Introduction
Conceptual Background
Boycott Participation: Definition and Extant Models
Triggers of Boycott Participation
Promoters of Boycott Participation
Inhibitors of Boycott Participation
Developing a Model of Intrapersonal Variation in Boycott Participation
Intrapersonal Variation Moderated by Perceived Egregiousness
Distinguishing Between Instrumental and Expressive Drivers
The Role of Instrumental and Expressive Drivers at Different Points in Time
Emotional Heating
Cognitive Cooling
Study | Industry | Management perspective | Country | Sample size | Time lag | Boycott measures | Drivers | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Fast food restaurants | Product management | U.S | 233 | 3 weeks | M (O, I) | M (O, I) | PE, PC, SEa, BI, FE |
2 | Entertainment | Employee management | U.S | 303 | 2 weeks | M (B, O, I) | M (B, O, I) | PE, PC, SE, BI, PS |
3 | E-commerce | Employee management | GER | 293 | 5 months | R (B, O, I) | M (B, O, I) | PE, PC, SE, BI, SC |
4 | Ride-sharing | Public relations | U.S | 220 | 12 months | R (B, O, I) | M (B, O, I) | PE, PC, SE, BI, PS |
Study 1
Design
Results
Boycott participation t0 | Boycott participation t1 | |||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | Model 4 | Model 5 | Model 6 | |||||||||||||
β | t | p | β | t | p | β | t | p | β | t | p | β | t | p | β | t | p | |
Controls | ||||||||||||||||||
Age | − 0.11 | − 1.39 | 0.168 | − 0.02 | − 0.34 | 0.733 | − 0.02 | − 0.37 | 0.713 | − 0.07 | − 0.95 | 0.343 | − 0.02 | − 0.33 | 0.739 | − 0.04 | − 0.57 | 0.567 |
Gender1 | − 0.03 | − 0.37 | 0.709 | − 0.05 | − 0.83 | 0.407 | − 0.05 | − 0.82 | 0.416 | − 0.03 | − 0.46 | 0.648 | 0.03 | 0.43 | 0.665 | − 0.01 | − 0.15 | 0.884 |
Education2 | − 0.07 | − 0.89 | 0.377 | − 0.13 | − 2.12 | 0.036 | − 0.13 | − 2.11 | 0.037 | − 0.08 | − 1.21 | 0.228 | − 0.13 | − 1.97 | 0.051 | − 0.13 | − 1.85 | 0.067 |
Income3 | − 0.10 | − 1.23 | 0.222 | − 0.08 | − 1.36 | 0.176 | − 0.09 | − 1.36 | 0.175 | − 0.03 | − 0.46 | 0.648 | − 0.03 | − 0.47 | 0.636 | 0.00 | 0.07 | 0.946 |
Boyoctt and Egregiousness | ||||||||||||||||||
Perceived egregiousness (t0) | 0.61 | 7.63 | 0.000 | 0.11 | 1.24 | 0.216 | 0.12 | 1.23 | 0.222 | |||||||||
Boycott (t0) | 0.40 | 4.74 | 0.000 | 0.12 | 0.98 | 0.331 | 0.13 | 1.10 | 0.273 | |||||||||
Perceived egregiousness (t1) | 0.43 | 4.88 | 0.000 | 0.30 | 3.22 | 0.002 | 0.29 | 3.09 | 0.003 | |||||||||
Boycott (t0) × perceived egregiousness (t1) | 0.17 | 2.35 | 0.021 | 0.11 | 1.55 | 0.124 | 0.16 | 2.07 | 0.042 | |||||||||
Boycott drivers | ||||||||||||||||||
Self-enhancement (exit) | 0.36 | 3.21 | 0.002 | 0.36 | 3.04 | 0.003 | 0.28 | 2.03 | 0.045 | 0.32 | 2.16 | 0.033 | ||||||
Self-enhancement (voice) | 0.09 | 1.39 | 0.167 | 0.09 | 1.38 | 0.170 | 0.07 | 0.85 | 0.400 | 0.07 | 0.90 | 0.372 | ||||||
Brand image | − 0.26 | − 3.09 | 0.002 | − 0.27 | − 2.77 | 0.006 | 0.00 | 0.03 | 0.973 | 0.00 | 0.02 | 0.981 | ||||||
