The Role of Corporate Associations Following a Crisis:
How company evaluations mediate their effect on loyalty, and
the role of moral identity and involvement on these.
Smilla Balletto, 11132531
Supervisor: Anke Wonneberger Master’s Thesis
February 3rd, 2017
Graduate School of Communication
Master’s Programme Communication Science
Abstract
In the midst of a business environment marked by a growing amount of corporate scandals, it is crucial to understand which elements ensure a successful recovery. A strong indicator for this lies within a firm’s reputation, which can be understood as a distinct set of corporate associations. By acknowledging the multi-faceted nature of corporate reputation, this paper aims to reveal the extent to which this can predict the outcome of loyalty. Corporate associations typically include attributes of corporate ability (CA) and corporate social responsibility (CSR), but this study proposes an additional set of associations recognizing consumers’ awareness of scandals: corporate scandal management (CSM). Previous theory suggests that the influence of corporate associations on loyalty is not as straightforward, hence the inclusion of company evaluations as a mediator. By their very nature, however, evaluations are prone to individual characteristics. The moderators of moral identity and involvement were included in the conceptual model. To test it, a survey research was carried out, and several multiple regression analysis were carried out using the PROCESS macro for SPSS. The findings suggest that corporate reputation is strongly beneficial for large firms following the consequences of an organizational crisis. Moral identity revealed an interesting sub-finding, which is promising for future research. All in all, is seems as though the influence of corporate associations is mainly seen on consumer behavioral outcomes rather than the proposed cognitive influences of this paper.
Key words: Corporate reputation, corporate associations, consumer loyalty, moral identity,
Table of Contents
Introduction ...1 Theoretical Framework ...3 The Duality of Corporate Reputation in Times of Crisis 3 Corporate Associations’ Influence on Consumer Loyalty Through Company Evaluations 5 The Moderating Role of Individual Characteristics on Company Evaluations 9 Method ...13
Sample 13
Procedure 13
Measures 14
Results ...18
Testing the Main Effects 18
Testing the Mediations 21
Testing the Moderations 24
Discussion and Conclusion ...28
Additional Findings and Limitations 30
Implications for Future Research 33
References ...34 Appendix - Survey Questionnaire ...38
Introduction
Over the years, there has been an exponential growth in unethical behaviors by large corporations. From BP’s oil spill (2010), Bangladesh’s factory collapse (2013), Volkswagen’s emission fraud (2015), and the many others, organizations have been under particular scrutiny for their actions.
The rising awareness of business actions has been met with an increased attention towards corporate social responsibility (CSR), both by companies and their stakeholders (Korinek & Maloney, 2010). This heightened external pressure for transparent and ethical behavior by businesses has led to changes not only in expectations for such behavior, but also corporations’ accentuated efforts to meet those standards (Kendall, Gill & Cheney, 2007). Kytle and Ruggie (2005) argue that a large portion of consumers’ empowerment in creating these pressures is a result of new CTs, which have strongly altered the ways information flows between firms and their stakeholders. Consequently, this changed information environment is one that has expanded consumers’ cognitive repertoire. People are more conscious — and accepting — of the reputation-enhancing purpose of CSR rather than solely its social purposes.
This perspective can extend on an earlier conception that understands CSR as only one of the many elements belonging to an individual’s frame of reference regarding a company. These “elements” are referred to as corporate associations, and can be broadly defined as any information consumers attribute to an organization which shapes their judgments and responses towards it (Brown & Dacin, 1997). A large amount of literature has linked the concepts of corporate reputation to corporate associations (Brown & Dacin, 1997; Pérez, del Mar García de los Salmones & Rodríguez del Bosque., 2013). Because of the many organizational outcomes
that follow a strong reputation, it is conducive for research to study it as a set of multiple, distinct, corporate associations.
Of these outcomes, one of the most sought after is that of establishing and maintaining loyal relationships with customers (Nguyen & Leblanc, 2001). Given the context of corporate scandals, consumer loyalty is even more apparent as it is a crucial period in which a company’s reputation is both at stake and put to test. The units of analysis for this study are large companies that have (1) established reputations and (2) experienced a large corporate scandal(s), whilst remaining at the top of their business sectors. Here, the tensions between the good name of these organizations and the perceived gravity of the scandals are expected to answer the following question: to what extent do the various reputational aspects of a company predict the impact of a
large-scale corporate scandal, to the point of maintaining loyal relationships to its consumers?
Because corporate associations have been shown to be indirectly linked to loyalty (Nguyen & Leblanc, 2001), this study will test a possible mediator to this relationship. Reputational elements, especially CSR, already have a pre-established influence on individuals’ evaluations of a company (Brown & Dacin, 1997; Sen & Bhattacharya, 2001). If individuals evaluate a company positively even after exposure to a corporate scandal, a simple yet logical assumption is that they should exhibit some degree of loyalty towards it. The influence of corporate associations on loyalty is thus argued to be mediated by company evaluations. More specifically, the associations used in this study will be perceptions of corporate ability (CA), CSR, and corporate scandal management (CSM). However, the conditions under which these lead to different outcomes can vary. Due to their very nature, their relevance fluctuates among individuals depending on personal characteristics. This paper argues that different degrees of (1)
moral identity and (2) involvement to the product category will reveal differences in what an individual deems to be important issues, thus impacting their evaluations.
To conclude, this paper aims to look beyond the financial value that can be gained from a good corporate reputation, and understand how CSR, quality of goods, and scandal recovery management play a role in consumers’ behavioral intentions following a large-scale crisis. The conceptual model should direct research towards new discussion concerning the organizational “mix” that influences individuals’ tolerance threshold to large organizational crises.
Theoretical Framework
In this section, the theoretical rationale for this research will be discussed. First, empirical research on corporate reputation and corporate associations will be introduced in the context of organizational crises. This will then lead to the mediating role of positive company evaluations on consumer loyalty. At last, the constructs of moral identity and involvement will be included as moderators to the overall theoretical model of this study.
The Duality of Corporate Reputation in Times of Crisis
Times of crisis are among the few in which an organization’s reputation is directly put to test, and the following consequences can be detrimental to its survival (Pérez et al., 2013). In its broadest sense, organizational reputation reflects a firm’s collective representation of prior actions and the overall public perceptions of it (Du, Bhattacharya & Sen, 2010; Zavyalova, Pfarrer, Reger & Hubbard, 2016). It is understood to be an intangible resource that can lead to several advantages linked to improved performance (Nguyen & Leblanc, 2001). Whereas the notion of corporate reputation and its effects have long been attributed to economic profitability,
there is a growing understanding that it has even more valuable outcomes at the levels of consumer behavior. Among others, one of the most interesting consequences to a strong reputation is consumer loyalty (Morley, 2002). However, in the setting of reputation following a negative event (i.e. corporate scandals), it may act as a double-edged sword in which an organization will either benefit or suffer from having a reputable standing.
