Abstract
Is self-disclosure of negative information a viable strategy for a company to lessen the damage done to consumer responses? Three experiments assessed whether self-disclosing negative information in itself lessened the damaging impact of this information compared to third-party disclosure of the same information. Results indicated that mere self-disclosure of a negative event positively affected consumers’ choice behavior, perceived company trustworthiness, and company evaluations compared to third-party disclosure. The effectiveness of the self-disclosure strategy was moderated by the initial reputation of a company, such that its impact was only observed for companies that had a poor reputation at the outset. For them, self-disclosure considerably lessened the impact of negative information compared to third-party disclosure. For companies that enjoyed a positive reputation, type of disclosure did not affect consumer responses. Mediation analysis showed that perceptions of company trustworthiness underlie the effects of the self-disclosure strategy on consumer judgment.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Benevolence, namely the “extent to which a trustee is believed to do good to the trustor, aside from an egocentric profit motive” (p. 718) should play less of a role in economic transactions, even though the appearance of benevolence is often used as a powerful weapon with naïve buyers by skilled salespersons.
References
Ahluwalia, R., Burnkrant, R. E., & Unnava, H. R. (2000). Consumer response to negative publicity: The moderating role of commitment. Journal of Marketing Research, 37, 203–214.
Campbell, M. C., & Kirmani, A. (2008). I know what you’re doing and why you’re doing it: The use of persuasion knowledge model in consumer research. In C. P. Haugtvedt, P. M. Herr, & F. R. Cardes (Eds.), Handbook of consumer psychology (pp. 549–757). Mahwah: Erlbaum.
Chaiken, S., & Trope, Y. (Eds.). (1999). Dual process theories in social psychology. New York: Guilford.
Cialdini, R. B. (2009). Influence: Science and practice (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., & LePine, J. A. (2007). Trust, trustworthiness, and trust propensity: A meta-analytic test of their unique relationships with risk taking and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 909–927.
Dawar, N., & Pillutla, M. M. (2000). Impact of product-harm crises on brand equity: The moderating role of consumer expectations. Journal of Marketing Research, 37, 215–226.
Dirks, K. T., Lewicki, R. J., & Zaheer, A. (2009). Repairing relationships within and between organizations: Building a conceptual foundation. Academy of Management Review, 34, 69–84.
Dolnik, L., Case, T. I., & Williams, K. D. (2003). Stealing thunder as a courtroom tactic revisited: Processes and boundaries. Law and Human Behavior, 27, 267–287.
Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Eagly, A. H., Chaiken, S., & Wood, W. (1981). An attributional analysis of persuasion. In J. H. Harvey, W. J. Ickes, & R. F. Kidd (Eds.), New directions in attribution research (Vol. 3, pp. 37–62). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
Eagly, A. H., Wood, W., & Chaiken, S. (1978). Causal inferences about communicators and their effect on opinion change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 424–435.
Fennis, B. M., & Stroebe, W. (2010). The psychology of advertising. Hove: Psychology.
Ferrin, D. L., Kim, P. H., Cooper, C. D., & Dirks, K. T. (2007). Silence speaks volumes: The effectiveness of reticence in comparison to apology an denial for responding to integrity- and competence-based trust violation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 893–908.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (2010). Predicting and changing behavior: The reasoned action approach. New York: Psychology Press.
Folkes, V. (1984). Consumer reactions to product failure: An attributional approach. Journal of Consumer Research, 10, 398–409.
Folkes, V., & Kotsos, B. (1986). Buyers’ and sellers’ explanations for product failure: Who done it? Journal of marketing, 50, 74–80.
Gardberg, N. A., & Fombrun, C. J. (2002). The global reputation quotient project: First steps towards a cross-nationally valid measure of corporate reputation. Corporate Reputation Review, 4, 303–307.
Gillespie, N., & Dietz, G. (2009). Trust repair after an organization-level failure. Academy of Management Review, 34, 127–145.
Herbig, P., Milewicz, J., & Golden, J. (1994). A model of reputation building and destruction. Journal of Business Research, 31, 23–31.
Kamins, M. A., & Assael, H. (1987). Two-sided versus one-sided appeals: A cognitive perspective on argumentation, source derogation and the effect of disconfirming trial on belief change. Journal of Marketing Research, 24, 29–39.
Karmarkar, U. R., & Tormala, Z. L. (2010). Believe me, I have no idea what I’m talking about: The effects of source certainty on consumer involvement and persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research, 36, 1033–1049.
