Asymmetric cognitive, emotional and behavioural effects of values-related and performance-related negative brand publicity
| Published date | 12 March 2018 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JPBM-11-2016-1351 |
| Date | 12 March 2018 |
| Pages | 128-145 |
| Author | Xian Liu,Helena Maria Lischka,Peter Kenning |
| Subject Matter | Marketing,Product management,Brand management/equity |
Asymmetric cognitive, emotional and
behavioural effects of values-related and
performance-related negative brand publicity
Xian Liu and Helena Maria Lischka
Chair of Marketing, Heinrich Heine University, Düsseldorf, Germany, and
Peter Kenning
Heinrich-Heine-Universitat Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany
Abstract
Purpose –This research aims to systematically explore the cognitive and emotional effects of values-related and performance-related negative
brand publicity and investigate how the psychological effects translate into different behavioural outcomes. In addition, it examines the relative
effectiveness of two major brand response strategies in mitigating negative publicity.
Design/methodology/approach –Two experimental studies were conducted to test the hypotheses. Study 1 examines the effects of values- and
performance-related negative brand publicity, using a 3 (negative brand publicity: values-related vs performance-related vs control) 2 (bra nd:
Dove vs Axe) between-subjects experiment. Study 2 further compares the effects of two major brand response strategies on consumers’post -crisis
perceived trustworthiness and trust and responses towards a brand involved in negative publicity. A 2 (negative brand publicity: values-related vs
performance-related) 2 (brand response strategy: reduction-of-offensiveness vs corrective action) between-subjects design was used.
Findings –The results suggest that values-related negative brand publicity is perceived as being more diagnostic and elicits a stronger emotion of
contempt, but a weaker emotion of pity than performance-related negative brand publicity. Moreover, values-related negative brand publicity has a
stronger negative impact on consumer responses than performance-related negative brand publicity. Interestingly , compared to perceived
diagnosticity of information and the emotion of pity, the emotion of contempt is more likely to cause differences in consumer responses to these two
types of negative brand publicity. Regarding brand response strategy, corrective action is more effective than reduction-of-offensiveness for both
types of negative brand publicity, but the advantage of corrective action is greater for the performance-related case.
Originality/value –This research enriches the negative publicity and brand perception literature, showing the asymmetr ic cognitive, emotional and
behavioural effects of values- and performance-related negative brand publicity. It also iden tifies the psychological mechanisms underlying
consumer responses to negative brand publicity, and it provides empirical evidence for the relative effectiveness of two major brand response
strategies.
Keywords Brand trust, Brand reputation, Brand evaluation, Brand perception, Brand crisis, Brand-related emotions, Negative brand publicity,
Perceived diagnosticity
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
Consumers can access an abundance of brand-relevant
information from many different channels every day. Diverse
types of informationchannels allow consumers’convenient and
efficient information access, and these provide brands with
more opportunities to take advantage of marketing
communication. However, these opportunities also increase
the risk of brand crises that result from negative publicity
(Monga and John, 2008). Negative brand publicity can be
defined as the uncompensated dissemination of potentially
damaging information presented as disparaging news about a
brand in public media or by word of mouth (Sherrell and
Reidenbach, 1986;Menon et al., 1999). Negative brand
publicity is pervasive in the current marketplace and poses
significant challengesto brand management. It can be classified
into two broad types based on the nature of the events: values-
related and performance-related (Pullig et al., 2006). Recent
examples of values-related negative publicity include
Volkswagen’s rigging of the autos to manipulate the
environmentaltests for diesel emissions and McDonald’s use of
expired meat in China. On the other hand,Firestone’s recall of
tires with design and manufacturingdefects and the continuous
public attention for top management changes, redundancies
and store closures due to strategic and financial
mismanagement of the German warehouse retailer
KarstadtQuelle are examples of performance-related negative
publicity.
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on
Emerald Insight at: www.emeraldinsight.com/1061-0421.htm
Journal of Product & Brand Management
27/2 (2018) 128–145
© Emerald Publishing Limited [ISSN 1061-0421]
[DOI 10.1108/JPBM-11-2016-1351]
Received 1 November 2016
Revised 8 April 2017
17 July 2017
Accepted 17 July 2017
128
A number of studies show the harmful consequences of
negative brand publicity in terms of diminishing brand
reputation, diluting brand evaluation, reducing purchase
intention (Dawar and Pillutla, 2000;Coombs and Holladay,
2006) and even inducing brand hate (Romani et al.,2015;
Zarantonello et al.,2016;Hegner et al.,2017), although these
negative effects could be moderated by a consumer’s brand
commitment (Ahluwalia et al.,2000), brand associations or
brand–customer relationshipstrength (Jeon and Baeck, 2016).
