Search results

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.

Using insights from attributions, planned behavior, and fairness theories, this study examines the effect of blame attributions of psychological contract breach on employees’ attitudes (affective organizational commitment) and behaviors (organizational citizenship behavior (OCB)). The purpose of this paper is to understand whether employees’ reactions depend on the attributions they make concerning who is responsible for the breach.

Cross-lagged design in which data were collected from 220 employees and their supervisors in a public company at two times. Moderated mediation was tested using the bootstrapping analysis outlined by Hayes (2012).

The results supported the authors’ predictions: employees’ blame attributions to the organization have a negative impact on OCBs (as rated by supervisors in time 2) through decreased affective organizational commitment, but blame attributions to the economic context act as a buffer to the relationship between blame attributions to organization and affective organizational commitment, with consequences for OCBs.

Attributions can also be made to concrete persons (i.e. supervisor, coworker, self) rather than to just the organization or context.

When hiring, recruiters should provide accurate and realistic promises to the candidates. When facing hard times, managers should provide additional information to employees and adjust their expectations to the current situation of the firm.

This study makes a unique contribution to the literature by questioning the “single story” perspective about reactions to psychological contract breach, in which it is assumed that employees always respond negatively to such event.

Organizational practitioners must often interpret accounts of workplace bullying. However, they are frequently reluctant to confirm the target's account and often fail to set effective intervention measures. Building on novel approaches in attribution theory, this study explores how causal explanations and blame pattern shape the labelling of a complaint and the subsequent recommended intervention measures.

187 Austrian human resource professionals, employee representatives and other practitioners were confronted with a fictional workplace bullying complaint including conflicting actors' accounts and diverse possible internal, relational and external causes. Since the prior low performance of a target might affect blame attributions, the previous performance ratings of the target were manipulated. Data were analysed via qualitative content analysis.

When respondents reject the complaint, they predominately identify single internal causes and blame the target, and/or trivialize the complaint as “normal conflict”. Both low and high performance of the target trigger (single) internal blame. When the complaint is supported, deontic statements and blame attributions against the perpetrator prevail; however, blame placed on the perpetrator is often discounted via multi-blame attributions towards supervisors, colleagues and the target. Structural causes were rarely mentioned. Relational attributions are infrequent and often used to trivialize the complaint. Irrespective of the attributional blame patterns, most third parties recommend “reconciliatory measures” (e.g. mediation) between the actors.

Trainings to temper single internal blaming and raise awareness of organizational intervention measures are essential.

This is the first study to investigate workplace bullying blaming patterns and organizational responses in detail.

Attributing blame for performance failure and credit for success is ubiquitous in organizations. These responsibility attributions can play an important role in aligning individual and organizational performance expectations, but may also exacerbate conflict in groups and organizations. Theory suggests that an actor's organizational role will affect blame and credit attributions, yet empirical work on this prediction is lacking. This article tests an organizational role approach by assessing the effect of the responsible actor's hierarchical position and whether he or she acted as an individual or as part of a group on blame and credit attributions. The study finds that in response to organizational failures and successes leadership roles attract more blame than other positions, but in contrast to previous predictions, these roles do not attract more credit than lower level roles. In addition, upper level positions tend to be assigned greater blame than credit, while lower level positions show a reversed pattern: they attract more credit than blame. Groups are less likely to be assigned blame and more likely to be credited than are individuals, and occupants in flat organizational structures are assigned higher levels of blame and credit than are occupants in taller organizational structures.

This paper aims to develop a link between word-of-mouth and attribution of credit or blame following a purchase. Attribution is important because it can affect repurchase behavior, loyalty and word-of-mouth; therefore, understanding who receives credit or blame for a purchase outcome following a product recommendation is critical.

Through three studies, how recommendation context affects attribution of credit or blame to consumers, reviewers and retailers is experimentally examined. These studies test the thesis that context factors that are independent of the product recommendation can affect how consumers assign responsibility for the product’s performance.

Results demonstrate that while consumers trust online reviews, the addition of reviewer incentives diminish that trust, especially when a consumer identifies with the retailer. Findings show support for retailers using online reviews and provide evidence for using caution when incentivizing reviewers.

This study makes a theoretical connection between word-of-mouth (reviews) and attribution. As this connection is not seen often in the literature, future research should look at the role the recommender plays in the purchasing process. This study forced participants to attribute a purchase success/failure to certain parties to find a baseline with which to begin. Future studies should look at this process as more spontaneous. It may not always occur or possibly only occur for certain types of purchases or experiences.

Retailers should be continuing to use online reviews as they provide protection from blame and an increase in credit for successful outcomes. This study also provides evidence that incorporating social media into online reviews as many sites have been doing may actually backfire. While it might be more helpful to the consumer, it can increase blame to the retailer. Reviewers are receiving incentives more frequently, and this study finds that loyal consumers should not be shown incentivized reviews as it heightens blame after a negative outcome.

While attribution has been found to be an important part of the purchasing process, it has not been looked at in relationship to word-of-mouth/electronic word-of-mouth (offline/online reviews). Knowing that who recommends a product to us impacts post-purchase behavior is important, as online reviews are utilized more frequently. Many social media strategies have been implemented without information as to how the retailer themselves will be impacted. This study provides evidence of how to better utilize online reviews.

