Search results

This study investigated a new attributional phenomenon in a brand scandal setting in which consumers tend to blame the top management of a brand, even though it was the frontline parties that caused the scandal. The authors termed this phenomenon upward blame attribution (UBA), shedding light on whether consumers in a host country indicate a higher UBA for a multinational (vs domestic) brand scandal, which in turn reinforces their revenge and impairs their reconciliation reactions, and whether these effects are contingent on consumer animosity.

Two experimental studies were conducted with real and fictitious brand/product and country stimuli with 1,399 Chinese participants.

Both studies verified UBA and found that Chinese consumers' UBA is higher for multinational (vs domestic) brand scandals, which drives their stronger desire for revenge and weaker desire for reconciliation. Moreover, consumers with high (vs low) animosity toward a multinational brand's home country reported a higher UBA for the multinational (vs domestic) brand scandal, which in turn reinforces their desire for revenge and impairs their desire for reconciliation.

The study provides new insights into host-country consumers' more severe UBA and responses toward multinational versus domestic brand scandals and the amplifying role of consumer animosity in these processes. It also has implications for mitigating host-country consumers' UBA and negative responses to multinational brand scandals.

This study contributes to the blame attribution literature by verifying consumers' UBA and the country-of-origin (COO) literature by revealing host-country consumers' higher UBA, stronger revenge desire and weaker reconcile desire toward multinational (vs domestic) brand scandals. It extends the knowledge regarding consumers' blame attributions toward the top management of a multinational (vs domestic) brand in scandals and the impact of such attributions.

During a brand crisis, consumers construct attributions to understand the cause of the crisis and to assign blame, with attributions of blame to firms consequently lowering brand attitudes. The purpose of this paper is to explore attributions of blame in performance- versus values-related brand crisis. Do consumers assign different levels of blame to values- versus performance-related brand crises?

The authors conducted three experimental studies, plus one pilot study, with American, British and Australian participants in which they manipulated the type of brand crisis as values- or performance-related to determine the extent to which consumers attribute blame to the firm and the effects of those attributions on consumers’ brand attitudes.

Findings indicated that consumers assign more blame to firms for a values-related brand crisis than for a performance-related brand crisis.

The findings of this study explain how consumers are harsher towards firms that violate some moral or social standards than those that exhibit product defects.

For branding and public relations officials, finding greater internal attribution for values-related brand crises offers implications for how and what information about such crises ought to be conveyed to manage consumer response and brand reputation.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, the findings are the first to explore attributions in blame toward values- and performance-related brand crises.

Prior research has documented that product failures can be among a firm's worst nightmares. In this research, we examine if retailers are also held accountable by consumers when products that they sold, but did not manufacture, fail. In two studies, we show that consumers not only blame multiple parties when product failures occur – including the retailer – but also that manufacturer brand equity and retailer store image serve as important contextual cues in the blame assignment process. Specifically, building on congruity theory, we show that retailers are especially susceptible to being held responsible for failure if the equity of the failed product and the retailer store image are incongruent. Our findings also indicate that value-oriented retailers are particularly vulnerable to being blamed when high-equity products fail. Our findings suggest measuring attribution of blame between the manufacturer and retailer involved in a product failure event – instead of only the manufacturer as has been the norm in extant research – facilitates our understanding of consumer responses when product failures occur.

Product harm crises are becoming increasingly common, and recent examples include Toyota and Vioxx. This chapter examines country differences that impact consumer blame attributions for an ambiguous product harm crisis, and proposes a framework for a crisis response strategy. The first step involves assessing the level of uncertainty avoidance and crisis severity which serve as an indicator of the urgency felt by consumers to assess blame. The second step involves examining consumer beliefs and information processing biases to determine who consumers will most likely blame in order to resolve the uncertainty. Based on information gathered from these steps, a crisis response strategy is suggested for global brand managers.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate consumer motivation to maintain brand attachment when faced with brand transgressions. This study investigated consumer motivation to maintain brand attachment when faced with brand transgressions.

This study consisted of two experiments using student participants (n1 = 383 and n2 = 535) who examined how, from a customer prioritization strategy, perceived value- and image-based transgressions affect the motivation to maintain brand attachment and subsequent behaviors. Hypotheses were developed and tested using moderating mediation models that included attribution of blame and perceived threat.

Value- and image-based transgressions interacted to affect the motivation to maintain brand attachment and the consequent behavioral intentions among consumers with strong brand attachment. Generally, the interaction had a negative effect on motivation to maintain brand attachment; however, this effect was mediated through perceived threat and moderated by attributions of blame. Depending on the level of motivation to maintain brand attachment and the attribution of blame for the brand transgression (the brand, self- or noncontrollable factors), participants reflected different behavioral intentions: reengagement, contention and/or avoidance. Overall, severe value-based transgression coupled with absence (vs presence) of image-based transgression were perceived more threatening by consumers with strong brand attachment leading to lower motivation to maintain attachment and higher intentions to dissolve the relationship.

Little is known about the conditions that increase or decrease the motivation of strongly attached consumers to maintain their attachment. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study to explore the potential effects of brand transgressions on the motivation to maintain brand attachment and the consequent behavioral intentions stemming from perceived transgressions.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the impact of two types of narcissism (rivalry and admiration) on consumer–brand forgiveness (CBF) following a brand transgression. This research also examines how narcissism interacts with transgression type to shape forgiveness intentions.

Data were collected through an online survey of 634 UK consumers, focussing on two different types of transgressions (public vs private). The formulated hypotheses were tested through moderated mediation analysis.

The results highlight that only narcissistic rivalry (and not admiration) moderates the relationship between transgression type and blame attributions. Although the type of transgression seems to affect CBF, forgiveness levels do not vary across the two transgression types. Finally, as expected, blame attributions shape forgiveness intentions.