On one hand, a strong reputation can have a positive spillover during times of crisis (Sohn & Lariscy, 2012; Zavyalova et al., 2016). As a result of the favorable behavioral pattern set by the organization, stakeholders hold more tolerable reactions and less severe judgments than they would with an “unknown” company. The positive associations people hold consequentially act as a frame of reference when making sense of the situation. On the other hand, conflicting studies have shown the opposite to be true, and that the heightened expectations created by a high reputation may be met more negatively in times of crisis. Negative events become more salient and stand out from the norm of good behavior set by the organization, resulting in a violation of expectations to its stakeholders (Rhee & Haunschild, 2006; Zavyalova et al., 2016).
In the form of corporate scandals, these events often result in large amounts of negative information or publicity towards an organization. In these situations, corporate reputation not only acts as a determinant to assess the firm’s ability to provide a desired response and recover (Du, Bhattacharya & Sen, 2010), but also as a moderator of the damaging effect it may have on the firm itself (Sohn & Lariscy, 2012). In the complexity of the role of reputation alone, and even more so in times of crisis, it then seems shallow to treat it as merely a question of “good” or “bad” (Berens & Van Riel, 2004). Reputation, as experienced by consumers, can thus be
understood as a set of different associations that influence one’s judgment. In the context of corporate scandals, it can be expected that these associations will predict individuals’ evaluations of a company, and in turn influence their degrees of loyalty towards it.
Corporate Associations’ Influence on Consumer Loyalty Through Company Evaluations How a consumer evaluates a company or product is said to be influenced by the mental attributes they associate it to, called corporate associations (Brown & Dacin, 1997). These consist of all the pieces of information an individual has regarding an organization. With early roots in psychology, this construct has expanded onto marketing and corporate communication research under the categories of corporate image, corporate reputation, and corporate identity (Brown & Dacin, 1997; Dacin & Brown, 2002; Pérez et al., 2013). Corporate associations can be used to account for the multiple dimensions that make up a company’s reputation, and serve as a means to gain a deeper understanding of the afore mentioned duality of its effects. By studying it under the form distinct associations, one can expect to reveal which ones are present or not at the time of the evaluation. Therefore, the salience of a corporate association or lack thereof can be anticipated to be linked to an individual’s acceptance of a company following a scandal. Previous research has shown that corporate reputation tends to be strongly present during product evaluations (e.g. cars: Souiden, Kassim & Kong, 2006), in which case it could be assumed they are also present during company evaluations. All in all, the influence of corporate associations, or reputational aspects, on company evaluations is one that is expected to mediate the outcome of consumer loyalty.
Defining corporate associations. Despite the conceptual inconsistency about the scales measuring corporate associations, there is a common agreement that the main components of a good reputation are based on a firm’s ability to perform and its social presence (Brown & Dacin, 1997). This falls under two constructs: corporate social responsibility (CSR) and corporate ability (CA) associations (Berens & Van Riel, 2004, Riahi-Belkaou & Pavlik,1992). For the sake of this study, a third dimension was included to address the context of a firm’s scandal recovery and the perceived gravity of it. The management of such situations arguably becomes a present factor when assessing the overall firm, hence the inclusion of corporate scandal management (CSM) associations.
Corporate ability associations refer to an organization’s perceived ability to provide a product or service, as well as its success in doing so (Brown & Dacin, 1997). Aspects of CA are normally linked to quality, and can extend to technological innovation, research and development investment, customer service, and product range (Pérez et al., 2013; Dowling, 1986). High associations of a company’s CA in times of crisis have shown to account for less severe perceptions of the issue and the organization as a whole (Sohn & Lariscy, 2012). As such, it can be assumed that differences in perceived quality of products and services of a firm will make up an important part how a consumer will evaluate the company.
Secondly, the growing amount of corporate scandals surfacing periodically has led to a consumer society marked by an accentuated concern towards moral behavior (Skarmeas & Leonidou, 2013). With CSR being such a big part of doing business, it is now a crucial component of a firm’s reputation (Riahi-Belkaoui & Pavlik, 1992). CSR associations refer to the organization’s social character and participation in socially responsible initiatives, which can
target issues such as employee well-being or external charities (Brown & Dacin, 1997). Whereas CSR was traditionally thought to have a “halo” effect on corporate reputation, it is now met with more skepticism. Criticism about this corporate practice concerns the egoistic-driven nature of these initiatives, the lack of congruency to the firm culture, and a doubtfulness about the firm’s use of funds (Ellen, Webb & Mohr, 2006; Du, Bhattacharya & Sen, 2010; Skarmeas & Leonidou, 2013). It is still agreed, however, that when CSR is perceived as genuine and fitting to the organization, its positive effects remain. Similar to Marin, Ruiz and Rubio’s (2009) study, we can expect that the more consumers associate a company to its CSR practices, the better the company will be evaluated.
Lastly, this study proposes an additional set of associations that acknowledges consumers’ awareness of corporate scandals in the current business environment. CSM associations can be defined as an organization’s perceived crisis recovery, and the management of the situation. This concept was an adaptation of other corporate associations found in literature, namely “quality of goods” or “quality of management” (Dowling, 1986). It includes the extent to which individuals attribute the scandal to have been handled properly, the frequency of such events, and the perceived gravity in relation to other scandals. These could largely account for the effects of corporate reputation in times of crisis and highlight the outcome of consumer loyalty. On the other hand, it could also reveal whether such associations are even present in the minds of consumers, and what their influence is on company evaluations. To conclude, a similar tendency is expected revealing that people holding greater CSM associations will inherently have more positive evaluations of the company.
H1. The more (a) CA, (b) CSR, and (c) CSM associations an individual has about a company, the better he or she
evaluate it. —
One of the main theoretical premises of this study is that corporate reputation, or corporate associations, can lead to outcomes beyond monetary value. Among these lies consumer loyalty, and happens to be one of the most sought-out and challenging outcomes for managers to achieve. In a study conducted by Anisimova (2007), it was hypothesized that there would be a direct effect of corporate associations on consumer attitudinal and behavioral loyalty. The results, however, revealed that this effect was not as straightforward, and that corporate associations were only linked to behavioral loyalty. In the context of this paper, it is assumed that corporate associations are related to loyalty, but only through individual corporate evaluations. As shown in Nguyen and Leblanc’s (2001) study, consumer loyalty tends to be influenced by consumer perceptions of the organization. These findings prove that higher degrees of loyalty were associated with more favorable perceptions of the firm. As such, a direct effect is expected between company evaluations and consumer loyalty.
H2. The better an individual evaluates a company, the more likely he or she is to be loyal to it.
Moreover, it is understood that aspects other than the tangible products of a company, such as corporate associations, can influence consumer loyalty following a scandal as a clear consequence of positive company evaluations (Bhattacharya & Sen, 2003; Brown & Dacin, 1997; Marin et al., 2009). Therefore, company evaluations are anticipated to serve as a mediator to the link between corporate associations and consumer loyalty.
