@article {1976261,
	title = {Morality Appraisals in Consumer Responsibilization},
	year = {2023},
	month = {2023},
	address = {Storrs, Connecticut},
	keywords = {Business Law, Marketing},
	author = {Barnhart,Michelle and Huff,Aimee and Scott,Inara}
}
@conference {1968781,
	title = {The (Ir)Responsible American Consumer:  Examining Morality and Responsibilization for Armed Self-Defense},
	booktitle = {Association for Consumer Research 2022 Conference},
	year = {2022},
	month = {2022},
	keywords = {Business Law, Marketing},
	author = {Barnhart,Michelle and Huff,Aimee and Scott,Inara}
}
@conference {1968831,
	title = {American Consumers{\textquoteright} Understandings of the Right to Consume Firearms},
	booktitle = {Consumer Culture Theory Consortium},
	year = {2019},
	month = {2019},
	keywords = {Business Law, Marketing},
	author = {Barnhart,Michelle and Huff,Aimee and Scott,Inara}
}
@article {1976271,
	title = {American Consumers{\textquoteright} Understandings of the Right to Consume Firearms},
	year = {2019},
	month = {2019},
	address = {Montreal, Canada},
	keywords = {Business Law, Marketing},
	author = {Barnhart,Michelle and Huff,Aimee and Scott,Inara}
}
@conference {1968826,
	title = {Relating American{\textquoteright}s Responses to the Marketization of Armed Self-Defense to their Understandings of the Second Amendment},
	booktitle = {Association for Consumer Research},
	year = {2019},
	month = {2019},
	keywords = {Business Law, Marketing},
	author = {Barnhart,Michelle and Huff,Aimee and Scott,Inara}
}
@article {1968766,
	title = {Morality Appraisals in Consumer Responsibilization},
	journal = {Journal of Consumer Research},
	month = {2023 In Press},
	abstract = {Abstract: In recent decades, U.S. {\textquotedblleft}pro-gun{\textquotedblright} lobbying groups, politicians, courts, and market actors have sought to responsibilize U.S. consumers to use firearms to address the societal problem of crime. These responsibilization efforts center an interpretation of the constitutional right to keep and bear arms as an entitlement for individuals to engage in armed protection from criminals. Using interview and online discussion data, this research investigates consumers{\textquoteright} responses to responsibilization for this morally fraught set of behaviors, and the role of consumers{\textquoteright} various understandings of the right to bear arms in these responses. Findings show that acceptance of responsibilization is a matter of proportionality; consumers accept responsibilization for a proportion of specific armed protection scenarios and reject it for the remainder. Acceptance is determined by their appraisals of the morality of the responsibilization sub-processes (Giesler \& Veresiu 2014). Consumers{\textquoteright} understanding of the constitutional right serves as a heuristic in these appraisals, with some understandings leading consumers to accept responsibilization across a much larger proportion of scenarios than others. Contributions include illustrating response to responsibilization as a proportionality; illuminating consumers{\textquoteright} active role in appraising responsibilizing efforts; and demonstrating how some consumers come to understand a responsibilized behavior as a moral entitlement.<br><br>},
	keywords = {Business Law, Marketing},
	author = {Barnhart,Michelle and Huff,Aimee and Scott,Inara}
}