The negative evaluations of affected focal brands can spill over
to partner brands (Votolato and Unnava, 2006) or even
competing brands (Borah and Tellis, 2016). The “spillover”
effect of negative publicity also occurs from sports star to
sponsor company (Yoon and Shin, 2017) or among private
label brands, such that the general images of these brands and
the corresponding retailer stores may be threatened (Gendel-
Guterman and Levy, 2017). Whereas, many studies focus on
the effects of performance-related negative brand publicity
(Dawar and Pillutla, 2000;Monga and John, 2008;Rea et al.,
2014;Whelan and Dawar, 2016;Yin et al.,2016;Haas-
Kotzegger and Schlegelmilch, 2017), less investigation of the
effects of values-relatednegative brand publicity has been done
(Pullig et al.,2006;Yuan et al.,2016). To our knowledge,
limited research systematically compares the effects of values-
and performance-related negative brand publicity on
consumers’cognition, emotions and behaviours (Grappi and
Romani, 2015;Jeon and Baeck, 2016).This research therefore
aims to explore the cognitive,emotional and behavioural effects
of values- and performance-related negative brand publicity.
We predict that these two typesof negative brand publicity that
generate asymmetric perceptions of a brand’s warmth and
competence will show asymmetry in perceived diagnosticity
and elicit different emotional and behavioural responses. Also,
extant literaturein this area reveals more attention to the visible
behavioural effects or the macro-level market responses (e.g.
brand sales, market share, stockvaluation) of negative publicity
(Dawar and Pillutla, 2000;VanHeerde et al., 2007), but less to
the psychological mechanisms behind these behavioural
outcomes. Thus, another goal of this researchis to test how the
cognitive and emotional effects of negative brand publicity
might translate to different behavioural outcomes. It is equally
important to understand how brands respond to negative
publicity to repair damaged brand reputation. A few studies
have examined the relative effectiveness of different brand
response strategies for values- and performance-related crises,
but the results lack consistent conclusions (Dutta and Pullig,
2011;Palmer and Strelan, 2015;Hegner et al., 2016). The
current research extends this field by providing more empirical
evidence for the effects of two major brand response strategies
in diminishingthe adverse effects of negative brand publicity.
First, Study 1 comparesthe perceived diagnosticity of values-
and performance-related negative brand publicity.
Diagnosticity plays a crucial role in cognitive processing, and
diagnostic information likely leads to cognitive bias in
impression formation (Skowronski and Carlston, 1987). We
then assess the emotional effects of values- and performance-
related negative brand publicity drawing on Kervyn et al.’s
(2012) Brands as Intentional Agents Framework(BIAF). This
framework suggests that the perceptionsof a brand’sintentions
and ability can elicit four types of specific brand-related
emotions, including admiration, envy, contempt and pity.
Because a brand involved in negative publicity is not likely to
evoke admiration and envy, the focus is on the emotions of
contempt and pity. Also, previous literature has suggested that
many behaviours can be reasonably predicted by the
conjunction effects of cognition and emotions (Weiner, 1980;
Schwarz, 2000;Han et al., 2007). We contributeto this line of
literature by examining whether and how the perceived
diagnosticity of negative brand publicity and brand-related
emotions affects consumer responses, including brand
evaluation and purchaseintention.
Study 1 offers insight into the effects of values- and
performance-related negative brand publicity. Study 2 further
investigates how brandsrespond to each type of negative brand
publicity to restore consumers’trust and confidence. We
differentiate and test two major brand response strategies:
reduction-of-offensiveness and corrective action. Results
indicate that corrective action is generally more effective in
restoring consumers’trust andconfidence in an accused brand
than reduction-of-offensiveness. However, the effectiveness of
corrective action is stronger for performance-related negative
brand publicity than for the values-related one. In addition,
corrective action can repair integrity-based trustworthiness
most successfully for values-related negative brand publicity,
and it repairs benevolence-based trustworthiness and brand
trust most successfully for performance-related negative brand
publicity. Overall, this study provides empirical evidence for
the relative effectiveness of corrective action in coping with
negative brand publicity, which was inconclusive in the
previous literature. The present research thereby adds to the
literature on negative publicity, brand perception and crisis
communication and offers relevantmanagerial implications for
brand managers and publicrelationship officers.
2. Theoretical background and research
hypotheses
2.1 Values- and performance-related negative brand
publicity
Showing goodwill to consumers and having good performance
are both important for a brand. Prior literature shows that
brand information related to values (e.g. concern about
consumers’interests, social responsibility initiative) or that
related to performance (e.g. product quality, innovation) has a
strong impact on consumers’evaluations and attitudes,
especially when the information is negative and publicized
(Pullig et al.,2006;Dutta and Pullig, 2011). Other literature
uses terms such as intention or morality and competence, which
are very similar to the distinction of values and performance
(Votolato and Unnava, 2006). Basically, values-related
information pertains to a brand’s ethics and principles (Pullig
et al.,2006;Dutta and Pullig, 2011). Negative publicity that
arises in the values domain involvessocial or ethical issues that
conflict with the ethical standards of consumers (Pullig et al.,
2006;Votolato and Unnava, 2006). On the other hand,
performance-relatedinformation pertains to a brand’s ability to
deliver functional benefits, and negative publicity that arises in
this domain indicates a brand’s failure to meet quality
standards as perceived by consumers (Pullig et al., 2006;
Votolato and Unnava,2006).
Brand publicity
Xian Liu, Helena Maria Lischka and Peter Kenning
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 27 · Number 2 · 2018 · 128–145
129
To continue reading
Request your trial