This study aims to identify the factors responsible for creating brand trust and brand distrust among consumers. It uses a grounded theory approach to guide the conduct and analysis of 20 semistructured interviews that yielded 120 descriptions of consumer-brand interactions. The 3-stage model that emerged shows a process whereby consumers prioritize product/service quality information and subsequently consider how the company behind the brand behaves toward consumers in the name of the brand, specifically behaviors signalling its integrity and benevolence. Finally, consumers consider characteristics of the company behind the brand (e.g., its financial status) and how it behaves in its own name toward other stakeholder groups (e.g., employees). The process for distrust mirrors that for trust, implying that the two are polar opposites. The data also show that trust and distrust in a brand can coexist but within separate domains.

Ethical communication during crisis response is often assessed by external perceptions of the organization's intentions, rather than an assessment of the organization's communicative behaviors. This can easily lead researchers to draw editorial conclusions about an organization's ethics in crisis response rather than accurately describing its communicative behaviors. The case of BP's 2010 oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico provides a prime example for the importance of accurately assessing the ethical content of an organization's crisis response because the ethics of BP's response have been discussed in news and academic sources; yet little direct examination of the ethical content in BP's response has occurred. The findings have implications for communication ethics, social media engagement, and crisis communication more generally.

No abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to explain and better understand some of the challenges and even contradictions in relationships between CSR and stakeholder attitudes by comparing consumer and practitioner perspectives on social responsibility, its role in organisations and its influence on consumer attitudes towards companies. The objective is to understand and evaluate factors influencing the authenticity of social responsibility as a contributor to an organisation’s value proposition. Design/methodology/approach Focus groups of consumers and practitioners (N = 39) were asked to explore CSR in a semi-structured discussion. Themes were analysed using a constant comparative method. Findings These data suggest that rather than existing on a continuum of authenticity, there are clear paths emerging for CSR efforts to be deemed authentic versus inauthentic that can begin to better explain the often-contradictory findings with regard to consumer attitudes towards CSR and an organisation’s value proposition. Consumer efficacy to influence an organisation and localised CSR emerge as critical determinants for evaluations of CSR as authentic. Further, these data also suggest practitioners may not understand consumer motivations and attitudes about CSR. Originality/value These data provide new insights into evaluations of CSR to explain when and why it can fail to meet its objectives. Ultimately, these data produce testable models for authentic (i.e. motivator) and inauthentic (hygiene) consumer judgements about CSR and draw implications for CSR leadership, learning and management.

While on-going COVID-19 pandemic has brought increased discrimination, stigma, and racism toward individuals of Asian descent, little research has concentrated on public perceptions regarding who is to blame for the spread of the virus. This study extends integrated threat theory and attribution theory by examining the extent to which prejudice against Asians is related to blame attribution in New Zealand. The paper employs a mixedmethod approach, including a series of measures analysed quantitatively and two additional open-ended questions analysed qualitatively. The findings suggest that to understand public stigma in ambiguous crises/events, it is significant to look beyond theoretic frameworks. Particularly, this research provides better understanding of how blame attribution has developed and linked with threats in the pandemic. First, fear of contact with COVID-19 is positively related to symbolic and realistic threats. Second, the more people believe COVID-19 is a public health risk, the more symbolic and realistic threats they have. Third, realistic threat is linked to blame attribution.