Perceived control | 0.18 | 1.76 | 0.081 | 0.18 | 1.75 | 0.083 | 0.19 | 1.95 | 0.054 | 0.13 | 1.35 | 0.179 | ||||||
Subjective costs | 0.15 | 1.90 | 0.060 | 0.15 | 1.88 | 0.062 | 0.07 | 0.90 | 0.372 | − 0.04 | − 0.40 | 0.688 | ||||||
Customer service | 0.01 | 0.06 | 0.954 | − 0.31 | − 1.71 | 0.090 | ||||||||||||
Frontline employees | 0.01 | 0.10 | 0.918 | − 0.33 | − 2.30 | 0.024 | ||||||||||||
R2 | 0.39 | 0.57 | 0.57 | 0.53 | 0.60 | 0.62 | ||||||||||||
Adj. R2 | 0.36 | 0.52 | 0.52 | 0.50 | 0.55 | 0.56 |
Discussion
Study 2
Design
Results
DV: boycott t1 | The deliberators | The apathetic | The forgetters | The capitulated | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
β | p | t | β | p | t | β | p | t | β | p | t | |
Study 2 | ||||||||||||
Self-enhancement | 0.09 | 0.134 | 1.54 | 0.10 | 0.020 | 2.47 | 0.08 | 0.011 | 2.05 | 0.10 | 0.043 | 2.63 |
Perceived control | 0.36 | 0.048 | 2.06 | 0.39 | 0.006 | 2.95 | 0.33 | 0.464 | 3.09 | 0.09 | 0.003 | 0.74 |
Brand image | − 0.42 | 0.183 | − 1.37 | − 0.63 | 0.006 | − 3.00 | − 0.11 | 0.411 | − 0.59 | − 0.16 | 0.554 | − 0.83 |
Perceived egregiousness (t1) | 0.37 | 0.000 | 4.37 | 0.12 | 0.158 | 1.45 | 0.19 | 0.001 | 2.66 | 0.29 | 0.009 | 3.59 |
Subjective costs | 0.02 | 0.656 | 0.45 | 0.09 | 0.049 | 2.05 | 0.05 | 0.069 | 1.51 | 0.07 | 0.133 | 1.65 |
Service quality | − 0.62 | 0.028 | − 2.31 | 0.03 | 0.909 | 0.12 | 0.02 | 0.640 | 0.08 | − 0.10 | 0.935 | − 0.47 |
R2 | 0.72 | 0.81 | 0.72 | 0.50 | ||||||||
Adj. R2 | 0.66 | 0.77 | 0.69 | 0.45 | ||||||||
Share (in %) | 15.4 | 15.0 | 27.7 | 41.9 | ||||||||
Study 3 | ||||||||||||
Self-enhancement | 0.48 | 0.002 | 3.36 | 0.629 | 0.000 | 7.46 | 0.419 | 0.000 | 6.47 | 0.549 | 0.000 | 5.08 |
Perceived control | 0.22 | 0.085 | 1.77 | 0.070 | 0.303 | 1.04 | 0.119 | 0.052 | 1.95 | 0.163 | 0.095 | 1.71 |
Brand image | − 0.11 | 0.300 | − 1.05 | − 0.337 | 0.000 | − 4.97 | − 0.229 | 0.000 | − 3.82 | − 0.157 | 0.097 | − 1.70 |
Perceived egregiousness (t1) | 0.19 | 0.187 | 1.34 | 0.064 | 0.363 | 0.91 | 0.284 | 0.000 | 4.87 | 0.291 | 0.011 | 2.69 |
Subjective costs | − 0.16 | 0.141 | − 1.50 | 0.030 | 0.628 | 0.48 | − 0.075 | 0.187 | − 1.32 | − 0.180 | 0.056 | − 1.97 |
R2 | 0.60 | 0.80 | 0.56 | 0.70 | ||||||||
Adj. R2 | 0.54 | 0.78 | 0.54 | 0.65 | ||||||||
Share (in %) | 13.3 | 19.8 | 51.5 | 15.4 | ||||||||
Study 4 | ||||||||||||
Self-enhancement | 0.27 | 0.042 | 2.09 | 0.61 | 0.000 | 5.77 | 0.58 | 0.000 | 5.66 | 0.78 | 0.000 | 4.68 |
Perceived control | 0.62 | 0.000 | 4.07 | 0.05 | 0.545 | 0.61 | − 0.01 | 0.906 | − 0.12 | 0.11 | 0.459 | 0.75 |
Brand image | − 0.20 | 0.083 | − 1.77 | − 0.05 | 0.418 | − 0.82 | − 0.15 | 0.121 | − 1.57 | 0.06 | 0.527 | 0.64 |
Perceived egregiousness (t1) | 0.05 | 0.605 | 0.52 | 0.36 | 0.001 | 3.48 | 0.31 | 0.003 | 3.09 | 0.02 | 0.876 | 0.16 |
Subjective costs | − 0.06 | 0.502 | − 0.68 | − 0.09 | 0.047 | − 2.03 | − 0.05 | 0.490 | − 0.69 | − 0.06 | 0.509 | − 0.67 |