The results of this research highlight that blame attributions are affected by the type of narcissism. Thus, identifying the type of narcissism will allow brands to allocate their resources more effectively in order to design recovery strategies that would promote CBF and restore brand trust.

The paper responds to calls for a better understanding of forgiveness through the use of personality traits and focusses on two dimensions of narcissism. This paper also uses a novel transgression typology, which is objective in nature. The results illustrate that narcissism has a differential role in shaping blame attributions and CBF.

Marketing managers have strategic choices when forming brand alliances. One such choice is integration, defined as the extent to which the offering is a fusion in the form and function of the partner brands. The paper aims to investigate how integration affects consumer attribution of responsibility to brand alliance partners.

This paper builds on the previous study on brand alliances and attribution theory. Multiple experiments are used to test three hypotheses.

This research shows that consumers are sensitive to the level of alliance integration, which, in turn, affects attributions of responsibility for the joint offering. Consistent with attribution theory, results show that responsibility for each brand varies systematically by integration and lead brand status vis-à-vis the alliance: while consumers perceive both brands as equally responsible for higher integration brand alliances, responsibility attributions diverge in lower integration alliances based on whether the brand is the alliance host. This pattern also holds for product-harm events.

It is important to explore brand alliance characteristics and to date, the level of integration between the partners has not been considered from a consumer standpoint. Consumers are sensitive to the level of partner brand integration and this perception influences perceptions of responsibility.

Managers should be aware that the level of brand alliance integration and lead brand status lead to different attributions of responsibility, which is strategically important, as brands seek to take credit in positive contexts and avoid blame for negative events.

This paper explores brand alliances via the level of integration and leads brand status, which are key determinants of consumer attributions of responsibility.

Brands facing a crisis have to decide whether to disclose crisis-related information themselves or to wait and take the risk that a third party breaks the news. While brands might benefit from self-disclosing the information, it is likely that the impact of crisis communication on customers’ evaluation of the brand depends on the type of crisis. This study aims to investigate the influence of type of crisis on the relationshp between disclosure and brand outcomes.

A 2 × 2 between-subjects experiment with 180 Dutch participants was conducted.

Results show that self-disclosure of a negative incident positively affects consumers’ attitude, trust and purchase intention compared to third-party disclosure. Additionally, disclosure and crisis type interact. In times of a product-harm crisis, self-disclosure does not represent an advantage to third party disclosure, while in times of a moral-harm crisis disclosure by the brand is able to maintain customers’ positive attitude towards and trust in the brand compared to disclosure by a third party. Moreover, blame attribution mediates the effect of crisis type on brand evaluations.

Recent research indicates that self-disclosing crisis information instead of waiting until thunder strikes has beneficial effects for a brand in times of crisis. However, these studies use the context of product-harm crises, which neglects the possible impact of moral-harm crises. Furthermore, this study adds the impact of blame attributions as a mediator in this context.

The spread of fake news on social networking sites (SNS) poses a threat to the marketing landscape, yet little is known about how fake news affect consumers’ perceptions, attitudes and behaviors. This study aims to explore when consumers believe fake news, whom they blame for it (e.g. negative attitudes toward brands or SNS) and when they choose to share it.

Data obtained from 80 open-ended, semistructured interviews, conducted with SNS consumers and experts, is analyzed following the principles of grounded theory and the Gioia methodology.

Factors affecting consumers’ perceptions of fake news include skepticism, awareness, previous experience, appeal and message cues. Consumers’ brand- and SNS-related attitudes are affected by consumers’ blame, which is determined by consumers’ perceptions of the vetting efforts, role and ethical obligation of SNS. Consumers’ motives for sharing fake news include duty, retaliation, authentication and status-seeking. Theoretical and practical implications derived from the study’s novel conceptual framework are discussed.

This study identifies communication strategies that marketing professionals can use to mitigate and counter the negative effects of fake news.

By simultaneously considering consumers’ perceptions of the source, information and medium (i.e. SNS), this study presents a novel conceptual framework providing a marketing-centered, dynamic view on consumers’ fake news experience and connecting consumers’ perceptions, attitudes and behaviors in the context of fake news.

This study aims to understand the influence of negative publicity on brand image, brand attitude and brand purchase intention. Specifically, the study examines the role of attribution (or brand blame) and information characteristics in Chinese consumers’ responses to negative publicity.

The study used a quasi-experimental approach involving two negative publicity scenarios (mild and high severity) and a sample of 203 young and educated Chinese consumers. Partial least squares was used to test the hypotheses.

A common assumption is that negative brand information has a negative influence on all aspects of a brand. However, this study finds that brand blame and information severity have differential effects on consumer evaluations of the affected brand. Specifically, brand blame negatively impacted attitudes and purchase intentions, but not brand image. In contrast, information severity negatively impacted brand image, but not attitudes or intentions. Further, the relations between brand image and brand attitudes and intentions depended on the level of information severity. In the mild-severity condition, brand image positively influenced attitudes and intentions, but not in the high-severity condition.

Future research should examine consumer responses to negative publicity across different media and product categories. Cross-cultural studies should also be explored in the future.

When a brand encounters negative publicity, its marketer or brand manager should assess to what extent various brand equity components are influenced by negative publicity before adopting any cognitive-based or imagery-based communication strategies.

This paper contributes to the limited and fragmented literature on consumer response to negative publicity by examining the impact of consumer’s attributions of blame to the brand under conditions of mild and severe negative information on a range of important brand-related outcomes. Specifically, the authors find that negative publicity has a different impact on brand image, brand attitudes and intentions to purchase. The authors suggest that brand managers use this information to guide their marketing communications.