Top

Marketing Letters

Published in:

20-01-2021

The role of betrayal in the response to value and performance brand crisis

Authors: Ilaria Baghi, Veronica Gabrielli

Published in: Marketing Letters | Issue 2/2021

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config

AI-assisted search

Off

Abstract

Previous research on brand crisis has introduced the difference between a values-related crisis and a performance-related crisis. Across two experimental studies, we extend current research by demonstrating how self-brand connectedness increases people’s negative behavioural reactions when the brand is involved in a values-related crisis while it protects the brand when it is involved in a performance-related misdeed. We test these mechanisms introducing the mediating role of brand betrayal, the moderation of the personal relevance of the crisis domain (Study 1) and the moderation of the cause of the self-brand connectedness (Study 2). Our findings contribute to the literature by demonstrating that, through the mediation of perceived brand betrayal, a strong connectedness between the consumer and the brand may aggravate behavioural reactions to relevant misdeed in values-related domain especially when the cause of the strong relationship is induced by a central trait of consumer’s identity.

previous article All that glitters is not gold: when glossy packaging hurts brand trust

next article Consumer responses toward symmetric versus asymmetric facial expression emojis

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Available only for authorised users

Two pre-tests were conducted to select two ethical domains and two clothing-related performance properties that were perceived as disparate in terms of personal relevance. A sample of 80 US consumers (58% female, mean age 43) was asked to spontaneously rank 5 ethical issues from the most to the least personally relevant. Of these participants, 62 (78% of the sample) designated environmental protection the most relevant ethical issue, and 46 (58%) designated bullying the least relevant. Another sample of 88 US consumers (58% female, mean age 43) was asked to spontaneously rank 5 performance properties that they considered when purchasing clothing, from the most to the least personally relevant. Of these participants, 71 (81% of the sample) designated the quality of the material the most relevant feature, and 42 (48%) designated durability as the least relevant.

Participants rated the performance-related nature of the crisis (M_{substandard materials} = 5.12 vs M_durability = 4.98 vs M_pollution = 2.52 vs M_bullying = 2.01; F (1, 480) = 13.83; p < .05) and the values-related nature of the crisis (M_{substandard materials} = 3.12 vs M_durability = 3.18 vs M_pollution = 5.32 vs M_bullying = 6.01; F (1, 480) = 14.54; p < .05) as expected. Participants rated the relevance of the values-related and performance-related crises in line with expectations and consistently with the pre-test results (M_pollution = 5.62 vs M_{substandard materials} = 5.56 vs M_bullying = 3.12 vs M_durability = 2.98; F (1, 480) = 12.54; p < .05). We also found significant differences in self-brand connectedness across the brands (M_highSBC = 4.89, M_lowSBC = 2.40, t (120) = − 13.43, p < .001).

Descriptive analysis (see Fig. 2) shows that in the values-related crisis domain, negative word of mouth is a little higher in low SBC/low relevance condition (5.28) than in high SBC/high relevance condition (5.12), but post hoc analysis shows that the difference is not statistically significant (p > .05). The same analysis shows that negative word of mouth is significantly higher in low SBC/low relevance condition (5.28) than in low SBC/high relevance condition (4.67; p < .05). This result may suggest that in the values-related crisis domain, the SBC is a stronger driver of consumer intention to spread negative word of mouth than the relevance of the crisis domain. This assumption is supported also by the size effect analysis on negative word of mouth. The size effect of SBC (d = 0.10) is higher than that for the relevance of the crisis domain (d = 0.02).

As with the results of Study 1, we consider only high-relevance issues; as for low-relevance ones, we did not find any significant differences across conditions.

