Advertisement

Journal of Business Ethics

, Volume 130, Issue 3, pp 651–663 | Cite as

Corporate Social ‘Irresponsibility’: Are Consumers’ Biases in Attribution of Blame Helping Companies in Product–Harm Crises Involving Hybrid Products?

  • Sergio W. Carvalho
  • Etayankara Muralidharan
  • Hari Bapuji
Article

Abstract

In recent years, there have been several high-profile recalls of hybrid products (those where organizations in multiple countries take part in the design, component sourcing, manufacturing, and marketing of a product). If consumers perceive a global firm to be responsible for the recall, then it will reduce their brand equity. Therefore, global firms may respond in ethically questionable ways to justify themselves to important stakeholders and avoid blame. Understanding how stakeholders attribute blame for crises involving hybrid products is important to shed light on the unethical manner in which global firms might avoid blame in such situations. The research reported here shows that in a hybrid product crisis, consumers show a bias in favor of the brand company and against the manufacturing company. This bias is more pronounced when the country of manufacture has an unfavorable image or when consumers lack familiarity with the recalled brand. Ambiguous recall announcements by companies that fail to provide a specific and clear reason for the product defect prompt consumers to assume that a manufacturing flaw caused the product defect. As a result, consumers reduce their attribution of blame for the brand company, and thus its brand equity is maintained.

Keywords

Product recall Attribution of blame Brand familiarity Hybrid products 

Notes

Acknowledgment

This research was supported in part by a grant to Sergio W. Carvalho and Hari Bapuji from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

