The role of crisis typology and cultural belongingness in shaping consumers’ negative responses towards a faulty brand
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JPBM-03-2018-1806 |
| Published date | 19 August 2019 |
| Date | 19 August 2019 |
| Pages | 653-670 |
| Author | Ilaria Baghi,Veronica Gabrielli |
| Subject Matter | Marketing,Product management,Brand management/equity |
The role of crisis typology and cultural
belongingness in shaping consumers’negative
responses towards a faulty brand
Ilaria Baghi and Veronica Gabrielli
University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Reggio Emilia, Italy
Abstract
Purpose –Previous research on brand crisis has introduced the difference between a values-related crisis and a performance-related crisis.
However, little remains known regarding consumers’varying negative responses towards these two different types of brand misconduct. This paper
aims to investigate and compare consumers’affective and behavioural negative reactions (i.e. negative word of mouth and purchase intention)
towards a faulty brand during a values-related crisis and a performance-related crisis by testin g the mediation of negative emotions and introducing
the moderating role of cultural belongingness (collectivistic vs individualistic).
Design/methodology/approach –The authors tested a model of moderated mediation in a cross-cultural investigation on a sample of 229 Italian
and Asian consumers. The study is a 2 (cultures: collectivistic vs individualistic) 2 (cris is: performance-related vs values-related) between-subjects
experimental design. The moderated mediation model shows that consumers’negative reactions (negative word of mouth and negative purchase
intention) towards a faulty brand involved in different crisis typologies is explained by the mediating role of negative emotions, and that this
mediation depends on a consumer’s cultural belongingness.
Findings –The results suggest that consumers belonging to a collectivistic culture (e.g. Asian culture) tend to react in a more severe and strict
manner when faced with a values-related brand crisis event then when faced with a performance-related crisis. The arousal of negativ e emotion
towards a brand represents the mediating variable in behavioural responses (i.e. negative word of mouth and purchase intention).
Originality/value –The present study extends current knowledge in the field of consumers’negative response to brand irrespons ibility behaviours
while introducing the role of crisis typology and cultural belongingness. In particular, individualistic people are more sensitive to a values-related
crisis in comparison with a performance-related one. The findings of this study have strong managerial impli cations for defining effective response
strategies to negative events involving brands in different markets.
Keywords Culture, Negative emotions, Brand crisis, Negative response towards the brand
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
From Toshiba in Japan (Farrell, 2015) to Nike and
Abercrombie & Fitch in the USA, several highly reputable
organisations have suffered from negative events that
demonstrate a lack of due concern for the environment or
society, which can be interpreted as a sign of corporate social
irresponsibility (CSI). One example is the 2015 Volkswagen
“dieselgate”scandal: one of the world’s largest vehicle
manufacturers admitted to programming approximately 11
million of its vehicles to detect when theywere being tested and
to alter the performance of their diesel engines to conceal the
true record of polluting emissions. Recent crises involving
brands such as Volkswagenin Europe and Firestone and Coca-
Cola in the USA have created consumer and media awareness
as well as sensitivity to such crises.Throughout such situations,
companies face consumer negativity towards their brands and
products as an inevitable consequence of their misconduct.
Scholars suggest that CSI and perceived wrongdoings by
companies induce negative responses in consumers’behaviour
and attitude in a wide range of contexts (Klein et al., 2004;
Micheletti, 2003;Sen et al.,2001). Understanding consumers’
negative responses towards brands during a negative event or
crisis can help companies to respond effectively. The
seriousness and frequency of brand crisis contrast with the
relatively fragmentedresearch in this area.
Previous literature has investigated brand crisis through a
variety of interestingpaths. Unfortunately, these research paths
seem to be independent and isolated. The result is an
incomplete and quite confusingoverview of this phenomenon.
The first stream of researchis focused on consumer reactions
to brand crisis, and it assumes thecentral role of attribution of
blame (Folkes, 1984;Weiner, 2000) in generating negative
reactions among consumers in terms of: emotions, such as
anger (Kim and Cameron, 2011;Vassilikopoulou et al.,2011);
behaviours, such as purchase intention (Roehm and Brady,
2007;Klein and Dawar, 2004) and negative word of mouth
(Grappi et al.,2013); and brand constructs, such as brand
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) 653–670
© Emerald Publishing Limited [ISSN 1061-0421]
[DOI 10.1108/JPBM-03-2018-1806]
Received 27 March 2018
Revised 13 September 2018
30 November 2018
23 January 2019
Accepted 23 January 2019
653
equity and brand image (Ahluwalia et al.,2000;Dawar and
Pillutla, 2000) and brand credibility (Cleeren et al.,2013).
These dependent variables are frequently investigated
separately, preventing the opportunity to give a complete and
processual depiction of the phenomenon.In particular, the link
between consumers’emotional and behavioural negative
reactions towardsa brand crisis is severely under-investigated.
The second stream of research is focused on company
reactions to different typologies of brand crisis in order to
understand the effectiveness of response strategies (Coombs,
2010, 2014;Dutta and Pullig, 2011). Within this stream of
research, Dutta and Pullig (2011) suggest an interesting
conceptualisation of brand crisis, distinguishing two different
typologies: performance-related versus values-related crisis.
