From Absolution to Action
Examining Americans’ Reactions to High‐Profile Corporate Scandals
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 21739482 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Meaghan L Guckian (0000-0002-0937-2922, Antioch University, corresponding author), Daniel A Chapman (0000-0001-9895-9284, Yale University), Brian Lickel (University of Massachusetts), Ezra M Markowitz (0000-0002-8140-2970, University of Massachusetts) |
| Year | 2020 |
| Volume | 20 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 166-194 |
| Publication date | 2020-12-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1529-7489 • E-ISSN: 1530-2415 |
| Publisher | Wiley (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1111/asap.12196 |
| OpenAlex | W3006624811 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 3 |
| References cited | 57 |
When corporations behave inappropriately, for example, by intentionally circumventing emissions regulation or jacking up the price of a life‐saving drug, assessing and assigning culpability is both natural and necessary. Such ascriptions of blame influence how consumers perceive and engage with corporations in the wake of misconduct. In a nationally representative sample of American adults, we examined how people's mental models of corporate wrongdoing influenced their awareness of and responses to a series of corporate scandals that broke between 2015 and 2017. Using a mixed effects modeling approach addressing both individual and scandal‐level variability, our results revealed that subscribing to the belief that corporate scandals are the product of the corporate culture (as opposed to the actions of a “few bad apples” within an organization) amplified people's awareness of, degree of concern about, and the probability of having taken action against transgressing corporations. The findings presented here highlight the importance of exploring consumers’ complex responses to corporate scandals, particularly for regulators and consumer advocates interested in leveraging public outcry to hold corporations responsible
Blame · Business · Corporate action · Corporate crime · Corporate governance · Criminology · Culpability · Economics · Law and economics · Misconduct · Political science · Public relations · Wrongdoing · Corporate Social Responsibility Reporting · Ethics in Business and Education · Law · Psychology · Psychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment · Social Psychology
Data Analysis Using Regression and Multilevel/Hierarchical Models
Customer betrayal and retaliation
How do the news media frame crises? A content analysis of crisis news coverage
Impact of Product-Harm Crises on Brand Equity
Ethical Decision Making by Individuals in Organizations
Consumer response to corporate irresponsible behavior
Does Doing Good Always Lead to Doing Better? Consumer Reactions to Corporate Social Responsibility
How corporate social responsibility is defined
Protecting Organization Reputations During a Crisis
When Customer Love Turns into Lasting Hate
The fallacy of placing confidence in confidence intervals
The impact of perceived corporate social responsibility on consumer behavior
Corporate social responsibility and consumers' attributions and brand evaluations in a product–harm crisis
A Theory of Blame
AIC model selection using Akaike weights
The Prior Can Often Only Be Understood in the Context of the Likelihood
Ordinal Regression Models in Psychology
An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion.
The psychology of interpersonal relations.
A Corporate Scandal that Hits Close to Home
The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks
Recent Attribution Research in Consumer Behavior
A category system for account phases
The Deviant Organization and the Bad Apple CEO
Media Coverage of Chemical Crimes, Hillsborough County, Florida, 1987-97
Assessing Newspaper Coverage of Corporate Violence
Accounts
A Field Study of Causal Inferences and Consumer Reaction
A Coal in the Heart
When Good Brands Do Bad
| Unique citing works | 3 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 0,5 |
| Citation span | 2020 - 2026 (7) |
| Citation velocity | current |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 3 |