References

  1. Arpan, L. M., & Sun, S. (2006). The effect of country of origin on judgments of multinational organizations involved in a crisis. Journal of Promotion Management, 12(2/3), 189–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bapuji, H., & Beamish, P. (2007). Toy recalls: Is China really the problem? Canada-Asia Commentary, 45, 1–9.Google Scholar
  3. Barney, J. B., & Zhang, S. (2008). Collective goods, free riding and counting brands: The Chinese experience. Management and Organization Review, 4(2), 211–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beamish, P., & Bapuji, H. (2008). Toy recalls and China: Emotion vs. evidence. Management and Organization Review, 4(2), 197–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bilkey, W. J., & Nes, E. (1982). Country-of-origin effects on product evaluations. Journal of International Business Studies, 13(1), 89–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bodenhausen, G. V., & Lichtenstein, M. (1987). Social stereotypes and information processing strategies: The impact of task complexity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(5), 871–880.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bodenhausen, G. V., & Macrae, C. N. (1998). Stereotype activation and inhibition. In R. S. Wyer Jr (Ed.), Stereotype activation and inhibition: Advances in social cognition (Vol. 11, pp. 1–52). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  8. Chao, P. (1993). Partitioning country of origin effects: Consumer evaluations of a hybrid product. Journal of International Business Studies, 24(2), 291–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cheah, E. T., Chan, W. L., & Chieng, C. L. L. (2007). The corporate social responsibility of pharmaceutical product recalls: An empirical examination of US and UK markets. Journal of Business Ethics, 76(4), 427–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Christensen, S. L., & Kohls, J. (2003). Ethical decision making in times of organizational crisis: A framework for analysis. Business and Society, 42(3), 328–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dardis, F., & Haigh, M. M. (2009). Prescribing versus describing: Testing image restoration strategies in a crisis situation. Corporate Communications, 14(1), 101–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Darley, J. M., & Gross, P. H. (1983). A hypothesis-confirming bias in labeling effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44(1), 20–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. de Matos, C. A., & Rossi, C. A. V. (2007). Consumer reaction to product recalls: Factors influencing product judgement and behavioural intentions. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 31(1), 109–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ettenson, R., & Gaeth, G. (1991). Consumer perceptions of hybrid (bi-national) products. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 8(4), 13–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. European Commission. (2005, October). The European consumers’ attitudes regarding product labelling -qualitative study in 28 European countries. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/topics/labelling_report_en.pdf.
  18. Folkes, V. S. (1988). Recent attribution research in consumer behaviour: A review and new directions. Journal of Consumer Research, 14(4), 548–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Folkes, V. S., & Kostos, B. (1986). Buyers and sellers’ explanation for product failure: Who done it? Journal of Marketing, 50(April), 74–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gibson, D. (1995). Public relations considerations of consumer product recall. Public Relations Review, 21(3), 225–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gilbert, D. T., & Malone, P. S. (1995). The correspondence bias. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 21–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Grewal, D., Roggeveen, A. L., & Tsiros, M. (2008). The effect of compensation on repurchase intentions in service recovery. Journal of Retailing, 84, 424–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ha, Y.-W., & Hoch, S. J. (1989). Ambiguity processing strategy, and advertising-evidence interactions. Journal of Consumer Research, 16(3), 354–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Heslop, L. A., & Papadopoulos, N. (1993). But who knows where or when? Reflections on the images of countries and their products. In N. Papadopoulos & L. A. Heslop (Eds.), Product-country images: Impact and role in international marketing (pp. 39–75). New York: International Business Press.Google Scholar
  25. Hoch, S. J., & Deighton, J. (1989). ‘Managing what consumers learn from experience. Journal of Marketing’, 53(2), 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hong, S.-T., & Wyer, R. S, Jr. (1989). Effects of country-of-origin and product attribute information on product evaluation: An information processing perspective. Journal of Consumer Research, 16(2), 175–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ichheiser, G. (1943). Misinterpretations of personality in everyday life and psychologist’s frame of reference. Character and Personality, 12(2), 145–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ichheiser, G. (1949). Misunderstandings in human relations: A study in false social perception. American Journal of Sociology, 55(2), 1–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Insch, G. S., & McBride, J. B. (2004). The impact of country-of-origin cues on consumer perceptions of product quality: A binational test of the decomposed country-of-origin construct. Journal of Business Research, 57(3), 256–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Jaffe, E. D., & Nebenzahl, I. D. (2001). National image and competitive advantage: The theory and practice of country-of-origin effect. Copenhagen: Copenhagen Business School Press.Google Scholar
  31. Jones, E. E., & Harris, V. A. (1967). The attribution of attitudes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 3(1), 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kelley, H. H. (1972). Attribution in social interaction. In E. E. Jones, D. E. Kanouse, H. H. Kelley, R. E. Nisbett, S. Valins, & B. Weiner (Eds.), Attribution: Perceiving the causes of behaviour (pp. 1–26). Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.Google Scholar
