The boycott model of foreign product purchase: an empirical test in China

Abstract

PurposeThe primary purpose of this paper is to investigate and ascertain the effects of integrative motivation on the willingness to participate in boycott activities.Design/methodology/approachThis paper uses a mail survey to examine the relationships among six constructs in a boycotting issue context, in order to explore Chinese consumers' willingness to boycott against Japanese products or services with the fallout from a Japanese former PM's continuous visits to a controversial war shrine since 2001.FindingsThe findings suggest that there are significant and positive pairwise relationships between boycott participation and three factors (i.e. animosity, efficacy, and prior purchase). High animosity towards Japanese goods and the other two constructs, at the high end of the attitude spectrum, increase the level of willingness to engage in consumer boycott practices.Practical implicationsConsumer boycotts are a worldwide and historic phenomenon in modern society. As the number of protests grows and as local authorities recognize the economic and political impact of such activities, then multinational companies (MNCs) and host countries begin to see the historic and cultural perspective of these events in addition to the conventional consumer behaviour perspective. To enable boycotting to become less harmful, MNC management need to understand what makes local consumers so affronted. The results of the evaluation can potentially be generalized towards a strategic analysis of the boycott model in other hostile market situations.Originality/valueThe findings of this paper offer pivotal implications for decision makers and the management of those Western multinational enterprises who are concerned with increasing their share of the world's largest consumer market. In particular, Japanese MNCs need to pay much more attention to the oppressed and potentially explosive emotion of animosity as the legacy of past conflicts (i.e. war, economic, political, etc.) between Japan and China.

To purchase or not to purchase US products: role of religiosity, animosity, and ethno-centrism among Malaysian consumers

“…ethnocentric tendencies and religiosity play a significant role in influencing animosity (Billiet, 1995;Karanovic et al, 2005) and between the two, ethnocentric tendencies influence more; and . animosity and product judgment play a significant role in influencing purchase behavior (Nijssen et al, 1999;Smith and Li, 2010) and between the two, product judgment influences more.…”

“…A study by Ettenson and Klein (2005) indicate that product judgment is predictive of prior purchase behavior(s). However, a recent study by Smith and Li (2010) on the boycott of Japanese products by Chinese consumers has shown that product judgment is linked to willingness to participate in product boycotts (purchase behavior). Based on these arguments, we hypothesize that:…”

“…Consumers may have a feeling of hostility or animosity towards certain countries resulting in boycotting their products and services (Klein et al, 1998;Smith and Li, 2010). According to AlShebil et al (2011), consumer boycotts are increasingly being used by various activist and religious groups to punish targeted countries.…”

Do political tensions take a toll? The effect of the Sino-Japan relationship on sales of Japanese-brand cars in China

“…A number of studies have demonstrated that consumer animosity can directly influence consumers' willingness to buy (Witkowski, 2000;Hinck, 2005;Shoham et al, 2006;Ishii, 2009), or willingness to boycott (Nijssen and Douglas, 2004;Smith and Li, 2010). Some studies of consumer animosity have examined changes in animosity over time and discriminated between stable animosity and situational animosity (Jung et al, 2002).…”

Brand Avoidance: Relations Between Brand-related Stimuli and Negative Emotions

“…Anti-consumption has been studied from many di erent perspectives and can take a lot of various forms (Iyer & Muncy, 2009;Zavestoski, 2002), such as boyco s (Albrecht et al, 2013;Farah & Newman, 2010;Friedman, 1985;John & Klein, 2003;Klein et al, 2004;Mrad et al, 2013;Smith & Li, 2010;Yuksel & Mryteza, 2009), ethical consumption (Carrigan & A alla, 2001; Ho mann & Hu er, 2012), brand avoidance (Kim et al, 2013;Lee et al, 2009a;Lee et al, 2009b;Rindell et al, 2013;ompson et al, 2006), voluntary simpli cation (Cherrier, 2009), brand rejection (Nenycziel & Romaniuk, 2011;Sandikci & Ekici, 2009;Truong et al, 2011), consumer resistance (Lee et al, 2011), anti-branding (Krishnamurthy & Kucuk, 2009), sharing (Ozanne & Ballantine, 2010), anti-consumption motivated by undesired-self and image congruency (Banister & Hogg, 2004;Englis & Solomon 1995;1997;Hogg et al, 2009;Sirgy, 1982). Some of these forms are more active, aggressive, and publicly noticeable while others are more passive and less noticeable.…”