Exploring consumers’ attitude formation toward their own brands when in crisis: cross-national comparisons between USA and China

Abstract

Purpose This study aims to examine how culture influences consumer attitudes toward the brands of products they own during a product-harm crisis. To this end, average consumers from two countries - the USA, representing a highly individualistic society and China, a less individualistic (i.e. collectivist) society – are compared. Design/methodology/approach The study conducts an invariance test of the measurement model for a more rigorous comparison of the two countries. Structural equation modeling is performed to identify how average consumers respond to a product-harm crisis (e.g. iPhone explosion) based on survey results of 188 American and 197 Chinese consumers. Findings These results reveal that in both countries, an individual’s susceptibility to a normative interpersonal influence determines their brand consciousness, which, in turn, enhances consumer attachment to well-known brands, resulting in favorable brand attitudes. During a brand crisis, an owned brand’s buffering effect is observed among consumers high in brand consciousness in collectivistic but not in individualistic societies. The moderating role of feelings of betrayal on the brand attachment-consumer attitude relationship is also reported. Originality/value Culture shapes consumer behavioral patterns. In today’s global market, a company’s decisions are no longer limited by borders and many companies experience product failures. Thus, findings that show consumers’ distinguishable psychological experiences between different cultures contribute to crisis management literature.

Will consumers give us another chance to bounce back? Effects of precrisis commitments to social and product responsibility on brand resilience

“…In contrast, a values crisis refers to a brand’s involvement in environmental, social or ethical issues that challenge its ability to deliver symbolic benefits. Given the rise of unpredictable and multifaceted issues in the global marketplace, effective brand crisis management has become increasingly critical (Kim and Yim, 2022; Pearson and Mitroff, 2019). Despite the frequency of such brand crises and their potentially catastrophic consequences, research in this area remains relatively fragmented (Baghi and Gabrielli, 2019; Gkouna et al , 2022; Kuipers and Wolbers, 2021; Pyke et al , 2021).…”

Do Americans seek pleasure while Chinese care about others’ approval? Examining stereotypical utilities positioning in brand choice contexts

“…To sum up, even though culture is known to shape a person’s values, utility importance and preferences (De Mooij, 2019; Kim and Yim, 2021), we revealed that in the brand selection context, which is more cognitively demanding than single choice evaluation, the internal process of brand choice seems to be similar across cultures.…”

“…The literature on consumer behavior has long documented cultural differences in perceptions, attitudes and purchasing decisions (De Mooij, 2019; Kim and Yim, 2021 Oh et al .,2020; Swoboda and Sinning, 2020).…”

Do products branded with handwritten scripts suffer more amid product-harm crises?

“…Second, enterprises can lose consumers because of low perceived value and the loss of reputation brought about by product-harm crises (Kim and Yim, 2021; Zhang and Zhou, 2020). Approaches for managing such crises have been suggested, such as: resolute denial, forcible recalls or active recalls (Siomkos and Kurzbard, 1994; Lee, 2020; Yuan et al , 2020).…”

“…In other words, consumers try to determine why the product has failed and the reason they infer affects their attitudes and behavior toward the brand. When the crisis is determined to be intentional, consumers are more willing to complain and their evaluation of the brand deteriorates (Kim and Yim, 2021; Moisio et al , 2021), whereas when the crisis is deemed to be accidental, consumers are more inclined to be forgiving (Puzakova et al , 2013; Srinivasan and Sarial-Abi, 2021).…”