brand Ethics, Likert scale, Marketing, Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), Brand Competence, Brand Compliance, Psychometrics, Internal Consistency

Authors

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

Affiliation Email addresses: Sit, Kokho (Jason): [email protected]

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]

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The scale may be used for Research and Teaching purposes. There is No Fee associated with its use. The scale was formally published in 2025.

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. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.22139

Items of the the Brand Morality (BM) 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)

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

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

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

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

Subscale: Brand Competence (BCP)

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

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

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

12. 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.