Strong Reciprocity in Consumer Boycotts
- 760 Downloads
Boycotts are among the most frequent forms of consumer expression against unethical or egregious acts by firms. Most current research explains consumers’ decisions to participate in a boycott using a universal cost-benefit model that mixes instrumental and expressive motives. To date, no conceptual framework accounts for the distinct behavioral motives for boycotting though. This article focuses on motivational heterogeneity among consumers. By distinguishing two stable behavioral models—a self-regarding type and a strongly reciprocal type—we introduce the notion of strong reciprocity to the boycott literature. We argue that the presence of strongly reciprocal consumers can enhance boycott success. First, in interactions with the target firm, strongly reciprocal consumers perceive higher levels of egregiousness and are more willing to engage in boycotting behavior, even in unfavorable strategic conditions, which provides a stable basis for boycotting. Second, in interactions with self-regarding consumers, strongly reciprocal consumers are willing to sanction those others, according to whether they participate in the boycott, which increases overall participation in and the likelihood of success of a consumer boycott. These findings have implications for further research, as well as for firms, nongovernmental organizations, and boycotters.
KeywordsConsumer boycotts Strong reciprocity Behavioral motives Motivational heterogeneity
We would like to thank the Section Editor, Scott Vitell, for his guidance throughout the revision process as well as two anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments and suggestions. We are also grateful to Flore Bridoux, Frank Figge, and Christophe Faugere as well as to the participants of the 3rd GRONEN Reading Group Session in Rotterdam, of the ISM Research Seminar at Amsterdam Business School and of the CSR Research Seminar at KEDGE Business School whose comments and suggestions have greatly helped to improve our work.
- Axelrod, R. (1984). The evolution of cooperation. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
- Bowles, S., & Gintis, H. (2000). Reciprocity, self-interest, and the welfare state. Nordic Journal of Political Economy, 26(1), 33–53.Google Scholar
- Bridoux, F., Coeurderoy, R., & Durand, R. (2011). Heterogeneous motives and the collective creation of value. Academy of Management Review, 36(4), 711–730.Google Scholar
- Camerer, C. F., & Fehr, E. (2002). Measuring social norms and preferences using experimental games: A guide for social scientists (Working Paper No. 97). Zürich: University of Zürich.Google Scholar
- Chaudhari, A. (2011). Greenpeace, Nestlé and the palm oil controversy: Social media driving change?. Hyderabad: IBS Center for Management Research.Google Scholar
- Coleman, J. (1990). Foundations of social theory. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Dufwenberg, M., Gneezy, U., Güth, W., & van Damme, E. (2001). Direct versus indirect reciprocity: An experiment. In J. Frohn, W. Güth, H. Kliemt, & R. Selten (Eds.), Making choices I (pp. 19–30). Munich: Accedo.Google Scholar
- Fehr, E., & Schmidt, K. (2000b). Theories of fairness and reciprocity: Evidence and economic applications (Working Paper No. 75). Zurich: University of Zurich.Google Scholar
- Fox, E. (2010, 19 April 2010). Nestlé hit by Facebook “anti-social” media surge. The Guardian. http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/nestle-facebook.
- Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston, MA: Pitman.Google Scholar
- Friedman, M. (1999). Consumer boycotts: Effecting change through the marketplace and the media. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Frooman, J. (1999). Stakeholder influence strategy. Academy of Management Review, 24(2), 191–205.Google Scholar
- Hahn, T. (2004). Why and when companies contribute to societal goals: The effect of reciprocal stakeholder behavior. In Best paper proceedings of the 2004 Annual Conference of the Academy of Management. New Orleans, LA.Google Scholar
- Hahn, T. (2005). Gesellschaftliches Engagement von Unternehmen. Reziproke Stakeholder, ökonomische Anreize, strategische Gestaltungsoptionen (Corporate Societal Commitment: Reciprocal Stakeholders, Economic Incentives, Strategic Implications). Wiesbaden: Deutscher Universitäts-Verlag (German University Press).Google Scholar
- Harrison, R., Newholm, T., & Shaw, D. (2005). The ethical consumer. London: Sage.Google Scholar
- Hoffman, E., McCabe, K., & Smith, V. (1996). Social distance and other-regarding behavior in dictator games. American Economic Review, 86(3), 653–660.Google Scholar
- Klein, J. G., Smith, N. C., & John, A. (2002). Exploring motivations for participation in a consumer boycott. Advances in Consumer Research, 29(1), 363–369.Google Scholar
- Koku, P. S. (2011). On boycotts organized through the internet. Journal of Marketing Development & Competitiveness, 5(6), 83–93.Google Scholar
- Kozinets, R. V., & Handelman, J. (1998). Ensouling consumption: A netnographic exploration of the meaning of boycotting behavior. In J. W. Alba & J. W. Hutchinson (Eds.), Advances in consumer research (Vol. 25, pp. 475–480). Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research.Google Scholar
- Mahoney, J. (1976). The relation of anticipated effectiveness, alienation, and values structure to planned participation in a national meat boycott. Psychology: A Journal of Human Behavior, 13(2), 39–47.Google Scholar
- Olson, M. (1965). The logic of collective action: Public goods and the theory of groups. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Rabin, M. (1993). Incorporating fairness into game theory and economics. American Economic Review, 81(5), 1281–1302.Google Scholar
- Roth, A. (1995). Bargaining experiments. In J. Kagel & A. Roth (Eds.), The handbook of experimental economics (pp. 253–348). Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
- Rowley, T., & Moldoveanu, M. (2003). When will stakeholder groups act? An interest- and identity-based model stakeholder group mobilization. Academy of Management Review, 28(2), 204–219.Google Scholar
- Sobel, J. (2001). Interdependent preferences and reciprocity. San Diego: University of California.Google Scholar
- Varney, R. J. (2002). Marketing communication: Principles and practice. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Werner, S., & Mero, N. P. (1999). Fair or foul? The effects of external, internal, and employee equity on changes in performance of major league baseball players. Human Relations, 52(10), 1291–1311.Google Scholar
- York, E. B. (2010, 19 April 2010). Nestle to facebook fans: Consider Yourself Embraced. Advertising Age. http://adage.com/article/adages/nestle-facebook-fans-embraced/142881/.