Marketing Letters

, Volume 28, Issue 2, pp 219–230 | Cite as

When do unethical brand perceptions spill over to competitors?

  • Rebecca K. TrumpEmail author
  • Kevin P. Newman


We examine whether the unethical actions of marketplace brands (e.g., the Volkswagen emissions scandal) hurt the ethical perceptions of competing brands (e.g., Ford, BMW). Across two studies, we find evidence for this unethical spillover effect and show that it can negatively affect consumers’ liking and purchase intentions for a competing brand. The results show that the spillover effect (1) only occurs for similar competitors and (2) is moderated by construal level (CL). Specifically, the spillover effect is more likely to occur when consumers focus on the finer details of the unethical brand’s transgression (i.e., low CL) but not when they focus on the bigger picture of the transgression (i.e., high CL). Thus, while it is intuitively appealing to assume that brands may benefit from a competitor’s foible, this research indicates that competitors may be hurt by a similar brand’s wrongdoing.


Branding Ethics Transgression Spillover Construal level 



This research was supported by a summer research grant from the Sellinger School of Business and Management at Loyola University Maryland and a summer research grant from the School of Business at Providence College. The authors thank Scott Wright for his thoughtful comments.


  1. Agerström, J., & Björklund, F. (2009). Moral concerns are greater for temporally distant events and are moderated by value strength. Social Cognition, 27(2), 261–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aron, A., Aron, E. N., & Smollan, D. (1992). Inclusion of other in the self scale and the structure of interpersonal closeness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(4), 596–612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Autolist. (2016). The people vs. VW. Retrieved May 18, 2016, from
  5. Bergkvist, L. (2015). Appropriate use of single-item measures is here to stay. Marketing Letters, 26(3), 245–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bergkvist, L., & Rossiter, J. R. (2007). The predictive validity of multiple-item versus single-item measures of the same constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 44(2), 175–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Borah, A., & Tellis, G. J. (2016). Halo (spillover) effects in social media: do product recalls of one brand hurt or help rival brands? Journal of Marketing Research, 53(2), 143–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brinol, P., Rucker, D. D., Tormala, Z. L., & Petty, R. E. (2004). Individual differences in resistance to persuasion: the role of beliefs and meta-beliefs. In E. S. Knowles & J. A. Linn (Eds.), Resistance and persuasion (pp. 83–104). Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  9. Brunk, K. H. (2012). Un/ethical company and brand perceptions: conceptualising and operationalising consumer meanings. Journal of Business Ethics, 111(4), 551–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Clinch, M. (2015). Europe’s carmakers caught up in VW storm. CNBC. Retrieved May 16, 2016, from
  11. Creyer, E. H., & Ross, W. T., Jr. (1996). The impact of corporate behavior on perceived product value. Marketing Letters, 7(2), 173–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Eyal, T., Liberman, N., & Trope, Y. (2008). Judging near and distant virtue and vice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44(4), 1204–1209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fujita, K., Trope, Y., Liberman, N., & Levin-Sagi, M. (2006). Construal levels and self-control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(3), 351–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gong, H., & Medin, D. L. (2012). Construal levels and moral judgment: some complications. Judgment and Decision Making, 7(5), 628–638.Google Scholar
  16. Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: a regression-based approach. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  17. Hong, J., & Lee, A. Y. (2010). Feeling mixed but not torn: the moderating role of construal level in mixed emotions appeals. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(3), 456–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Janakiraman, R., Sismeiro, C., & Dutta, S. (2009). Perception spillovers across competing brands: a disaggregate model of how and when. Journal of Marketing Research, 46(4), 467–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Klein, J., & Dawar, N. (2004). Corporate social responsibility and consumers’ attributions and brand evaluations in a product–harm crisis. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 21(3), 203–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lammers, J. (2012). Abstraction increases hypocrisy. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(2), 475–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Magnusson, P., Krishnan, V., Westjohn, S. A., & Zdravkovic, S. (2014). The spillover effects of prototype brand transgressions on country image and related brands. Journal of International Marketing, 22(1), 21–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Matthews, C., & Gandel, S. (2015). The 5 biggest corporate scandals of 2015. Fortune. Retrieved April 18, 2016, from
  23. Nenkov, G. Y. (2012). It’s all in the mindset: effects of varying psychological distance in persuasive messages. Marketing Letters, 23(3), 615–628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Roehm, M. L., & Tybout, A. M. (2006). When will a brand scandal spillover, and how should competitors respond? Journal of Marketing Research, 43(3), 366–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Schultz, E. J. (2015). Volkswagen brand takes image hit as emission scandal grows. Advertising Age. Retrieved May 16, 2016, from
  26. Septianto, F., & Pratiwi, L. (2016). The moderating role of construal level on the evaluation of emotional appeal vs. cognitive appeal advertisements. Marketing Letters, 27(1), 171–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Shing, E. (2015). Volkswagen emissions scandal is a boom for the BMW investor. International Business Times. Retrieved May 17, 2016, from
  28. Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2003). Temporal construal. Psychological Review, 110(3), 403–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2010). Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychological Review, 117(2), 440–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Trump, R. K., Connell, P. M., & Finkelstein, S. R. (2015). Dissociation from beloved unhealthy brands decreases preference for and consumption of vegetables. Appetite, 92, 192–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Vanhamme, J., Swaen, V., Berens, G., & Janssen, C. (2015). Playing with fire: aggravating and buffering effects of ex ante CSR communication campaigns for companies facing allegations of social irresponsibility. Marketing Letters, 26(4), 565–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Williams, C. (2015). Ford to benefit from VW scandal, says chairman. The Telegraph. Retrieved May 16, 2016, from
  34. Wright, S., Manolis, C., Brown, D., Guo, X., Dinsmore, J., Chiu, C. Y. P., & Kardes, F. R. (2012). Construal-level mind-sets and the perceived validity of marketing claims. Marketing Letters, 23(1), 253–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Sellinger School of Business and ManagementLoyola University MarylandBaltimoreUSA
  2. 2.School of BusinessProvidence CollegeProvidenceUSA

Personalised recommendations