H3. The positive effect of corporate associations on loyalty is mediated by positive company evaluations.
Before this mediation can occur, however, there are a few intervening variables that need to be considered. The following section argues that company evaluations are dependent on individual characteristics. Relevant to the context of organizational crises, measures of moral character and involvement are expected to influence the evaluations.
The Moderating Role of Individual Characteristics on Company Evaluations
Brown (1998) predicted that the conditions under which corporate associations will be more influential on various outcome variables is broad, but important. In order to understand the process that eventually leads to consumer loyalty, the conditions under which corporate associations determine company evaluations need to be understood. More specifically, the influence of CSR, or perceptions of CSM, is largely dependent on the extent to which individuals deem these to be important matters. This surfaces the concepts of morality and sensitivity to such information, which may even act as boundary conditions.
Earlier psychological research argues that morality, or one’s perceptions of it, “may be the single most powerful determiner of concordance between moral judgment and conduct” (Damon, William & Hart, 1992, pp. 455). Central to understanding people’s reactivity to scandals, is the deontic justice theory (Folger, Cropanzano, & Goldman, 2005; Rupp, Shao, Thornton & Skarlicki, 2013). This theory states that individuals care for and react to this sort of intrusive information because it violates moral and ethical norms. The transgressor, in this case the event of the corporate scandal, is the agent perceived to behave in such a way that goes
against what is right (Folger et al., 2005). Usually seen as an abuse of power in the name of self-interest, it explains why topics such as deceptive CSR initiatives or unethical business behavior lead to strong reactions. To make a connection, this also coincides with the previously mentioned violation of expectations that a corporate scandal brings due to the growing assumption that ethical behavior from a large company is a requirement as opposed to an added benefit. The elevated expectations have led reputable firms to have a more pronounced responsibility in the eyes of the public (Sohn & Lariscy, 2012).
However, it is one-sided to assume that all individuals care for ethical and just treatment for all in the same fashion (Rupp et al., 2013). One way to account for this has been by introducing the construct of moral identity, which refers to the extent to which an individual feels that morality is central to their identity (Aquino & Reed, 2002). The concept of moral identity, in personnel psychology research, has been used as a moderating variable to the influence of CSR perceptions on job pursuit intentions (Rupp et al., 2013). In the context of this study, a consumer’s moral identity is expected to moderate the strength of the influence corporate associations have on their evaluations of the company. Following the same line of reasoning that Rupp et al. (2013) outline so clearly, we can assume that individuals with higher levels of morality will think more about CSR associations and their impact on company evaluations will be greater. This is because of the essence of CSR itself, which strongly revolves around questions of moral relevance. On the other hand, less reactance can be expected from people with lower levels of moral identity, to the point of no direct effect on consumers’ evaluations of the company being present.
A similar pattern is anticipated for individuals’ associations regarding the company’s scandal management, given that greater perceptions of CSM may seem more relevant for individuals with a higher moral identity. Because corporate scandals tend to revolve around disruptions of ethical boundaries, they align with the idea that people with lower moral identity will feel less (or neutral) emotions concerning the way the scandals were managed. Consequently, their company evaluations should be less influenced by associations of CSM than that of individuals with high moral identity.
H4. Individual’s moral identity moderates the effects of (a) CSR and (b) CSM association on their evaluations of the
company, such that the positive relationship between the associations and company evaluations is stronger among individuals with a high moral identity.
In addition to the individual levels of moral identity, several studies have examined the extent to which product (or company) involvement is linked to loyalty (Quester & Lin Lim, 2003). Involvement has been defined as “a person’s perceived relevance of the object based on inherent needs, values, and interests” (Zaichkowsky, 1985, pp. 342). Charters & Pettigrew’s (2006) study on the effects of involvement on evaluations of wine quality revealed that involvement indirectly influenced consumers’ perceived quality of the wine, and in turn impacted how they evaluated it. In other words, a lowly involved individual to a certain product category might not associate it to high quality, and in turn may not be influenced when evaluating the firm. This behavioral pattern is one that can be extended onto CSR and CSM associations, as personal relevance is a crucial determinant to assess individual motivation to process information (Ajzen, Brown & Rosenthal, 1996). Only in the case of holding personal relevance are
individuals likely to process these attributes carefully, and thereupon have a significant influence on their evaluations of these.
H5. Individual’s involvement to a product or company moderates the effects of (a) CA, (b) CSR, and (c) CSM
associations on their evaluations of the company, such that the positive relationship between the associations and the company evaluations is stronger among highly involved individuals.
To sum up, one can expect that the elements constituting a strong corporate reputation are indirectly linked to consumer loyalty, even following the consequences of a large-scale crisis. In addition to this highly desired behavioral outcome, the strength of the effects of corporate associations are argued to be dependent on two individual characteristics, namely moral identity and involvement. As Figure 1 illustrates below, the analyses used in this paper will include a series of moderations and mediations. The following section will report the sample and measures of the design in more detail.
Figure 1 - Conceptual Model
Method
To test the hypotheses, a cross-sectional survey research was carried out. The design of this study included three independent variables (corporate associations), two moderator variables (moral identity, involvement), and two outcome variables (company evaluations, consumer loyalty). An additional sub-category of outcome variables were included (CA evaluations, CSR evaluations, CSM evaluations).
Sample
The final sample consisted of 162 respondents obtained by convenience sampling. The sample was originally made up of 181 respondents, but incomplete surveys could not be recorded. Ideally, random sampling would have been beneficial to target a group as broad as consumers, but convenience sampling proved to be most efficient due to the resources available for this study. This type of non-probability method can be advantageous in detecting general trends and providing a base for future research in a timely and cost-friendly manner (Bhattacherjee, 2012). Moreover, data were collected through the spread of an anonymous link online, mainly via e-mail and Facebook. Respondents ranged in age from 18 to 80 years old (M = 25.14), 40.7% were male (N = 66), and 59.3% were female (N = 96). The final sample consisted mostly of individuals having obtained (or in the process of obtaining) a higher education degree, with 89.5% (N = 145) of the respondents holding a Bachelor’s or Master’s degree.
Procedure
The survey questionnaire, found in the Appendix, was sent out online over the course of three weeks. Participants were invited to participate via Facebook or a survey sharing group
(www.swapsurvey.com). Upon confirming to have read the introduction and the terms and conditions, respondents were exposed to one of three company cases: Nike, Volkswagen, or Apple. Different cases were used to increase the findings’ generalizability, as these are among the largest corporations in each of their corresponding industries. The cases were chosen on the premises of being similar in terms of (1) size and reputation, (2) past involvement in large-scale corporate scandals, and (3) being at the top of their own product-categories. For each, the same set of questions measuring all constructs was included. Instructions and necessary definitions were also present for each set of questions. Moreover, the cases were randomized to avoid redundancy and getting skewed results. Randomization, which is usually used to avoid extrinsic variables from influencing the study, is also a good tool to assure external validity (Bhattacherjee, 2012).
