Effects of Matching and Mismatching Messages on Purchase Avoidance Behavior following Major Disasters

Abstract

Following major disasters, purchase avoidance behavior toward products that are caused by stigma often results. For example, after the Tohoku Earthquake and Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Disaster, consumers have avoided products from Fukushima. Attempts have been made to diminish this purchase avoidance behavior, but they have been found to be ineffective. The reasons for ineffectiveness of strategies within this context were empirically examined based on matching and mismatching effects of messages. In two studies (Study 1, N = 113; Study 2, N = 364), the effects of affective messages and cognitive messages were compared, and the effectiveness of affective messages was found to be consistently weaker than that of cognitive messages. Message producers often present affective messages with the expectation of observing the matching effect. However, findings suggest that these presentation strategies will fail, and that the mismatching effect should be used instead. The best method of message presentation to reduce purchase avoidance behavior in a disaster area is discussed.

Implicit Attitudes About Agricultural and Aquatic Products From Fukushima Depend on Where Consumers Reside

“…They held explicitly positive attitudes toward products from both regions. These results are consistent with those of previous work ( Miura et al., 2016 ; Kudo and Nagaya, 2017 ) that found that Japanese consumers in general do not currently have negative implicit or explicit attitudes toward products from Fukushima.…”

“…These were more predominant in the region near Fukushima (i.e., Tokyo) than in the region further away (i.e., Hiroshima). The results of recent research and market surveys ( Miura et al., 2016 ; Kudo and Nagaya, 2017 ; Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries, 2018 ) suggest that the current consumption situation embraces the apparent contradiction that products from Fukushima are somehow avoided by consumers who have no negative attitudes toward them. Focusing on the implicit attitudes and where consumers live, we succeeded in demonstrating a stepping stone toward the resolution of this paradox.…”

“…Note that recent research based on the IAT has already reported that Japanese people show somewhat positive, not negative, implicit attitudes toward products from Fukushima ( Kudo and Nagaya, 2017 ). However, we believe that the interpretation of the data from that is limited for the following two reasons.…”

“…Due to such attempts, the latest survey research demonstrates that the number of consumers who care about the production area has drastically decreased and that nearly 80% of consumers have no concerns about the safety of Fukushima products ( Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries, 2018 ). Furthermore, consumers do not currently have “explicitly” negative attitudes toward products from Fukushima, at least on paper ( Miura et al., 2016 ; Kudo and Nagaya, 2017 ). If this is so, then why do they still hesitate to purchase these products?…”

Stigma in the marketplace

“…In marketing and consumer research, this category of stigma acquires peculiar traits. Consumers might get stigmatized simply because they buy or use a stigmatized product (Kudo & Nagaya, 2017). Also, after product-harm crises, products from the same country of origin of the product that went through the crisis get stigmatized by association, negatively affecting consumers' preferences.…”