Though online reviews have been studied widely, less is known about how reviews and product recommendations affect attribution of credit or blame for a post-purchase outcome. The theoretical link between word-of-mouth and product outcome attribution provided here will help guide future research in this area.

Although the international business literature has examined leader traits that are desirable in different cultures, it has not examined critical behaviors or managerial attributions of credit and blame. Credit and blame attributions have important consequences for the desirability of leadership across cultures. Arguing that these types of managerial attributions are likely to have a strong impact on what constitutes desirable leadership; the authors examine them in five countries, namely, USA, France, India, Turkey and Vietnam. The purpose of this paper is to contribute by examining the influence of credit and blame attributions on subordinate satisfaction and leadership perceptions (desirability), unaddressed in the literature.

The model was tested using questionnaire responses of subordinates in a variety of business organizations, from the five countries indicated, including manufacturing, telecommunication, financial and other services.

Using the implicit leadership theory, the authors contribute by demonstrating the importance of these attributions for leadership perceptions in five different cultures. The results are supportive of the hypotheses and suggest the important moderating role of subordinate performance for leadership perceptions. The authors discuss findings in the context of the literature, highlight contributions and identify limitations and future directions.

Using the implicit leadership theory, the authors contribute by demonstrating the importance of these attributions for leadership perceptions in five different cultures.

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.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the differences in consumers' attributions of blame for service failures and its affect on their expectations for recovery in both online and offline settings.

A sample of non‐student adults participated in a 2 (service type) by 2 (shopping medium) experimental design testing the affects of on‐ and offline shopping on consumers' attributions of blame for a service failure. Specifically, regression is employed to test the effects of on/offline medium on blame and expected service failure recovery in both the airline and banking industries.

Empirical support is found for the hypotheses that online subjects blame themselves more for service failures, and, in turn, expect less of a recovery than offline consumers. The on/offline medium is shown to have a mediated effect on expected service failure recovery through blame in the airline data. In the bank data, on/offline medium has a significant affect on blame, and blame has a significant affect on expected service failure recovery, though on/offline medium does not show a mediated affect on expected service failure recovery.

Because online customers tend to blame themselves more for service failures, managers may be able to offer less of service failure recovery online than offline. Furthermore, online customers may be more willing to recover for themselves, thereby saving the firm money and placing customers more in control of their service experience.

This study allows for the possibility of consumers' blaming themselves for service failures and, to our knowledge, this is the first study to examine how attribution for service failure affects expected service failure recovery in both on‐ and offline settings. Managers should find our results useful in developing service failure recovery strategies.

While third-party food delivery continues to increase in popularity, surveys suggest nearly a quarter of deliveries suffer from service failures. With the limited research on third-party food delivery, we explore the important questions of (1) where customers place blame in the case of service failures with third-party food delivery (i.e. the platform or the restaurant) and (2) does this depend on the type of service failure? Drawing on blame attribution theory, signaling theory, and an exploratory study, we demonstrate that customers typically perceive such mishaps to be the responsibility of the restaurant rather than the delivery platform itself. We also examine the effect of visible service failure preventative actions taken by the restaurant on blame attribution and re-order intention.

We conducted two online scenario-based studies to explore customer blame attribution in the case of third-party food delivery service failure. First, an exploratory study approach (N_{Study1 = 512}) was taken to provide additional support for the hypothesis development. An experiment (N_{Study2 = 252}) was then conducted to examine the hypothesized effects.

First, the results of an exploratory study demonstrate that customers attribute service failures such as wrong items, missing items, cold food, or leaking containers to restaurants over third-party food delivery platforms. Second, the results of an experimental study suggest inclusion of an observable cue indicating preventative action, such as time-stamp information indicating when an order was received and packaged for delivery, increases customer re-order intention through the underlying mechanism of blame attribution.

We contribute to the underexplored area of third-party food delivery service failure and to our understanding of blame attribution in service failure scenarios. Further, we demonstrate a practical method to shift the blame away from restaurants for service failures that are outside of the establishment’s control.

This study aims to outline the role of causal attributions in consumer responses to irresponsible corporate behaviour. Specifically, this paper presents a moderated mediation model that explains how four types of perceived motives behind an irresponsible action shape corporate blame and word-of-mouth recommendations.

To test the hypotheses, the study uses data from a large survey assessing consumer reactions to a real case of corporate socially irresponsible behaviour in the banking industry.

The findings show that market-, unethicality- and rogue employee-driven attributions increase corporate blame and subsequently make people more likely to spread negative comments regarding the culprit. The difficult situation of a bank, as a perceived reason for wrongdoing, does not reduce the blame attributed to the irresponsible organisation.

The literature offers little information on the attributions people make following egregious corporate behaviour; however, such cognitions can play an important role in stakeholders’ reactions to wrongdoing. This study therefore extends the understanding of how irresponsibility attributions affect consumers’ responses to misbehaviour. Given the empirical context, the findings might be particularly important for communication and bank managers.