Measures
The measures of this study were answered by all 162 respondents (See Appendix). All items were measured on a 7-point Likert-scale of agreeableness ranging from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 7 (Strongly Agree), with the exception of the covariates. In order to carry out the analyses based on the theoretical model, the company cases were merged. Prior to doing this, a reliability test was used for every question to ensure the quality of the study. New scales were then created to conceptual model on the whole population, all of which are discussed in more detail below.
Independent variables. The independent variables of this study consisted of the corporate associations. The scales for corporate social responsibility (CSR) and corporate ability (CA) associations were adapted from Berens et al.’s (2005) and Anisimova’s (2007) studies,
which were both built on similar premises to this paper. As for Corporate Scandal Management (CSM) associations, a new scale was created in order to measure a construct that has not yet been explicitly defined in literature. In line with the theory from this paper, the scales for corporate associations are originally from a 20-item reputation quotient scale (Fombrun, Gardberg & Sever, 2000), which measures different aspects of an organizational reputation. This encourages the fact that the results can be translated to a bigger picture in the following chapters.
CA associations. This construct was originally measured on a scale of five items. However, one item was deleted in order to increase reliability by 0.11. The final scale consisted of four items (𝛼 = 0.69) measuring the firm’s perceived ability to produce high-quality or innovative products and services within its category (M = 5.66, SD = 0.67).
CSR associations. This construct was measured on a five-item scale which revealed high reliability (𝛼 = 0.88). The items consisted of ethical measurements at a societal, environmental, and organizational level. The statements for this construct, such as “This company sponsors social worthy causes”, measured the extent to which individuals perceived the firms to be conducting CSR initiatives (M = 3.92, SD = 1.09).
CSM associations. This scale measured how individuals attributed the company’s standing in regards to corporate scandals and their management. The latter was influenced from other associations identified in literature as measuring degrees of quality in several management aspects (Dowling, 1988). The final scale consisted of four items (𝛼 = 0.77), with one item being omitted in order to increase reliability by 0.14 (M = 4.26, SD = 0.96).
Moderators. The moderators of this study consisted of the individual characteristics that may influence the relationship between corporate associations and company evaluations.
Moral identity. This variable was defined as how an individual perceives his or her moral character (Aquino & Reed, 2002). It was fully adopted from Aquino & Reed’s (2002) paper, which measures two dimensions: (1) moral traits that are rooted in the self-concept (internalization) and (2) moral traits that are exhibited externally (symbolization). The final scale consisted of nine items (𝛼 = 0.71), with one item being deleted form the original scale (“Having these characteristics is not really important to me”) in order to increase the reliability of the construct to a good level above 0.70 (M = 4.20, SD = 0.64). A reason for this might have been due to the double negative present in the statement.
Involvement. The second moderator referred to an individual’s affiliation to the product category and company they were presented with. The seven-item scale (𝛼 = 0.84) included Berens et al.’s (2005) two items measuring how “useful” or “essential” the products of this company were. The rest of the scale adopted five questions from Traylor & Joseph’s (1984) 22-item scale measuring consumer involvement (M = 3.95, SD = 1.13).
Dependent variables. The outcome variables consisted of different measures for evaluations and consumer loyalty.
Company evaluations. Evaluations measured the perceptions of the overall company using a five-item scale from Mohr and Webb (2005) (𝛼 = 0.87) in which respondents were asked to assess the company based on their own judgment (M = 4.81, SD = 1.04). Additionally, individual sub-scales of three items to evaluate the actual corporate associations. These included
evaluations of the company’s corporate ability (𝛼 = 0.68, M = 5.29, SD = 0.97), its involvement in CSR initiatives (𝛼 = 0.79, M = 4.04, SD = 1.10), and its management of corporate scandals (𝛼 = 0.76, M = 3.81, SD = 1.29). In comparison to corporate associations, the latter measured individual opinions about them rather than their knowledge about them.
Loyalty. The second outcome variable measured individual’s degree of loyalty towards the given product category or brand. The construct consisted of a five-item scale (𝛼 = 0.89), with three of the statements belonging to Bone and Ellen’s (1992) scale measuring attitude and behavioral intentions (found in Marin et al., 2009) (M = 4.37, SD = 1.32).
Control variables. Several variables were included in the questionnaire to account for
changes within the sample population. Age (M = 25.14, SD = 7.90) was measured with an open question. Gender (M = 1.59, SD = .49) was measured on a two-point scale (1 = Male, 2 = Female). Education (M = 4.31, SD = 0.88) was measured on a 7-point scale, ranging from 1 (No schooling completed) to 6 (PhD or equivalent), and an additional option (7 = Other). Lastly, a variable measuring the degree of familiarity to the brand (M = 3.71, SD = 0.94) was included. The latter was measured on a 5-point scale (1 = Not familiar at all, 5 = Extremely familiar).
Age was not included as a covariate while running the analyses because it did not correlate to the dependent variables. On the other hand, level of education, gender, and degree of familiarity to the brand all revealed some significant interactions (See Table 1 below), and as such were included in the analyses as covariates.
Table 1 - Correlations Between Control Variables and Dependent Variables
Results
In this section a series of analyses were carried out to test the hypotheses. The analysis process included multiple linear regressions in order to test the main effects, followed by the mediations, and ending with the moderation analyses.
Testing the Main Effects
Hypothesis 1 tested the extent to which corporate associations could account for company evaluations. The first regression model using company evaluations as the dependent variable and CA associations, gender, education, and familiarity as independent variables was highly significant, F(4,157) = 13.83, p < .001. The model could be used to predict 24.2% of the variation of company evaluations on the basis of these variables (R2 = .26). As Table 2 below
shows, CA associations, t(157) = 6.47, p < .001, 95% CI [.49, .93], had a significant, moderately strong association to evaluations, while education had a weak one, t(157) = -2.38, p = .02, 95% CI [-.36, -.03]. H1a could thus be confirmed. To extend on this, a sub-category of evaluations was included. An additional regression was used to test if holding CA associations was also
Involvement Moral identity Company
Evaluations Loyalty Age -.11 -.001 -.04 -.10 Gender .20* .17* -.19 .18* Education -.19* .01 -.18* -.15 Familiarity .30** N.A. .16* .31** Notes: * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.001
linked to consumer’s actual evaluations of an organization’s corporate ability (quality of products). This model was also significant, R2 = .34, F(4,157) = 20.57, p < .001, with the
predictors explaining 32.7% of the variance. The finding that CA associations significantly predicted CA evaluations may account for the spillover onto the overall company evaluations, b* = .54, t(157) = 7.99, p < .001, 95% CI [.58, .97].
