Understanding consumer animosity in an international crisis: nature, antecedents, and consequences

Abstract

The nature, antecedents, and consequences of consumer animosity during the 1997 Asian economic crisis are investigated, based on a large-scale survey of 2000 adult consumers representative of five affected nations (Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, South Korea, and Thailand). An animosity model was developed and tested with the US and Japan as target countries. As predicted, stable and situational animosity reduced willingness to buy products from a perceived hostile national entity. Affective evaluations and cognitive judgments were negatively influenced by situational animosity but not by stable animosity. As expected, situational animosity was increased by external attribution, perceived external control, and stable animosity. Implications of these findings are discussed, and directions for future research suggested. Journal of International Business Studies (2008) 39, 996–1009. doi:10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400392

Exploring the animosity domain and the role of affect in a cross-national context

“…al 1998 which found that animosity has no impact of animosity on product judgments. However a some studies refute this claim, and find animosity does impact evaluations of products from the animosity target (Huang, Phau & Lin, 2010;Leong et al, 2008;Rose et al, 2009;Shoham et al, 2006). All of the above research studies provide strong support for the notion that national animosities caused by war, economic policies, and other conflicts may have a profound impact on consumer buying behavior.…”

“…Published research in this area has also confirmed the impact of animosity for products in general, (Hinck et al, 2004;Huang et al, 2010;Leong et al, 2008;Nakos & Hajidimitriou, 2007;Witkowski, 2000), for specific categories of products (Ettenson & Klein, 2005;Hong & Kang, 2006;Jimenez & Martin, 2010;Klein, 2002;Klein et al,1998;Nijssen & Douglas, 2004;Russell & Russell, 2006;Shimp, Dunn, & Klein, 2004;Shin, 2001;Shoham et al, 2006), and finally for hybrid products with partial shifts in production to animosity targets (Funk et al, 2010). Some studies have tested and established a correlation between the level of animosity and actual product ownership (Klein, 2002;Klein et al, 1998;Shin, 2001).…”

“…We propose that animosity influences buying intentions mainly through affective outcomes, and we test a model of the relationship between the four animosity dimensions and buying intentions with affect as the mediating variable. Building on recent branding research, our affect concept complements and extends the present understanding of affect in animosity research (Leong et al, 2008) by defining affect as the affective benefits (disbenefits) of buying and consuming products.…”

“…Previous studies find that animosity has some impact on various dependent variables, particularly buying intentions (e.g., Bahaee & Pisani, 2009;Funk, Arthurs, Trevino, & Joireman, 2010;Hinck, Cortes, & James, 2004;Hong & Kang, 2006;Huang, Phau, & Lin, 2010;Klein, 2002;Klein et al, 1998;Leong et al, 2008;Maher & Mady, 2010;Nakos & Hajidimitriou, 2007;Nijssen & Douglas, 2004;Parker, Haytko and Hermans 2011;Shin, 2001;Shoham, Davidow, Klein, & Ruvio, 2006;Witkowski, 2000).…”

“…Several French companies responded to this increase in animosity by using strategies such as temporarily deferring investment in the region or even modifying their brand/company name. Leong et al (2008) recommended that animosity research employ a more theorydriven approach. In their study they distinguished between cognitive and affective product evaluations and found the impact of animosity to be much greater on the latter.…”