The former is related to defective or dangerous products or
harm associated with some brands (Haas-Kotzegger and
Schlegelmilch, 2013), while the latter is due to unethical
conduct that may result in serious damage for society. The
contribution of the present study is to link consumers’
emotional and behavioural negative reactions to brand crisis to
crisis typology (performance-related versus values-related) to
better explain a consumer’s internal process when facing a
brand scandal. Moreover, the present research introduces, for
the first time, the cultural framework for defining consumer
reaction to brand misconduct.In fact, as a crisis spreads quickly
in the globalisation era, the present research examines cultural
belongingness as a crucial variable in determining consumers’
responses to a brand crisis. Despite culture framing being
characterised as an important variable affecting consumers’
behaviour in the marketplace,no studies in marketing literature
have examined how cultural belongingness affects peoples’
reactions to a brand’s negative events. Actually, the first
consideration of how consumers differ in their sensitivities to
brand crisis typologies was introducedby Jun et al. (2011). The
authors stated that people with an independent self-construal
were more likely to react negatively to a brand crisis related to
product performance in comparison with values-related ones.
The present study picks up on Jun et al.’s (2011) investigation
to consider independent or interdependent consumer
inclinations, but it adopts, for the first time, this perspective
within a systematic intercultural framework. In particular, the
present research assumes that the independent versus
interdependent consumers’inclination might be respectively
attributed to individualist or collectivist cultural belongingness
(Hofstede, 2003;Triandis,1995;Triandis and Gelfand, 1998).
The assumption is that individualistic (independent people)
versus collectivistic (interdependent people) are inclined to
react differently to a brand crisis that involvessingle consumers
(performance-related crisis) versus community-shared rules
and harmony (values-relatedcrisis).
In summary, the present study contributes to existing
debates in several ways. First, it applies the brand crisis
classification in defining consumers’different reactions facing a
performance-related versus a values-related crisis. Second, the
study introduces the mediation process of a wide spectrum of
negative emotions (e.g. disgust, fear, sadness and
disappointment, besides anger alone) in shaping consumers’
negativity towards the faulty brand (negative word of mouth
and purchasing intention). Finally, the present research gives
an initial insight into the consumer culture framework
relevance within the phenomenonof brand crisis. In particular,
the study demonstrates that individualistic consumers and
collectivistic ones differently react when facing different kinds
of crises.
2. Brand crisis typology: behavioural and
affective response
Brand crises and CSI scandals are unexpected events that
threaten a brand or product’s perceived ability to deliver
expected benefits, thereby weakening brand equity (Ahluwalia
et al., 2000;Dawar and Pillutla, 2000;Dawar and Lei, 2009;
Roehm and Tybout, 2006). Akin to corporate scandals, a
product-harm crisis is usually a form of corporate crisis that
creates an unexpected threat to a firm’s stability and
performance (Seeger et al.,1998). Certainly, if a sudden,
unforeseen negative event takes place, financial, relational or
reputational damages may quickly destroy a firm’s
accumulated intangible assets, such as brand equity, brand
image and reputation (Ahluwalia et al.,2000;Dawar and
Pillutla, 2000;Dawarand Lei, 2009;Pullig et al., 2006;Roehm
and Tybout, 2006). Corporate crises often result in negative
publicity, threatening brand equity and affecting consumer
attitudes and future purchases (Griffinet al., 1991). An
extensive literature base focuses on how consumers deal with
negative information concerning a brand or company during a
reputational crisis (Ahluwalia et al.,2000;Griffinet al., 1991)
and how consumers are influenced by blame attributions
(Weiner, 2000;Dutta and Pullig, 2011;Klein and Dawar,
2004). Moreover, existing evidencesuggests that the perceived
severity of a crisis, as well as any blame attribution inferred,
influences consumers’reactions (Bradfield and Aquino, 1999;
Grégoire et al.,2010). The existing literature supports the
assumption that perceived severity should influence the
appraisal of CSI (Lange and Washburn, 2012), and scholars
have observed that higher harm severity is related to stronger
emotional reactions and subsequent motivation to retaliate
against the firm (Bradfield and Aquino, 1999;Grégoire et al.,
2010). After a negative event results in the harm of a third
party, individuals experience intense negative emotions (Kim
and Cameron, 2011;Vassilikopoulou, et al.,2011), and anger
has been recognised as an important emotion associated with
brand or product crisis events. According to the literature,
attribution of blame positively affects consumers’feelings of
anger during brand misconduct(Jorgensen, 1994;Coombs and
Holladay, 2005;Coombs,2010).
Some studies on brand crisis suggest that consumers’
response patterns can vary depending on the crisis context and
typology. Some authors focused their attention on the
difference between accidental and intentional crises as the key
predictor of consumers’reactions towards a faulty brand (Kim
et al., 2009;Ham and Kim, 2017). In contrast, the seminal
work of Brown and Dacin (1997) suggests that corporate
associations can be used to distinguish different typologies of
brand misconduct: crises which disconfirm brand associations
related to corporate ability (CA) and crises which disconfirm
corporate association related to corporate social responsibility
(CSR). For example, the brand crisis of Ikea (Ikea product
recall due to a safety issue) was triggered by functional defects
of its products, damaging its CA image. In contrast,Starbucks
Crisis typology and cultural belongingness
Ilaria Baghi and Veronica Gabrielli
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 28 · Number 5 · 2019 · 653–670
654
To continue reading
Request your trial