Brand hypocrisy from a consumer perspective: scale development and validation
| Published date | 19 August 2019 |
| Pages | 598-613 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JPBM-06-2017-1504 |
| Date | 19 August 2019 |
| Author | Amélie Guèvremont |
| Subject Matter | Marketing,Product management,Brand management/equity |
Brand hypocrisy from a consumer perspective:
scale development and validation
Amélie Guèvremont
Department of Marketing, École des Sciences de la Gestion, Université du Québec à Montréal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Abstract
Purpose –There is increasing interest in understanding negative consumer reactions to brands and the nature of negative brand perceptions. The
purpose of this paper is to conceptualize the construct of brand hypocrisy from a consumer perspective and develop a scale to measure it.
Design/methodology/approach –A multiphase scale development process involving 559 consumers was conducted. Study 1 pertains to item
generation and reduction phases. Study 2 reports on scale purification and validation through confirmatory factor analyses and model comparisons.
Study 3 focuses on discriminant and predictive validity, while Study 4 further investigates predictive validity using real brands with differe nces in
brand hypocrisy.
Findings –A 12-item scale measuring four dimensions of brand hypocrisy is developed: image hypocrisy (brand failing to put words into action),
mission hypocrisy (brand exerting an unacknowledged negative impact on society or consumer well-being), message hypocrisy (brand conveying
unrealistic or unattainable images) and social hypocrisy (brand supporting social responsibility initiatives for strategic purposes only). Results
indicate that brand hypocrisy is distinguishable from similar constructs in the literature and that it is a sign ificant predictor of negative word-of-
mouth and brand distance.
Practical implications –This conceptualization provides managers with a detailed understanding of what constitutes a hypocritical brand in the
eyes of consumers as well as insights about how to prevent consumer perceptions of brand hypocrisy.
Originality/value –Findings enrich the understanding of negative consumer inferences related to brands and provide a conceptual ization of an
understudied but increasingly relevant form of brand judgment.
Keywords Measurement, Scale development, Anti-branding, Brand relationships, Brand hypocrisy
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Although consumers developmainly positive relationships with
brands (Batra et al.,2012;Fournier, 1998;Thomson et al.,
2005), there is increasing interest in understanding negative
consumer reactions to brands and the nature of negativebrand
perceptions (Fournier and Alvarez, 2013;Zarantonello et al.,
2016). The issue is particularly relevant in a context in which
skeptical consumers incessantly scrutinize all manner of brand
actions (Holt, 2002;Krishnamurthy and Kucuk, 2009).
Modern-day consumers are quick to criticize brands for
misbehaving, lacking transparency or acting in a manner
contrary to their personal beliefs. Indeed, they readily accuse
brands of being insincere (Maehle et al.,2011), inauthentic
(Thomson and Arsel,2004) and dishonest (Lee et al., 2009).
More recently, criticismlevied has resulted in the emergence
of perceptions of brand hypocrisy. Consider, for example,
Volkswagen brand accused by consumers of hypocritical
behavior for deceiving the public and cheating on diesel
emissions tests (Delacroix, 2015). Brands such as Unilever,
McDonald’s and Budweiser have also come under fire for
corporate hypocrisy (Griner, 2013;Northrup, 2015;Kotz,
2014). In the case of Unilever, perceptionsof hypocrisy owe to
conflicting messages conveyed by two sub-brands, Dove and
Axe. Whereas Dove promotes self-acceptanceand wages battle
against unrealistic portrayals of women in the media, Axe has
been criticized for the promotion of degrading sexualized
stereotypes in brand advertising(Griner, 2013). In the instance
of McDonald’s, consumers levelled accusations of hypocrisy
against the company for corporate involvement in Olympic
sponsorship activitiesdespite brand offerings being linked to an
obesity epidemic of global proportions (Kotz, 2014). On a
different scale, Budweiser has drawn criticism for corporate
hypocrisy in relationto a Super Bowl advertising piece in which
the company openly mocked craft breweries despite owning
and operating severalsuch microbreweries (Northrup, 2015).
The foregoing examples beget important questions: Do
consumers perceive brands as hypocritical? What are the
factors underpinning consumer perceptions in this regard?
What are the consequences of consumer perceptions of brand
hypocrisy? The current study seeks to explore the meaning of
brand hypocrisy from a consumer perspectiveand to develop a
measurement scale. A review of the literature follows which
examines the nature of hypocrisy across different disciplines.
Four sub-studies reporton the development and validation of a
measurement scale to assess brand hypocrisy and its primary
dimensions. The article concludes with theoretical and
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
28/5 (2019) 598–613
© Emerald Publishing Limited [ISSN 1061-0421]
[DOI 10.1108/JPBM-06-2017-1504]
Received 29 June 2017
Revised 13 October 2017
Accepted 20 December 2017
598
managerial implications, limitations and directions for future
research.
Theoretical background
Hypocrisy
In the literature, hypocrisy interests scholars in a number of
disciplines. Researchers in psychology (Batson et al., 2002;
Watson and Sheikh, 2008), philosophy (Grant, 1997)and
organizational research (Fassin and Buelens, 2011;Philippe
and Koehler, 2005) have studied various meanings and
demonstrationsof hypocrisy.
In philosophy, Spiegel (1999) describes a hypocrite as a
performer who espouses words or actions that are inconsistent
with his or her beliefs. Trilling (1972) explains that hypocrisy
emerges when there is an inconsistency betweenhow one truly
is in private and how one portrays oneself in public. Turner
(1990) notes that “the image of hypocrisythat many of us were
taught was of someone who did not practice what she
preached”(p. 262). According to McKinnon (1991),one
characteristic of hypocritical behavior lies in the intentional
dissimulation of one’sreal intentions to appear more appealing.