Service quality | − 0.07 | 0.042 | − 0.73 | 0.10 | 0.179 | 1.36 | − 0.02 | 0.857 | − 0.18 | − 0.27 | 0.021 | − 2.44 |
R2 | 0.72 | 0.92 | 0.77 | 0.86 | ||||||||
Adj. R2 | 0.69 | 0.91 | 0.75 | 0.83 | ||||||||
Share (in %) | 22.6 | 28.8 | 29.7 | 18.9 |
Discussion
Study 3
Design
Results
Boycott participation t0 | Boycott participation t1 | |||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | Model 4 | |||||||||||||
β | p | t | VIF | β | p | t | VIF | β | p | t | VIF | β | p | t | VIF | |
Controls | ||||||||||||||||
Age | 0.23 | 0.318 | 1.00 | 1.02 | 0.053 | 0.733 | 34 | 1.045 | 0.07 | 0.660 | 0.42 | 1.03 | − 0.08 | 0.696 | − 0.53 | 1.05 |
Gender1 | 0. -23 | 0.039 | − 2.08 | 1.08 | − 0.049 | 0.529 | − 0.63 | 1.144 | 0.10 | 244 | 1.16 | 1.07 | − 0.08 | 0.201 | − 0.49 | 1.03 |
Income2 | 0.43 | 0.080 | 1.76 | 1.03 | 0.266 | 0.108 | 1.61 | 1.030 | 0.18 | 276 | 1.01 | 1.04 | 0.21 | 0.200 | 1.28 | 1.04 |
Education3 | − 0.14.559 | − 0.058 | 1.02 | 0.067 | 0.674 | 0.42 | 1.023 | − 0.12 | 0.476 | − 0.68 | 1.03 | 0.07 | 0.628 | 0.98 | 1.11 | |
Boycott and Egregiousness (t0) | ||||||||||||||||
Perceived egregiousness(t0) | 0.54 | 0.000 | 10.30 | 1.07 | 0.270 | 0.000 | 6.895 | 1.313 | ||||||||
Boycott (t1) | 0.63 | 0.000 | 15.34 | 1.20 | 0.41 | 0.000 | 8.33 | 2.15 | ||||||||
Perceived egregiouisness (t1) | 0.34 | 0.000 | 8.44 | 1.13 | 0.27 | 0.000 | 7.39 | 1.19 | ||||||||
Boycott (t0) × perceived egregiousness (tl) | 0.10 | 0.006 | 2.81 | 1.02 | 0.08 | 0.010 | 2.47 | 1.03 | ||||||||
Boycott driven Self-enhancement | 0.541 | 0.000 | 1.23 | 1.707 | 0.23 | 0.002 | 5.14 | 1.87 | ||||||||
Brand image | − 0.154 | 0.000 | − 4.08 | 1.173 | − 0.16 |
0.000 | − 4.14 | 1.25 | ||||||||
Perceived control | 0.129 | 0.001 | 3.27 | 1.310 |
0.08 | 0.033 | 1.94 | 1.37 | ||||||||
Subjective costs | − 0.036 | 0.301 | 4.04 | 1.068 | − 0.12 | 0.001 | − 3.42 | 1.07 | ||||||||
R2 | 0.35 | 0.64 | 0.65 | 0.73 | ||||||||||||
Adj. R2 | 0.33 | 0.63 | 0.64 | 0.71 |
Discussion
Study 4
Design
Results
Model 1: Full Sample w. Interactions | Model 2: Full Sample wo. Interactions | Model 3: Not Known | Model 4: Known | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
β | p | t | β | p | t | β | p | t | β | p | t | |
Controls | ||||||||||||
Age | − 0.01 | 0.433 | − 0.79 | 0.00 | 0.573 | − 0.56 | − 0.09 | 0.163 | − 1.41 | 0.04 | 0.328 | 0.99 |
Gendera | 0.06 | 0.317 | 1.00 | 0.03 | 0.628 | 0.49 | 0.03 | 0.637 | 0.47 | 0.06 | 0.118 | 1.58 |
Incomeb | − 0.22 | 0.368 | − 0.90 | − 0.34 | 0.191 | − 1.31 | − 0.04 | 0.478 | − 0.71 | − 0.02 | 0.637 | − 0.47 |
Educationc | − 0.04 | 0.812 | − 0.24 | 0.02 | 0.879 | 0.15 | − 0.01 | 0.793 | − 0.26 | − 0.02 | 0.620 | − 0.50 |
Boycott and egregiousness | ||||||||||||
Boycott participation (t0) | 0.13 | 0.376 | 0.89 | 0.08 | 0.083 | 1.75 | 0.03 | 0.593 | 0.54 | 0.35 | 0.000 | 3.87 |
Perceived egregiousness (t1) | − 0.08 | 0.719 | − 0.36 | 0.42 | 0.000 | 3.92 | 0.30 | 0.003 | 3.09 | 0.10 | 0.134 | 1.52 |