Kim, P. H., Dirks, K. T., & Cooper, C. D. (2009). The repair of trust: A dynamic bilateral perspective and multilevel conceptualization. Academy of Management Review, 34, 401–422.
Kim, P. H., Dirks, K. T., Cooper, C. D., & Ferrin, D. L. (2006). When more blame is better than less: The implications of internal vs. external attributions for the repair of trust after a competence- vs. integrity-based trust violation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 99, 49–65.
Kim, P. H., Ferrin, D. L., Cooper, C., & Dirks, K. T. (2004). Removing the shadow of suspicion: The effects of apology versus denial for repairing competence- versus integrity-based trust violations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 104–118.
Knowles, E. D., & Riner, D. D. (2007). Omega approaches to persuasion: Overcoming resistance. In A. R. Pratkanis (Ed.), The science of social influence: Advances and future progress. New York: Psychology.
Kramer, R. M., & Lewicki, R. J. (2010). Repairing and enhancing trust: Approaches to reducing organizational trust deficits. The Academy of Management Annals, 4, 245–277.
Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20, 709–734.
Muller, D., Judd, C. M., & Yzerbyt, V. Y. (2005). When moderation is mediated and mediation is moderated. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 852–863.
Nakayachi, K., & Watabe, M. (2005). Restoring trustworthiness after adverse events: The signaling effects of voluntary ‘hostage posting’ on trust. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 97, 1–17.
Oppenheimer, D. M., Meyvis, T., & Davidenko, N. (2009). Instructional manipulation checks: Detecting satisficing to increase statistical power. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 867–872.
Parayitam, S., & Dooley, R. S. (2009). The interplay between cognitive- and affective conflict and cognition- and affect-based trust in influencing decision outcomes. Journal of Business Research, 62, 789–796.
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York: Springer.
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 36, 717–731.
Purohit, D., & Srivastava, J. (2001). Effect of manufacturer reputation, retailer reputation, and product warranty on consumer judgments of product quality: A cue diagnosticity framework. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 10, 123–134.
Román, S., & Ruiz, S. (2005). Relationship outcomes of perceived ethical sales behavior: The customer’s perspective. Journal of Business Research, 58, 439–445.
Skowronski, J. J., & Carlston, D. E. (1989). Negativity and extremity biases in impression formation: A review of explanations. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 131–142.
Tomlinson, E. C., Dineen, B. R., & Lewicki, R. J. (2004). The road to reconciliation: Antecedents of victim willingness to reconcile following a broken promise. Journal of Management, 30, 165–188.
Tomlinson, E. C., & Mayer, R. C. (2009). The role of causal attribution dimensions in trust repair. Academy of Management Review, 34, 85–104.
Walster, E., Aronson, E., & Abrahams, D. (1966). On increasing the persuasiveness of a low prestige communicator. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 2, 325–342.
Wan, H. H., & Pfau, M. (2004). The relative effectiveness of inoculation, bolstering, and combined approaches in crisis communication. Journal of Public Relations Research, 16, 301–328.
Ward, A., & Brenner, L. (2006). Accentuate the negative. The positive effect of negative acknowledgement. Psychological Science, 17, 959–962.
Williams, K. D., Bourgeois, M. J., & Croyle, R. T. (1993). The effects of stealing thunder in criminal and civil trials. Law and Human Behavior, 17, 597–609.
Williams, K. D., & Dolnik, L. (2001). Revealing the worst first: Stealing thunder as a social influence strategy. In J. P. Forgas & K. D. Williams (Eds.), Social influence: Direct and indirect processes (pp. 213–235). Hove: Psychology.
Wood, W., & Eagly, A. H. (1981). Stages in the analysis of persuasive messages: The role of causal attributions and message comprehension. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 246–259.
Wooten, D. B. (2009). Say the right thing: Apologies, reputability, and punishment. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 19, 225–235.
Wrigley, B. J., Salmon, C. T., & Park, H. S. (2003). Crisis management planning and the threat of bioterrorism. Public Relations Review, 29, 281–290.
Xie, Y., & Peng, S. (2009). How to repair customer trust after negative publicity: The role of competence, integrity, benevolence, and forgiveness. Psychology & Marketing, 26, 572–589.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Enny Das, Peter Kerkhof, Cecile vd. Heuvel, and Wouter Stegenga for their valuable input and assistance in data collection.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding authors
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Fennis, B.M., Stroebe, W. Softening the Blow: Company Self-Disclosure of Negative Information Lessens Damaging Effects on Consumer Judgment and Decision Making. J Bus Ethics 120, 109–120 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1647-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1647-9