The regression analysis for H1b tested the extent to which CSR associations, along with the covariates, predicted company evaluations. It was found that the predictors explained 24.6% of the variance, R2 = .27, F(4,157) = 14.16, p < .001. CSR associations revealed a moderate to
strong link to company associations, t(157) = 6.57, p < .001, 95% CI [.30, .56], confirming H1b. As illustrated in Table 2, education had a significant, negative association to company evaluations, t(157) = -2.47, p = .02, 95% CI [-.36, -0.04], meaning that less educated participants were more likely to evaluate the company better, and vice versa. The follow-up analysis indicated that holding CSR associations strongly predicted consumer’s evaluations of CSR initiatives, b* = .78, t(157) = 15.40, p < .001, 95% CI [.68, .88]. The predictors for this regression explained 60.1% of the variance, R2 = .61, F(4,157) = 61.73, p < .001.
The third part of this hypothesis tested whether CSM associations significantly predicted participants’ company evaluations. The results revealed that the predictors explained 22.8% of the variance, R2 = .25, F(4,157) = 12.90, p < .001. It was found that CSM associations
significantly predicted company evaluations (t(157) = 6.20, p < .001, 95% CI [.32, .62]), confirming H1c. As for the covariates, both the degree of familiarity to the brand, t(157) = 2.05,
p = .04, 95% CI [.01, .31], and level of education t(157) = -2.01 p = .05, 95% CI [-.33, -.01], had
associations also predicted evaluations of scandal recovery initiatives significantly, but with the weakest strength of all three associations, b* = .37, t(157) = 5.05, p < .001, 95% CI [.30, .68]. The regression for this relationship indicated that the predictors explained 17.3% of the variance,
R2 = .19, F(4,157) = 9.41, p < .001.
All of the standardized coefficients and exact p-values can be found in the table below, summarizing the results of hypothesis 1.
Table 2 - Summary of Hypothesis 1 Testing Results
—
Hypothesis 2 stated that company evaluations would significantly predict consumer’s reported levels of loyalty to it. The regression revealed that the predictors explained a bit more than half (55.4%) of the variance, R2 = .57, F(4,157) = 51.10, p < .001. Company evaluations did indeed
significantly predict loyalty b* = .64, t(157) = 11.75, p < .001, 95% CI [.68, .95], confirming H2. Level of familiarity of the company also predicted loyalty, b* = .24, t(157) = 4.50, p < .001, 95%
Hypothesis 1a Hypothesis 1b Hypothesis 1c
Variable
entered b* p Variable entered b* p Variable entered b* p
CA asso. .46** <.001 CSR asso. .45** <.001 CSM asso. .43** <.001
Familiarity .07 .33 Familiarity .14 .06 Familiarity .14* .04
Gender .08 .28 Gender -.05 .47 Gender .004 .96
Education -.16* .02 Education -.17* .02 Education -.14* .05
Notes:
1 N = 162
CI [.19, .49], as did gender, b* = .22, t(157) = 4.17, p < .001, 95% CI [.31, .87]. These results will be discussed in this paper’s additional findings in the next chapters.
Testing the Mediations
Having established the main effects of corporate associations on company evaluations, and of the latter on consumer loyalty, hypothesis 3 stated a mediation would take place. It was hypothesized that company evaluations would mediate the effects of (a) CA, (b) CSR, and (c) CSM associations on consumer loyalty. To test this, the PROCESS macro for mediation (Model 4) was used (Hayes, 2013). This SPSS extension tests indirect effects using a regression-based path, and provides 95% confidence intervals based on a bootstrapping method.
Results indicated that CA associations were a significant predictor of company evaluations (t(156) = 6.45, p < .001), and that company evaluations was a significant predictor of consumer loyalty (t(155) = 9.84, p < .001). Figure 2 below illustrates these interactions along with the unstandardized coefficients. Consistent with full mediation, CA associations no longer significantly predicted participants’ loyalty after controlling for the mediator, company evaluations, t(155) = 1.33, p = .54. The results thus confirmed H3a, showing that company evaluations significantly mediated the effect of corporate ability associations on consumer loyalty levels (t(156) = 5.18, p < .001; 95% CI [.40, .75]). The indirect effect was (.71)(.77) = . 55, mirroring the notion that holding more CA associations was related to approximately .55 points higher loyalty scores as mediated by company evaluations.
It was found that three covariates intervened on the total effects model. Degree of familiarity to the brand positively predicted the total effect (b = .37, t(156) = 3.77, p < .001),
whereas as both education (b = -.25, t(156) = -2.43, p = .02) and gender (b = -.42, t(156) = 2.34,
p = .02) significantly predicted it with negative coefficients.
Figure 2 - Mediation Results for Hypothesis 3a (Unstandardized Coefficients)
!
A second PROCESS regression analysis was used to investigate if company evaluations significantly mediated the effect of CSR associations on loyalty. As Figure 3 illustrates below, the results showed that CSR associations significantly predicted company evaluations (t(156) = 6.58, p < .001), and company evaluations also significantly predicted consumers’ loyalty (t(155) = 10.36, p < .001). A full mediation took place, seeing as CSR associations no longer predicted loyalty after controlling for company evaluations (t(155) = 4.31, p = .97). As such, H3b could be confirmed (b = .35, t(156) = 4.17, p < .001, 95% CI [.26, .49]). The indirect effect of this mediation was (0.44)(0.81) = 0.36, and the fact that the confidence intervals did not contain a zero is also an indicator that a full mediation took place.
Moreover, familiarity was a significant predictor of the total effect (b = .45, t(156) = 4.50,
p < .001), as was gender (b = .50, t(156) = 2.70, p = .02) and education (b = -.26, t(156) = -2.46, p = .01).
Figure 3 - Mediation Results for Hypothesis 3b (Unstandardized Coefficients)
!
Lastly, it was hypothesized that company evaluations would significantly mediate the effect of CSM associations on loyalty. The regression revealed that CSM associations significantly predicted company evaluations (t(156) = 6.21, p < .001), and that company evaluations were a significant predictor of loyalty (t(155) = 10.31, p < .001) (See Figure 4). It was found that a full mediation took place, seeing as CSR associations were no longer a significant predictor of loyalty after controlling for the mediator, t(155) = .36 p = .72. This confirmed H3b, with a significant indirect effect taking place (t(156) = 4.28, p < .001; 95% CI [. 26; .51]). The indirect effect was (0.50)(0.80) = 0.40. Hence, holding CSM associations was linked with having approximately .40 points higher loyalty as mediated by company evaluations.
Here, familiarity (b = .45, t(156) = 4.57, p < .001), gender (b = .59, t(156) = 3.22, p = . 002) and education (b = -.22, t(156) = -2.14, p = .03) were all significant predictors of the total effects model.
Figure 4 - Mediation Results for Hypothesis 3c (Unstandardized Coefficients)
!
All in all, there seemed to be a general tendency confirming that all three types of corporate associations are indirectly linked to consumer loyalty, and that company evaluations mediated this effect. This indicated that holding stronger corporate associations tended to increase consumers’ loyalty scores when they rated the company better. As for the covariates, education and the degree of familiarity to the brand were revealed to have an interesting influence on the overall model. The latter will be discussed in more detail in the next chapter. To sum up, hypothesis 3 was fully confirmed.
