Account-Giving For A Corporate Transgression Influences Moral Judgment: When Those Who Spin Condone Harm-Doing

Generating some types of accounts - justifications, excuses, or apologies - for an organization\u27s harm-doing increases condoning of a transgression compared with generating denials or not having to explain a transgression. In Experiment 1, students (N = 324) were required either to explain a corporation\u27s use of child labor to manufacture its products or merely to read about it. Explaining decreased condemnation of the offense compared with when no explanation was required. In Experiment 2. students (N = 101) either justified the corporation\u27s harm-doing or denied that the corporation had harmed employees, with justifications increasing condoning more than denials. In Experiment 3, students (N = 113) either wrote an apology or wrote a denial, with apologizers condoning harm-doing more than deniers. Differences appear to be due to some accounts eliciting cognitive elaboration on the misdeed

Inferences about the Brand from Counterstereotypical Service Providers

We compared effects of information about a stereotypical service provider with that about a counterstereotypical service provider on inferences about the similarity of employees within the firm and the firm's similarity to other firms (across-brand differentiation). Our three experiments varied the provider's gender so that it was either stereotypical or counterstereotypical for an occupation. Consistent with previous research, information about a counterstereotypical employee whose behavior violated expectancies decreased the perception of similarity between the individual and other employees compared with when the employee was stereotypical. However, that same information increased the perception that the firm was superior to other firms. (c) 2005 by JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH, Inc..

The Disciplinary Status of Consumer Behavior: A Sociology of Science Perspective on Key Controversies

Critics within the consumer behavior field have consistently debated three fundamental issues about the field's defining properties and goals: (1) whether consumer behavior should be an independent discipline, (2) what is (and is not) consumer behavior, and (3) whether our field should be interdisciplinary. Taking the perspective of the sociology of science leads us to conclude that (1) consumer behavior is not an independent discipline; (2) consumer behavior is distinguished from other fields by its focus on a consumer role, emphasizing the acquisition, consumption, and disposal of marketplace products, services, and experiences; and (3) consumer behavior is not an interdisciplinary field. (c) 2009 by JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH, Inc..