  33. Kelley, H. H., & Michela, J. L. (1980). Attribution theory and research. Annual Review of Psychology, 31, 457–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Laufer, D. (2012). How should a global brand manager respond to an ambiguous product harm crisis? Advances in International Marketing, 23, 91–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Laufer, D., & Coombs, W. T. (2006). How should a company respond to a product harm crisis? The role of corporate reputation and consumer-based cues. Business Horizons, 49, 379–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Laufer, D., & Gillespie, K. (2004). Differences in consumer attributions of blame between men and women: The role of perceived vulnerability and empathic concern. Psychology & Marketing, 21(2), 141–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Laufer, D., Gillespie, K., McBride, B., & Gonzalez, S. (2005a). The role of severity in consumer attributions of blame: Defensive attributions in product–harm crises in Mexico. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 17(3), 33–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Laufer, D., Gillespie, K., & Silvera, D. H. (2009). The role of country of manufacture in consumer’s attributions of blame in an ambiguous product–harm crisis. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 21(3), 189–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Laufer, D., & Jung, J. M. (2010). Incorporating regulatory focus theory in product recall communications to increase compliance with a product recall. Public Relations Review, 36, 147–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Laufer, D., Silvera, D. H., & Meyer, T. (2005b). Exploring differences between older and younger consumers in attributions of blame for product harm crises. Academy of Marketing Science Review, 7, 1–21.Google Scholar
  41. Li, Z. G., Murray, L. W., & Scott, D. (2000). Global sourcing, multiple country-of-origin facets, and consumer reactions. Journal of Business Research, 47(2), 121–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lieberman, M. D., Gaunt, R., Gilbert, D. T., & Trope, Y. (2002). Reflection and reflexion: A social cognitive neuroscience approach to attributional inferences. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 34, pp. 199–249). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  43. Lu, X. (2009). A Chinese perspective: Business ethics in China now and in the future. Journal of Business Ethics, 86(4), 451–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Marcus, A. A., & Goodman, R. S. (1991). Victims and Shareholders: The dilemmas of presenting corporate policy during a crisis. Academy of Management Journal, 34(2), 281–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Martin, A. (2011). BP mostly, but not entirely, to blame for Gulf oil spill. The Wire. Sep 14. Retrieved April 19, 2014, from, http://www.thewire.com/national/2011/09/bp-mostly-not-entirely-blame-gulf-spill/42470/.
  46. Miller, D. T., & Turnbull, W. (1986). Expectancies and interpersonal processes. Annual Review of Psychology, 37, 233–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Noggle, R., & Palmer, D. E. (2005). Radials, rollovers and responsibility: An examination of the ford-firestone case. Journal of Business Ethics, 56(2), 185–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. O’Malley, J. (1996). Consumer attribution of product failures to channel members. Advances of Consumer Research, 23, 342–345.Google Scholar
  49. Papadapoulos, N., & Heslop, L. A. (1993). Product and country images-research and strategy. New York: The Haworth Press.Google Scholar
  50. Pappu, R., Quester, P. G., & Cooksey, R. W. (2006). Consumer-based brand equity and country of origin relationships. European Journal of Marketing, 40(5/6), 696–716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Pyszczynski, T. A., & Greenberg, J. (1981). Role of disconfirmed expectancies in the instigation of attributional processing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40(July), 31–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Rao, A. R., & Monroe, K. B. (1989). The effect of price, brand name, and store name on buyers’ perceptions of product quality: An integrative review. Journal of Marketing Research, 26(3), 351–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Rhee, M., & Haunschild, P. R. (2006). The liability of a good reputation: A study of product recalls in the US automotive industry. Organization Science, 17(1), 101–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Richins, M. L. (1983). Negative word of mouth by dissatisfied consumers: A pilot study. Journal of Marketing, 47, 68–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Ross, L. D. (1977). The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings: Distortions in the attribution process. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 10). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  56. Roth, K. P., & Diamantopoulos, A. (2009). Advancing the country image construct. Journal of Business Research, 62(7), 726–740.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Roth, M. S., & Romeo, J. B. (1992). Matching product category and country image perceptions: A framework for managing country-of-origin effects. Journal of International Business Studies, 23(3), 477–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Siomkos, G. J., & Kurzbard, G. (1994). The hidden crisis in product–harm crisis management. European Journal of Marketing, 28(2), 30–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Somasundaram, T. N. (1993). Consumers reaction to product failure: Impact of product involvement and knowledge. Advances in Consumer Research, 20, 215–218.Google Scholar
  60. Stokes, R. C. (1985). The effects of price, package design, and brand familiarity on perceived quality. In J. Jacoby & J. C. Olson (Eds.), Perceived quality: How consumers view stores and merchandise (pp. 233–246). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  61. Teas, R. K., & Agrawal, S. (2000). The effects of extrinsic product cues on consumers’ perceptions of quality, sacrifice, and value. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28(2), 278–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Todd, B. (2010). U.S. official: Toyota pressured into recall. CNN. http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/02/02/lahood.toyota.recall/. Accessed 15 April 2014.
  63. Woellert, L. (2007). Made in China. Sued here. Business Week, 16, 9.Google Scholar
  64. Yoon, S. (2013). Do negative consumption experiences hurt manufacturers or retailers? The influence of reasoning style on consumer blame attributions and purchase intentions. Psychology and Marketing, 30(7), 555–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sergio W. Carvalho
    • 1
  • Etayankara Muralidharan
    • 2
  • Hari Bapuji
    • 3
  1. 1.Rowe School of Business, Faculty of ManagementDalhousie UniversityHalifaxCanada
  2. 2.MacEwan University School of BusinessGrant MacEwan UniversityEdmontonCanada
  3. 3.Asper School of BusinessUniversity of ManitobaWinnipegCanada

Personalised recommendations