In an era where global markets are increasingly interconnected, understanding consumer behavior in response to corporate crises is paramount for both academics and industry leaders. A recent investigation delves deeply into how product-harm crises trigger consumer boycotts, shedding light on the intricate psychological mechanisms that fuel these collective retaliations. By employing an expanded and diverse sample, researchers have unveiled not only the robust impact such crises wield over consumer intentions but also the underlying emotional and cognitive pathways—namely blame attribution and perceived betrayal—that magnify these reactions.
The study builds upon previous findings by incorporating a broader population, drawn from vibrant, high-traffic public spaces across Wuhan, China. This approach enhances ecological validity beyond the confines of controlled laboratory settings. Utilizing intercept surveys, researchers captured a more heterogeneous distribution of participants, bolstering the generalizability of their conclusions. Participants were randomly assigned to scenarios that depicted either a single-enterprise or a group product-harm crisis, allowing an insightful comparative lens into how the scope of organizational culpability influences consumer reprisal.
To rigorously measure key psychological constructs, the research team adapted established questionnaire items from seminal studies in the field. Employing a refined 7-point Likert scale, they gauged blame attribution, essentially the degree to which consumers held entities responsible for the crisis. Parallelly, perceived betrayal was operationalized, capturing the emotional sting when consumer trust was violated. Consumer boycott intentions, the behavioral outcome of interest, were also quantified through a robust multi-item scale consistent with prior validated measurement tools.
Ensuring methodological rigor, the reliability of these scales was affirmed through Cronbach’s alpha coefficients surpassing 0.7, indicative of excellent internal consistency. Validity assessments harnessed a multifaceted approach, including item reliability, composite reliability, convergent validity, and discriminant validity analyses. These convergent lines of evidence fortified the study’s measurement precision, thereby instilling confidence in the subsequent interpretation of results.
A critical finding from the study was the pronounced effect of crisis scope on boycott intentions. Participants exposed to group product-harm crisis scenarios demonstrated significantly stronger inclination toward boycotting compared to their single-enterprise counterparts. This finding suggests that collective culpability intensifies consumer backlash, presumably because shared responsibility among multiple firms amplifies perceived severity and moral outrage.
Delving deeper, the research employed sophisticated bootstrapping techniques to unravel the mediating roles of blame attribution and perceived betrayal. Both emerged as pivotal psychological conduits through which the initial crisis stimulus transmuted into boycott intentions. The statistical analysis confirmed that higher levels of blame attribution and feelings of betrayal significantly increased participants’ propensity to engage in consumer boycotts. These mechanisms illuminate how cognitive assigning of fault and emotional disruption interact synergistically to motivate collective consumer action.
Beyond validating previous theoretical predictions, this study expands the conceptual framework by articulating dual psychological pathways that underpin boycott behavior. Recognizing that consumer decisions are not solely predicated on rational fault-finding but are also deeply embedded in affective experiences, offers a nuanced understanding that is vital for designing effective crisis management strategies.
While the empirical strength of the findings is compelling, the researchers acknowledge limitations warranting future exploration. Prior studies, including this one, predominantly employed fictional enterprises to model crisis scenarios, which may inadvertently dampen the ecological realism of consumer responses. To address this, the forthcoming study iteration plans to incorporate real-world enterprises, thereby bolstering external validity and enhancing the applicability of findings to actual market dynamics.
Moreover, another iceberg lurking beneath the surface of this analysis is the role of social distance—a potential moderator that could either amplify or attenuate consumer reactions based on relational proximity to the implicated enterprises. This dimension, slated for investigation in subsequent research, promises to add depth to our comprehension of boycott phenomena by integrating social psychological constructs into the consumer crisis response narrative.
The methodological choices, particularly the intercept survey technique, underscore a commitment to capturing authentic consumer sentiments amidst everyday environments. This tactic transcends traditional convenience sampling, mitigating biases and providing a richer tapestry of behavioral data. Such methodological innovations are crucial in the quest to reconcile theoretical models with real-world consumer dynamics.
As consumer activism continues to rise, fueled by social media platforms and heightened brand awareness, these findings resonate profoundly. They offer a clarion call to corporate entities to not only devise swift corrective actions during product-harm crises but also to understand and address the emotional wounds inflicted upon their consumer base. Strategies incorporating transparency, empathy, and accountability may mitigate the blame and betrayal perceptions that kindle boycott fires.
Statistical robustness, reflected in significant F-values and confidence intervals that exclude zero, lends credence to the mediational model proposed. The precision of parameter estimates and meticulous control for demographic covariates further strengthen the reliability of the causal inferences drawn, marking this study as a benchmark in crisis-consumer behavior research.
This investigative effort bridges psychological theory and managerial practice, revealing that consumer boycott is neither arbitrary nor superficial but deeply rooted in intertwined cognitive assessments and affective experiences. Such insights pave the way for novel interventions that could attenuate the spiraling effects of product-harm crises, preserving brand equity and sustaining consumer trust.
Ultimately, as markets become increasingly volatile and consumer empowerment escalates, the granular understanding of crisis-induced boycott dynamics provided by this study equips stakeholders with an empirical compass. Navigating the treacherous waters of product-harm incidents demands not only technical fixes but also a comprehensive grasp of the human psyche—the very frontier where brand survival is won or lost.
The implications extend beyond immediate boycotting behavior to broader notions of consumer-company relationships, suggesting that breaches of trust and fault attribution have lasting ramifications on brand loyalty and marketplace reputation. This underscores the paramount importance of pre-emptive risk management and post-crisis restorative justice in contemporary business ecosystems.
In conclusion, this research enriches the scientific discourse on consumer activism by systematically dissecting how product-harm crises precipitate boycott intentions via blame and betrayal. It sets the stage for a richer, multidimensional exploration of boundary conditions such as social distance, heralding a new epoch in understanding the complex interplay between organizational misconduct and consumer repercussion.
Article Title:
Li, Y., Zhao, M. How the product-harm crisis influences consumer boycotts: the role of social distance.
Humanit Soc Sci Commun 12, 759 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-025-05058-6
Article References:
Li, Y., Zhao, M. How the product-harm crisis influences consumer boycotts: the role of social distance.
Humanit Soc Sci Commun 12, 759 (2025).