Testing the Moderations
Subsequently, it was hypothesized that two individual characteristics moderated the effect of corporate associations on company evaluations: moral identity and involvement. These were tested using Hayes’ (2013) PROCESS macro for simple moderations (Model 1).
Moral identity as moderator. Hypothesis 4 stated that moral identity would act as an
company evaluations. The first part of this moderation, using CSR associations as the independent variable, indicated an overall model that was significant, R2 = .27, F(6, 155) = 9.65,
p < .001. The results for the main effects (See Table 3 below) revealed that neither moral identity
nor CSR associations significantly predicted company evaluations, whereas education did (t(155) = -2.42, p = .02). The interaction effect of CSR associations and moral identity on company evaluations was found to be non-significant (t(155) = .31, p = .76), thus rejecting H4a that a moderation would take place. It is interesting to note that, during the follow-up analyses to explore the data, a significant interaction effect was found when testing if moral identity moderated the influence of CSR associations on predicting CSR evaluations (b = .18, t(155) = 2.20, p = .03). This may indicate that individuals holding more CSR associations about a company had a tendency to evaluate it better, and this was stronger amongst individuals with higher degrees of moral identity.
Table 3 - Summary of Hypothesis 4 Testing Results (Unstandardized Coefficients)
Hypothesis 4a Hypothesis 4b
Variable entered B SE Variable entered B SE
CSR Asso. .31 .46 CSM Asso. .15 .40
Moral Identity -.27 .45 Moral Identity -.32 .42
CSR Asso. x Moral Id. .03 .11 CSM Asso. x Moral Id. .08 .10
Familiarity .13 .08 Familiarity .16 .08
Gender -.08 .15 Gender .01 .15
Education -.20* .08 Education -.16 .08
Notes:
1 N = 162
2 Outcome variable: Company Evaluations 3 * p <.05. ** p <.001.
Secondly, moral identity was also hypothesized to moderate the effect of scandal recovery (CSM) associations on company evaluations. Even though the overall model was significant (R2 = .25, F(6, 155) = 8.64, p < .001), there was no significant interaction effect
(t(155) = .82, p = .41). H4b was thus rejected. As Table 3 illustrates, both moral identity and CSM associations had no significant main effects on company evaluations. Level of familiarity to the company, however, did significantly predict company evaluations (t(155) = 2.04, p = .04). No additional results were found for this moderation.
Involvement as moderator. The second moderator used in the model was involvement.
Hypothesis 5 stated that the degree of involvement with the product and company would moderate the effect that all three corporate associations had on company evaluations. A summary of the results can be found in Table 4 below.
First, a regression analysis using PROCESS (Model 1) was carried out testing whether involvement moderated the impact of corporate ability associations on company evaluations. The overall model was highly significant, R2 = .43, F(6, 155) = 19.66, p < .001. Here, only gender
could significantly predict company evaluations (t(155) = -2.47, p = .02). As for the actual moderation, there was no significant interaction effect (t(155) = 1.44, p = .15), and as such H5a was rejected. There were no follow up analyses to be reported.
Next, it was hypothesized that involvement would moderate the influence of CSR associations on company evaluations. The overall model was found to be significant, R2 = .42,
evaluations (t(155) = 2.21, p = .03), as did gender (t(155) = -2.18 p = .03). CSR associations did not predict company evaluations (see Table 4 below). Furthermore, the moderation did not take place given that the interaction effect was not significant, t(155) = -.57, p = .57. This led to the rejection of H5b.
Lastly, involvement was also predicted to moderate the effect of CSM associations company evaluations. The results indicated that the overall model was significant, R2 = .42, F(6,
155) = 18.35, p < .001. Both involvement (t(155) = 2.12, p = .04) and CSM associations (t(155) = 2.03, p = .04) acted as significant predictors to company evaluations. The interaction effect, however, revealed that there was no moderation that took place t(155) = -.66, p = .51). As such, H5c could not be confirmed.
Table 4 -Summary of Hypothesis 5 Testing Results (Unstandardized Coefficients)
Hypothesis 5a Hypothesis 5b Hypothesis 5c
Variable
entered B SE Variable entered B SE Variable entered B SE
CA Asso. .10 .33 CSR Asso. .46 .24 CSM Asso. .52** .26
Involvement -.28 .50 Involvement .55* .25 Involvement .61* .29
CA Asso. x
Inv. .12 .09 CSR Asso. x Inv. -.03 .06 CSM Asso. x Inv. -.04 .06
Familiarity -.08 .07 Familiarity -.01 .07 Familiarity -.01 .07
Gender -.33* .13 Gender -.29* .13 Gender -.22 .13
Education -.09 .07 Education -.09 .08 Education -.06 .08
Notes:
1 N = 162
2 Outcome variable: Company Evaluations 3 * p <.05. ** p <.001.
Discussion and Conclusion
The purpose of this study was to measure the impact of the main corporate reputational aspects on maintaining loyal relationships to consumers following the consequences of a large-scale scandal. It was argued that these reputational elements exist in the form of distinct sets of corporate associations. The findings suggest that their influence is mainly seen on consumer behavioral outcomes rather than the proposed cognitive influences of this paper, namely moral identity and involvement.
When participants associated a company to its reputational attributes — social initiatives, quality of goods, or scandal recovery — they inherently evaluated it more positively; a finding substantiated by participants’ tendency to rate the corporate associations better if they had them. This seems to confirm the previously mentioned argument that a strong reputation can act as an alibi during times of crisis (Sohn & Lariscy, 2012; Zavyalova et al., 2016). Here, reputable firms benefited from a positive spillover of their past actions as opposed to being judged more harshly.
It could not be assumed, however, that simply thinking about certain reputational aspects of a company led to the complex outcome of consumer loyalty. A previous study by Nguyen and Leblanc (2001) linked higher degrees of loyalty to favorable evaluations of a company, a finding which was confirmed in this paper. Company evaluations could account for a sizeable amount (55.4%) of respondents’ reported degrees of loyalty, which was the strongest association of this study. The latter, along with the theory on this topic, encouraged the idea that company evaluations thus mediated the influence of corporate associations on loyalty.
The analyses showed strong support for this mediation. The fact that a full mediation took place also encouraged the prior notion that corporate associations cannot directly predict loyalty, and that the latter is an elaborate outcome that can emerge from different sources. The indirect effect was the strongest for corporate ability associations, which holds up in practice considering that quality and innovativeness are direct indicators of a desirable product. In the context of corporate scandals, however, an important turnout was that corporate social responsibility and scandal management associations also resulted in positive mediations. This meant that despite the double-sided arguments for and against CSR practices, or concerning the impact of scandals on reputation, large firms can still reap the benefits of their names.