Ratings of self-brand connectedness did not vary significantly across conditions (M_{CSR connectedness} = 5.37 vs M_{performance connectedness} = 5.01; t (3, 304) = − .117; p > .05). The perception of the cause of consumer self-brand connectedness differs significantly between the two groups where self-brand connectedness was manipulated. This applies both to the items measuring CSR as the main cause of self-brand connectedness (M_{CSR connectedness} = 5.92 vs M_{performance connectedness} = 4.04; t (2, 152) = 2.68; p < .01) and to the items measuring performance as the cause of self-brand connectedness (M_{CSR connectedness} = 3.94 vs M_{performance connectedness} = 5.37; t (2, 151) = 6.05; p < .01).

Aaker, J., Fournier, S., & Brasel, S. A. (2004). When good brands do bad. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(1), 1–16.CrossRef

Ahluwalia, R., Burnkrant, R. E., & Unnava, H. R. (2000). Consumer response to negative publicity: The moderating role of commitment. Journal of Marketing Research, 37(2), 203–214.CrossRef

Antonetti, P., & Anesa, M. (2017). Consumer reactions to corporate tax strategies: the role of political ideology. Journal of Business Research, 74, 1–10.CrossRef

Antonetti, P., & Maklan, S. (2016). An extended model of moral outrage at corporate social irresponsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 135(3), 429–444.CrossRef

Baghi, I., & Gabrielli, V. (2019). The role of crisis typology and cultural belongingness in shaping consumers’ negative responses towards a faulty brand. The Journal of Product and Brand Management, 28(5), 53–70.CrossRef

Bonifield, C., & Cole, C. A. (2008). Better him than me: social comparison theory and service recovery. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36(4), 565–577.CrossRef

Cheng, S. Y., White, T. B., & Chaplin, L. N. (2012). The effects of self-brand connections on responses to brand failure: a new look at the consumer–brand relationship. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22(2), 280–288.CrossRef

Dawar, N., & Lei, J. (2009). Brand crises: the roles of brand familiarity and crisis relevance in determining the impact on brand evaluations. Journal of Business Research, 62(4), 509–516.CrossRef

Dutta, S., & Pullig, C. (2011). Effectiveness of corporate responses to brand crises: the role of crisis type and response strategies. Journal of Business Research, 64(12), 1281–1287.CrossRef

Escalas, J. E. (2004). Narrative processing: Building consumer connections to brands. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14(1/2), 168–180.CrossRef

Escalas, J. E., & Bettman, J. R. (2005). Self-construal, reference groups, and brand meaning. Journal of Consumer Research, 32(3), 378–389.CrossRef

Finkel, E. J., Rusbult, C. E., Kumashiro, M., & Hannon, P. A. (2002). Dealing with betrayal in close relationships: does commitment promote forgiveness? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(6), 956–974.CrossRef

Fisher, R. J. (1993). Social desirability bias and the validity of indirect questioning. Journal of Consumer Research, 20(2), 303–315. https://doi.org/10.1086/209351.CrossRef

Folkes, V. S., & Kamins, M. A. (1999). Effects of information about firms’ ethical and unethical actions on consumers’ attitudes. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 8(3), 243–259.CrossRef

Fournier, S. (1998). Consumers and their brands: developing relationship theory in consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 24(4), 343–373.CrossRef

Grappi, S., Romani, S., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2013). Consumer response to corporate irresponsible behavior: moral emotions and virtues. Journal of Business Research, 66(10), 1814–1821.CrossRef

Grégoire, Y., & Fisher, R. J. (2008). Customer betrayal and retaliation: when your best customers become your worst enemies. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36(2), 247–261.CrossRef

Grégoire, Y., Laufer, D., & Tripp, T. M. (2010). A comprehensive model of customer direct and indirect revenge: understanding the effects of perceived greed and customer power. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 38(6), 738–758.CrossRef

Grewal, D., Krishnan, R., Baker, J., & Borin, N. (1998). The effect of store name, brand name and price discounts on consumers’ evaluations and purchase intentions. Journal of Retailing, 74(3), 331–352.CrossRef

Hayes, A. F. (2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: a regression-based approach. Guilford publications.