A hypocrite, therefore, acts wilfully (i.e. his or her “real
intentions must be known, [...], and the decision to conceal
them must be deliberate”(McKinnon, 1991; p. 322). In
psychology, researchersfocus on self-hypocrisy,which refers to
saying one thing in publicand doing another in private (Barden
et al., 2005) and moral hypocrisy(Batson et al., 1997;Martinie
and Fointiat, 2010). Moral hypocrisyis defined as a motivation
to appear moral while avoiding the cost of actually being moral
(Batson et al., 1999). Several studies confirm that individuals
have a strong tendency to appear moral without paying the
price (Batson et al.,1999;Batson et al.,2002;Valdesolo and
DeSteno, 2008). Watson and Sheikh (2008) study moral
hypocrisy from the perspective of normative self-interest and
argue that a certain degree of self-interest is acceptable. They
further demonstrate that a pattern of behavior is more
indicative of moral hypocrisy than a single action. Other
authors examine judgmentsof hypocrisy levelled against others
(perceived hypocrisy; Gilbert and Jones, 1986). Results stress
the importance of inferences of the like in interpersonal
relations and identify conditions leadingup to such judgments
(Barden et al.,2014).
In management and organizational research, researchers
investigate perceptions of hypocrisy attributed to firms in the
light of contradictions between stated business ethics and
actual business practices(Brunsson, 1989;Fassin and Buelens,
2011;Jahdi and Acikdilli, 2009). Organizational hypocrisy
occurs when an organization or players within an organization
do the opposite of what they formally agreed (Perez and
Robson, 1999;Philippe and Koehler, 2005). Philippe and
Koehler (2005) define organizational hypocrisy as the
“perceived inconsistency between words,previous actions and
subsequent action of the organization’s trustees”(p. 13).
Research further indicates that moral hypocrisy runs rampant
in the corporate arena (Batson et al., 2006;Trivers, 1971)and
occurs when businesses create impressions of trusting
relationships with various parties while relentlessly pursing
action intended to secure personal gains (Batson et al.,2006).
Research into decoupling strategyfurther merits consideration.
Decoupling is said to occur when a firm strategically dissociate
external images from internal practices to appear more
appealing (Beverland and Luxton, 2005). Decoupling comes
from institutionaltheory, whereby firms must appear legitimate
to various audiences and complywith external pressures (Scott,
1995). This may involve the creation of a conforming image
while engaging in practices that contradict this external
representation (Meyer and Rowan, 1977). Leader hypocrisy
has also attracted interest in organizational research (Foote,
2001;Greenbaum et al., 2015) and captures perceptions of
misaligned words and deeds proffered by leaders (Brunsson,
1989). Cha and Edmondson (2006) suggest that whenever a
leader fails to act in accordancewith values espoused, he or she
induces perceptionsof hypocrisy.
The topic of hypocrisy has attracted some interest in
marketing literature, but studies remain scarce and limited to
the social responsibility context (Vveinhardt and Stonkute,
2015;Wagner et al.,2009). Wagner et al. (2009) define
corporate hypocrisy as “the belief that a firm claims to be
something that it is not”(p. 79) and substantiate the notion as
an important determinant of consumer assessment of a
business organization. However, the current understanding of
hypocrisy lies more specifically in the discrepancy between a
firm’s corporate social responsibility behavior and its stated
standards of social responsibility (Wagner et al.,2009).
Although hypocrisy-related judgments are relevant in the
context of social responsibility, the current research adopts a
wider view of hypocrisyand focuses on the brand level.
Taking a step back, it would appear from the previous
discussion that sayingone thing and doing anothercaptures the
essence of hypocrisy (Martinieand Fointiat, 2010). Indeed, the
classic image of hypocrisy is of someone who doesnot practice
what he preaches (Turner, 1990). Hypocrisyfurther refers to a
“distance between assertions and performance”(Shklar, 1984,
p. 62), which can be interpreted as a disconnection between
what one claims (assertions)and what one does (performance).
Misaligned words anddeeds can, therefore, be said to form one
of the central components of hypocrisy (Greenbaum et al.,
2015). In addition, hypocrisy comes replete with a form of
deceit, given the deliberate presence of deceptive appearances
or at least an awareness of an internal/external disconnect
(Fassin and Buelens, 2011;McKinnon, 1991). Hypocrisy,
thus, implies an intentional manipulation of intentions,
appearances or convictions (McKinnon, 1991). Dictionary
entries define hypocrisy as “the assuming of a false appearance
of virtue or goodness, with dissimulation of real character or
inclinations”(Oxford English Dictionary) or “a feigning to be
what one is not or to believe what one does not”(Merriam-
Webster). These definitions capture the essence of the notion
of hypocrisy and are mirrored in the definition of brand
hypocrisy presentedin this article.
Brand hypocrisy
Building on the previous discussion, brandhypocrisy is defined
as a brand perceived as intentionally projecting false or
unrealistic appearances, thereby implying the dissimulation or
manipulation of attributes, motivations or beliefs. More
specifically, and consistent with the studies conducted next,
perceptions can be said to take differentforms, such as when a
brand:
Brand hypocrisy
Amélie Guèvremont
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 28 · Number 5 · 2019 · 598–613
599
To continue reading
Request your trial