—
Having said this, the purpose of this study was to go beyond establishing the role of corporate associations in leading to the desired outcome of loyalty, and also to take into account individual characteristics that could explain fluctuations in the results. To this effect, measures of moral character and individual involvement to a company and its products were included as moderators.
Although moral identity did not moderate the effect of CSR and CSM associations on company evaluations, there was an interesting sub-finding. The influence of CSR associations on CSR evaluations was moderated by moral identity, showing that moral identity may influence a more precise form of moral judgment. Whereas it did not impact the evaluation of the company as a whole, it affected whether individuals believed the CSR initiative to be good or not. This reflected Rupp et al.’s (2013) study in a different context, which had found that individuals with higher degrees of moral identity let perceptions of CSR have a stronger influence on the outcome
variable (i.e. job pursuit intention). One could infer, based on the results, that levels of moral identity in such situations are actually not as relevant because of the distance one has to these corporate scandals. This reflects an interesting process called desensitization, in which it is stated that individuals feel less emotions or empathy to a [controversial] topic due to extended exposure to negative information (Gentile, 2014). This process has received large amounts of attention in research in the context of media violence (Anderson et al., 2009), but seems to be lacking concerning overexposure to corporate scandals.
Secondly, the degree of involvement to the product category and the company was predicted to moderate the influence of corporate associations on company evaluations. Even though the results showed that this did not happen, involvement had a direct effect on company evaluations two out of the three times (in conjunction to CSR and CSM associations). This could imply that the effect of individual involvement is one that is more straight-forward than anticipated: individuals who found more necessity or interest in the company or its products (high involvement) rated it better, and this had nothing to do with a good corporate reputation. The latter mirrors the previously discussed conception that personal relevance acts as a determinant to process information (Ajzen et al., 1996).
Additional Findings and Limitations
Aside from the hypothesized relationships, a few additional interactions from the covariates were worth discussing. The most consistent one to have interacted with individuals’ company evaluations was education, a finding which was especially interesting because it had a negative coefficient. This suggested that there was a slight tendency for less educated people to rate the
company better. The role of education, thus, was larger than expected and could be the reflection of the downside of having a strong corporate reputation: increased skepticism and expectations. Higher educated individuals may have been more critical due to their knowledge on certain constructs, and in turn made a difference in their evaluations of the company. The latter also introduced a limitation to the study design: respondents were exposed to a company’s scandals or CSR initiatives prior to evaluating it, which could have biased their judgments. Moreover, the second covariate to have interacted with evaluations was individuals’ familiarity to the brand. Even though it was less prominent than education, it still implied that people who were more aware of the brand were also more receptive of their efforts. Because the average levels of familiarity were quite high (M = Very Familiar), this implies that the knowledge gap for people who were less familiar than the norm made a large difference.
Furthermore, the control variables of familiarity and gender influenced the outcome of loyalty. Whereas familiarity to the company is a coherent correlation to loyalty, gender surges some appealing possibilities. Here, females were more likely to report stronger degrees of loyalty to the company than males were. This effect is one that has already been discussed and proven in literature, revealing that women tend to be more loyal to brands in general, and even more so when the companies create a link to their individuality (Melnyk, Van Osselaer & Bijmolt, 2009).
Besides the influence of the covariates, the effects of the corporate associations themselves displayed strong similarities. In order to rule out multicollinearity, a correlation test was carried out. The output showed that corporate associations had weak to moderate correlations amongst each other (See Table 5 below), and as such was not of concern to this study. Multicollinearity becomes an issue when the correlations are high because one can risk
obtaining equally good fittings to the data, and the sampling error will end up being quite large (Blalock, 1963).
Table 5 - Correlations of independent variables
At last, there were a few more limitations to this study. The time frame and resources were constraining to its sample size and demographic reach. With nearly 90% of respondents enrolled in or having completed a higher education degree, the results are hardly generalizable to the entire consumer population. Moreover, the selection of cases may have been too similar to have concrete comparisons to be made. The findings revealed that the type of reputation (CSR vs. CA) did not make a large difference in the results. This was similar to the outcome of Sohn and Lariscy (2012)’s research, and a possible reason they gave for it was that of a weak manipulation effect. In this paper, no manipulation or control case studies were included because it was argued that the chosen firms had reputable standings that could spread through different sectors. Including an additional company with either no history of organizational crisis or with a smaller reputation may provide future studies a more fruitful comparison.
1 2 3 1. CA associations — — — 2. CSR associations 0.43** — — 3. CSM associaitons 0.24* 0.49** — Notes: * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.001
Implications for Future Research
The findings of this paper have atypically merged theoretical frameworks from the fields of corporate communications and marketing management. Even though these are two separate entities, research could largely benefit from understanding them as two converging processes. The implications of this study lie within the understanding that a firm’s communicated front, as perceived by its audiences, is one that can largely account for performance outcomes and information-processing mechanisms. This was especially perceivable in the context of sizeable firms following a scandal.
One of the most inquisitive areas for future research concerns moral identity in different organizational contexts. The inclusion of this construct under the right circumstances could unveil some highly appealing topics within the field; especially regarding CSR. For instance, at what point does one’s tolerance threshold towards a corporate crisis lead to complete rejection of the company, despite its reputation?
To conclude, different reputational aspects of a company are strong predictors of whether individuals will evaluate a company positively and report high degrees of loyalty towards it. In the context of corporate scandals, this paper was a first step into acknowledging the empowered status of consumers and their increased awareness of business actions. More research is needed to fully understand what occurs in the presence of negative information, but the findings seem positive for companies with strong reputations in ensuring a successful recovery.
References
Ajzen, I., Brown, T. C., & Rosenthal, L. H. (1996). Information bias in contingent valuation: Effects of personal relevance, quality of information, and motivational orientation.
Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 30(1), 43-57. doi: 10.1006/jeem.
1996.0004
Anderson, C. A., Berkowitz, L., Donnerstein, E., Huesmann, L. R., Johnson, J. D., Linz, D., Malamuth, N., M., & Wartella, E. (2003). The influence of media violence on youth.
Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 4(3), 81-110. doi: 10.1111/j.
1529-1006.2003.pspi_1433.x
Anisimova, A. T. (2007). The effects of corporate brand attributes on attitudinal and behavioural consumer loyalty. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 24(7), 395-405.
doi: 10.1108/07363760710834816
Aquino, K. & Reed, A. II. (2002). The self-importance of moral identity. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 83, 1423–1440. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.83.6.1423
Bhattacharya, C. B. & Sen, S. (2003). Consumer company identification: A framework for understanding consumers’ relationships with companies. Journal of Marketing, 67(2), 76–88. doi: 10.1509/jmkg.67.2.76.18609
Berens, G. & Van Riel, C. B. (2004). Corporate associations in the academic literature: Three main streams of thought in the reputation measurement literature. Corporate Reputation
Review, 7(2), 161-178. doi: 10.1057/palgrave.crr.1540218
Berens, G., Riel, C. B. M. & Bruggen G.H. (2005). Corporate associations and consumer product responses: The moderating role of corporate brand dominance’. Journal of
Marketing, 69, 35–48. doi: 10.1509/jmkg.69.3.35.66357
Bhattacherjee, A. (2012). Social science research: principles, methods, and practices. South Florida, FL: Global Text Project.