Huber, F., Vollhardt, K., Matthes, I., & Vogel, J. (2010). Brand misconduct: consequences on consumer–brand relationships. Journal of Business Research, 63(11), 1113–1120.CrossRef

Jordan, J. J., Sommers, R., Bloom, P., & Rand, D. G. (2017). Why do we hate hypocrites? Evidence for a theory of false signaling. Psychological Science, 28(3), 356–368. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797616685771.CrossRef

Leonidou, L. C., Aykol, B., Hadjimarcou, J., & Palihawadana, D. (2018). Betrayal in buyer–seller relationships: exploring its causes, symptoms, forms, effects, and therapies. Psychology and Marketing, 35(5), 341–356.CrossRef

Lisjak, M., Lee, A. Y., & Gardner, W. L. (2012). When a threat to the brand is a threat to the self: the importance of brand identification and implicit self-esteem in predicting defensiveness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(9), 1120–1132.CrossRef

Liu, R. L., Sprott, D. E., Spangenberg, E. R., Czellar, S., & Voss, K. E. (2018). Consumer preference for national vs. private brands: the influence of brand engagement and self-concept threat. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 41, 90–100.CrossRef

Mittal, V., Ross Jr., W. T., & Baldasare, P. M. (1998). The asymmetric impact of negative and positive attribute-level performance on overall satisfaction and repurchase intentions. Journal of Marketing, 62(1), 33–47.CrossRef

Pullig, C., Netemeyer, R. G., & Biswas, A. (2006). Attitude basis, certainty, and challenge alignment: a case of negative brand publicity. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34(4), 528–542.CrossRef

Reimann, M., MacInnis, D. J., Folkes, V. S., Uhalde, A., & Pol, G. (2018). Insights into the experience of brand betrayal: from what people say and what the brain reveals. Journal of the Association for Consumer Research, 3(2), 240–254.CrossRef

Singh, J. J., Iglesias, O., & Batista-Foguet, J. M. (2012). Does having an ethical brand matter? the influence of consumer perceived ethicality on trust, affect and loyalty. Journal of Business Ethics, 111(4), 541–549.CrossRef

Sirgy, M. J. (1985). Using self-congruity and ideal congruity to predict purchase motivation. Journal of Business Research, 13(3), 195–206.CrossRef

Strandvik, T., Rindell, A., & Wilén, K. (2013). Ethical consumers’ brand avoidance. The Journal of Product and Brand Management, 22(7), 484–490.CrossRef

Trump, R. K. (2014). Connected consumers’ responses to negative brand actions: the roles of transgression self-relevance and domain. Journal of Business Research, 67(9), 1824–1830.CrossRef

Vassilikopoulou, A., Chatzipanagiotou, K., Siomkos, G., & Triantafillidou, A. (2011). The role of consumer ethical beliefs in product-harm crises. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 10(5), 279–289.CrossRef

Whelan, J., & Dawar, N. (2016). Attributions of blame following a product-harm crisis depend on consumers’ attachment styles. Marketing Letters, 27(2), 285–294.CrossRef

Wiggin, K. L., & Yalch, R. F. (2015). Whose fault is it? Effects of relational self-views and outcome counterfactuals on self-serving attribution biases following brand policy changes. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 25(3), 459–472.CrossRef

Title: The role of betrayal in the response to value and performance brand crisis
Authors: Ilaria Baghi
Veronica Gabrielli
Publication date: 20-01-2021
Publisher: Springer US
Published in: Marketing Letters / Issue 2/2021
Print ISSN: 0923-0645
Electronic ISSN: 1573-059X
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-021-09559-7

Springer Professional

Abstract

Please log in to get access to your license.

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Other articles of this Issue 2/2021

Consumer responses toward symmetric versus asymmetric facial expression emojis

The Chief Marketing Officer: an antidote to myopic earnings management practices

How limited consumption experiences affect word of mouth

Religiosity’s influence on stability-seeking consumption during times of great uncertainty: the case of the coronavirus pandemic

A construal-level approach to hedonic and utilitarian shopping orientation

Emotion regulation in the marketplace: the role of pleasant brand personalities