Boycott participation (t0) × perceived egregiousness (t1) | 0.22 | 0.044 | 2.03 | 0.24 | 0.006 | 2.79 | − 0.01 | 0.873 | − 0.16 | 0.16 | 0.020 | 2.38 |
Boycott drivers | ||||||||||||
Self-enhancement | 0.14 | 0.004 | 2.92 | 0.16 | 0.000 | 8.28 | 0.50 | 0.000 | 5.21 | 0.34 | 0.000 | 3.68 |
Brand image | − 0.53 | 0.012 | − 2.54 | − 0.07 | 0.289 | − 1.06 | 0.11 | 0.142 | 1.48 | − 0.15 | 0.005 | − 2.90 |
Subjective costs | − 0.54 | 0.382 | − 0.88 | − 0.37 | 0.075 | − 1.79 | − 0.06 | 0.314 | − 1.01 | − 0.07 | 0.074 | − 1.81 |
Perceived control | 0.38 | 0.002 | 3.13 | 0.13 | 0.073 | 1.80 | − 0.01 | 0.920 | − 0.10 | 0.20 | 0.002 | 3.16 |
Service | ||||||||||||
Service quality | 0.11 | 0.314 | 1.01 | − 0.05 | 0.180 | − 1.35 | − 0.24 | 0.006 | − 2.85 | 0.00 | 0.240 | 0.07 |
Service quality × perceived egregiousness (t1) | 0.29 | 0.140 | 1.48 | 0.16 | 0.036 | 2.12 | − 0.02 | 0.735 | − 0.34 | 0.16 | 0.006 | 2.30 |
Story known interaction | ||||||||||||
Boycott participation (t0) | − 0.10 | 0.584 | − 0.55 | |||||||||
Perceived egregiousness (t1) | 0.40 | 0.004 | 2.94 | |||||||||
Boycott participation (t0) × perceived egregiousness (t1) | − 0.01 | 0.840 | − 0.20 | |||||||||
Self-enhancement | − 0.01 | 0.957 | − 0.05 | |||||||||
Brand image | 0.38 | 0.015 | 2.46 | |||||||||
Subjective costs | 0.14 | 0.731 | 0.34 | |||||||||
Perceived control | − 0.26 | 0.011 | − 2.57 | |||||||||
Service quality | − 0.34 | 0.068 | − 1.84 | |||||||||
Service quality × perceived egregiousness (t1) | − 0.01 | 0.357 | − 0.79 | |||||||||
Rb | 0.84 | 0.87 | 0.87 | 0.89 |
0.87 | |||||||
Adj. R2 | 0.84 | 0.84 | 0.84 | 0.87 |
0.75 | |||||||
n | 185 | 185 |
89 |
96 |
Discussion
General Discussion
Implications for Activists and Managers
Strategic Considerations
Dynamic Considerations
Different Consumer Types
Consumer type | Temporal Effects | Conclusion | Implications | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
PE | BOY | For activists | For managers | ||
The apathetic | → → | The boycott decision of the Apathetic is driven by a positive evaluation of the target company. They have initially decided not to boycott the firm, or they keep boycott participation constantly on a low level | Boycott activists and nongovernmental organizations should keep emphasizing the misbehavior of the company to convince loyal consumers to reconsider their perception of the brand. However, certain of those consumers will still not participate in the boycott →Expressively driven (triggering emotions) | To prevent consumers from participating in boycotts and reacting apathetically to transgressions, managers should build up a strong image of the company. Moreover, the company should encourage the Apathetic to convince other customers to stay with the company →Expressively driven (strengthen brand image) | |