Blalock, H. (1963). Correlated independent variables: the problem of multicollinearity. Social
Forces, 42(2), 233-237. doi:10.2307/2575696
Bone, P. F. & Ellen, P. S. (1992). The generation and consequences of comunication-evoked imagery. Journal of Consumer Research, 19(1), 93–104. doi: 10.1086/209289
Brown, T. J. (1998). Corporate associations in marketing: Antecedents and consequences.
Corporate Reputation Review, 1(3), 215-233. doi: 10.1057/palgrave.crr.1540045
Brown, T.J. & Dacin, P.A. (1997). The company and the product: Corporate associations and consumer product responses. Journal of Marketing, 61(1), pp. 68-84. doi:
Charters, S. & Pettigrew, S. (2006). Product involvement and the evaluation of wine quality.
Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 9(2), 181-193. doi:
10.1108/13522750610658810
Damon, W. & Hart, D. (1992). Self-understanding and its role in social and moral development. In Bernstein, M. & Lamb, M. E. (Eds.). Developmental psychology: An advanced
textbook (3rd ed., pp. 421-464). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Dowling, G. R. (1986). Managing your corporate images. Industrial Marketing Management, 15, pp. 109–115. doi: 10.1016/0019-8501(86)90051-9
Dowling, G. R. (1988). Measuring corporate images: A review of alternative approaches. Journal
of Business Research, 17(1), 27-34. doi: 10.1016/0148-2963(88)90019-7
Du, S., Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. (2010). Maximizing business returns to corporate social responsibility (CSR): The role of CSR communication. International Journal of
Management Reviews, 12(1), 8-19. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2370.2009.00276.x
Ellen, P. S., Webb, D. J., & Mohr, L. A. (2006). Building corporate associations: Consumer attributions for corporate socially responsible programs. Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 34(2), 147–157. doi: 10.1177/0092070305284976
Folger, R., Cropanzano R. & Goldman, B. (2005). What is the relationship between justice and morality? In Greenberg J & Colquitt JA (Eds.), Handbook of organizational justice (pp. 215–245). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Fombrun, C. J., Gardberg, N. A. & Sever, J. M. (2000). The reputation quotient: A multi- stakeholder measure of corporate reputation. Journal of Brand Management, 7(4), 241-255. doi: 10.1057/bm.2000.10
Gentile, D. A. (2014). Media violence and children: A complete guide for parents and
professionals (2nd ed.). ABC-CLIO.
Gürhan-Canli, Z., & Batra, R. (2004). When corporate image affects product evaluations: The moderating role of perceived risk. Journal of Marketing Research, 41(2), 197-205. doi: 10.1509/jmkr.41.2.197.28667
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A
regression-based approach. Guilford Press.
Kendall, B. E., Gill, R., & Cheney, G. (2007). Consumer activism and corporate social responsibility: How strong a connection? In May, S. K., Cheney, G. & Roper, J. (Eds.).
The debate over corporate social responsibility. New York: Oxford University Press.
Korinek, K., & Maloney, T. N. (Eds.). (2010). Migration in the 21st century: rights, outcomes,
Kytle, B., & Ruggie, J. G. (2005). Corporate social responsibility as risk management: A model for multinationals. Corporate Social Responsibility Initiative Working Paper (No. 10.). Cambridge, MA: John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University.
Marin, L., Ruiz, S., & Rubio, A. (2009). The role of identity salience in the effects of corporate social responsibility on consumer behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 84(1), 65-78. doi: 10.1007/s10551-008-9673-8
Melnyk, V., Van Osselaer, S. & Bijmolt, T. (2009). Are women more loyal customers than men? Gender differences in loyalty to firms and individual service providers. Journal
of Marketing, 73(4), 82-96. doi: 10.1509/jmkg.73.4.82
Morley, M. (2002). How to manage your global reputation (2nd ed.). New York: New York University Press.
Mohr, L. A. & Webb, D. J. (2005). The effects of corporate social responsibility and
price on consumer responses. The Journal of Consumer Affairs, 39(1), 121–147. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-6606.2005.00006.x
Nguyen, N., & Leblanc, G. (2001). Corporate image and corporate reputation in customers’ retention decisions in services. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 8(4), 227-236. doi: 10.1016/S0969-6989(00)00029-1
Pérez, A., del Mar García de los Salmones, M., & Rodríguez del Bosque, I. (2013). The effect of corporate associations on consumer behaviour. European Journal of Marketing, 47(1/2), 218-238. doi: 10.1108/03090561311285529
Quester, P., & Lin Lim, A. (2003). Product involvement/brand loyalty: Is there a link? Journal of
Product and Brand Management, 12(1), 22-38. doi: 10.1108/10610420310463117
Rhee, M. & Haunschild, P. R. (2006). The liability of good reputation: A study of product recalls in the U.S. automobile industry. Organization Science, 17: 101–117. doi:
10.1287/orsc.1050.0175
Riahi-Belkaoui, A. & Pavlik, E. L. (1992). Accounting for corporate reputation. Westport, CT: Quorum Books.
Rupp, D. E., Shao, R., Thornton, M. A., & Skarlicki, D. P. (2013). Applicants' and employees' reactions to corporate social responsibility: The moderating effects of first‐party justice perceptions and moral identity. Personnel Psychology, 66(4), 895-933. doi: 10.1111/peps. 12030
Skarmeas, D., & Leonidou, C. N. (2013). When consumers doubt, watch out! The role of CSR skepticism. Journal of Business Research, 66(10), 1831-1838. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres. 2013.02.004
Sohn, Y. J., & Lariscy, R. W. (2012). A “buffer” or “boomerang?” The role of corporate reputation in bad times. Communication Research, 42(2), 238-259. doi:
10.1177/0093650212466891
Souiden, N., Kassim, N.M. & Kong, H-J. (2006). The effects of corporate branding dimensions on consumers’ product evaluation: A cross-cultural analysis. European
Journal of Marketing, 40(7-8), 825-45. doi: 10.1108/03090560610670016
Traylor, M. B., & Joseph, W. B. (1984). Measuring consumer involvement in products: Developing a general scale. Psychology & Marketing, 1(2), 65-77. doi: 10.1002/mar. 4220010207
Zaichkowsky, J. (1985). Measuring the Involvement Construct. Journal of Consumer Research, 12(3), 341-352. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/254378
Zavyalova, A., Pfarrer, M. D., Reger, R. K., & Hubbard, T. D. (2016). Reputation as a benefit and a burden? How stakeholders’ organizational identification affects the role of reputation following a negative event. Academy of Management Journal, 59(1), 253-276. doi: 10.5465/amj.2013.0611
