Search results

Brand narratives are created to differentiate brands, and consumers base their assessments of a brand’s authenticity on this narrative. We propose that the default consumer position is to accept a brand’s narrative, and we find that consumers maintain belief in this narrative even when explicitly reminded that it is manufactured by firms with an underlying profit motive. Because belief seems to be the default position adopted by consumers, we investigate what factors act as disruptors to this default position, thereby reducing assessments of authenticity.

This research uses a series of studies to investigate when and why consumers view some brand stories as authentic and others less so. In addition, we examine the impact of changes to authenticity assessments on managerially important brand outcomes.

Only when one or more authenticity disruptors are present do consumers begin to question the authenticity of the brand narrative. Disruption occurs when the focal brand is perceived to be nakedly copying a competitor, or when there is a gross mismatch between the brand narrative and reality. In the presence of one or both of these disruptors, consumers judge brands to be less authentic, report lower identification, lower assessments of brand quality and social responsibility, and are less likely to join the brand’s community.

Creating compelling brand stories is an important aspect of any marketing manager’s job; after all, these narratives help drive sales. Care must be taken when crafting narratives however, since consumers use these as the basis of their authenticity assessments, and brands deemed inauthentic are penalized.

Having a child with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) can cause significant professional strain for parents. Compared to parents of typically developing children or children with other types of special needs, parents of children with ASD report being underemployed, having more difficulty accomplishing important work tasks or taking on new work assignments, and being viewed less favorably by supervisors. They also may be more likely to perceive themselves as stigmatized by coworkers, negatively impacting their abilities to develop or maintain meaningful relationships with others at work. All of these factors lead to parents of children with ASD earning less annual income than other types of parents and being more likely to experience loss of workplace motivation or lower overall job satisfaction. The negative career experiences of parents of children with ASD may also impact employers. Employees experiencing lower levels of motivation are less productive and more likely to quit their jobs, resulting in increased turnover expense. Because the number of working parents of children with ASD continues to grow as ASD rates increase, organizations would benefit from supporting parents of children with ASD through adopting flexible work–life balance policies, encouraging leaders to promote values of diversity and inclusiveness, and implementing workplace programs designed to support parents and educate coworkers.

We review the state of the literature concerning work–family conflict in the military, focusing on service members’ parenting roles and overall family and child well-being. This includes recognition that for many women service members, parenting considerations often arise long before a child is born, thereby further complicating work–family conflict considerations in regard to gender-specific conflict factors such as pregnancy, childbirth, postpartum, and breastfeeding. Subsequently, we consider more gender-invariant conflict factors, such as the nature of the work itself as causing conflict for the service member as parent (e.g., nontraditional hours, long separations, and child care challenges) as well as for the child (e.g., irregular contact with parent, fear for parent’s safety, and frequent relocations), and the ramifications of such conflict on service member and child well-being. Finally, we review formalized support resources that are in place to mitigate negative effects of such conflict, and make recommendations to facilitate progress in research and practice moving forward.