The forgetters | ↘↘ | The Forgetters initially support the boycott. Yet, after a certain amount of time has elapsed and the media has stopped reporting, the Forgetters revert to old consumption habits | Since the Forgetters are mainly driven by emotional components (brand image, perceived egregiousness), activists should approach this segment with emotional appeals. They should constantly draw the attention of these consumers to the misbehavior of the boycotted company to keep levels of egregiousness high → Expressively driven (triggering emotions) | To deal with the Forgetters, managers should wait until the media coverage of the event depletes and the consumers' egregiousness decreases. CSR activities, cause-related marketing, and changing the company policies in response to the boycott call (e.g., raising working conditions of employees) can therefore help loweing negative public attention →Expressively driven (awaiting the cool-down phase) | |
The capitulated | → ↘ | The Capitulated emphasize boycott-related costs and wish to boycott, but they recognize that obstacles are higher than personal rewards. They therefore stop participating in the boycott | Activists should communicate measures to minimize switching costs. For example, they could provide informtation on competitors with similar products and services. Since these substitutes could be more expensive, activists could emphasize other reasons (e.g., product quality, service quality) to justify the switching costs →Instrumentally driven (supporting information to minimize subjective costs) | Managers should consider boycott-related costs, such as consumers’ financial efforts for seeking alternatives. They may therefore increase behavioral loyalty by increasing switching costs for consumers. For example, companies may decrease the prices for loyal consumers (e.g., by offering discounts for products) → Instrumentally driven (emphasizing boycott-related barriers) | |
The deliberators | → ↗ | The Deliberators initially do not participate in a boycott. After observing the consequences of the boycott and reconsidering the perceived control, they join the boycott at a later stage in time | Activists should continously inform the public about the consequences of the boycott and demonstrate the impact of the boycotters (e.g., changing behavior of the company). Furthermore, the instrumental goals of the boycott call should be communicated to emphasize the instrumental elements of the boycott → Instrumentally driven (supporting information about the impact) | In most cases, consumers’ actions do not extend sustainable impact on corporate behavior. Managers should, however, consider the possible temporal effects that could evolve after an egregious act and implement crises management measures to react on boycott calls. As for the Forgetters type, significant changes of the company policies in response to the boycott call might help → Instrumentally driven (situational crisis management) |