Journal of Business Research 104 (2019) 1–13

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Business Research

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jbusres

When CSR-based identification backfires: Testing the effects of CSR-related T

negative publicity
Sabine Einwillera, , Bettina Lisb, Christopher Ruppela, Sankar Senc
⁎

a
University of Vienna, Department of Communication, 1090 Vienna, Althanstrasse 14 (UZA II), Austria
b
University of Bayreuth, Faculty of Law, Business and Economics, 95447 Bayreuth, Universitätsstrasse 30 (Gebäude RW1), Germany
c
City University of New York (CUNY), Baruch College, Zicklin School of Business, Allen G. Aaronson Department of Marketing & International Business, 55 Lexington
Avenue, New York, NY 10010, United States of America

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords:
Consumer-company identification
Consumer-company disidentification
Corporate social responsibility
Negative publicity
In the face of much research documenting an ameliorative, buffering effect of consumer-company identification
on consumer reactions to negative publicity about a company, this paper theorizes and demonstrates, through
two studies, that when such identification is based on a company's CSR (i.e., corporate social responsibility), as
opposed to CA (i.e., corporate ability), strongly identified consumers react more, rather than less, negatively to
negative publicity in the same domain (i.e., CSR). In addition, this paper provides evidence for the process
underlying this backfiring effect among those most connected to the company, based on their perceived betrayal
by the company in a particularly self-relevant domain and their subsequent disidentification with it, producing
among them intentions to oppose the company.

1. Introduction
Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is ascendant in today's global
marketplace (UN Global Compact & Accenture, 2016), with companies
large and small worldwide striving to be socially responsible. Notably,
the normative as well as the business case motivate such CSR engage-
ment. In addition to “doing the right thing,” firms expect that “doing
good” will also lead to “doing better,” through positive pro-company
reactions of key stakeholder groups such as consumers (Bhattacharya &
Sen, 2004; Sen, Du, & Bhattacharya, 2016). At the same time, however,
companies are more vulnerable than ever to negative publicity about
their CSR. In an environment characterized by unprecedent informa-
tional transparency and hyper-vigilant publics (e.g., watchdog groups,
consumer activists, the media), CSR lapses of not just hypocritical
companies but also companies imperfectly engaging in earnest CSR
efforts across large, complex organizations can precipitate a corporate
crisis. This raises an important question: How might consumers react to
negative publicity in the CSR domain about a company engaged in
CSR? For instance, how might consumers react to publicity about
emissions test fraud by a company known to be eco-friendly, as in the
recent case of Volkswagen (Ewing, 2017)?
Prior research suggests a key mechanism underlying consumers'
positive responses to a company engaged in CSR is their identification
with it, defined as the overlap they perceive between their own iden-
tities, actual and/or desired, and that of the company, producing a
sense of connectedness to it (Bhattacharya & Sen, 2003; Dutton,
Dukerich, & Harquail, 1994; Einwiller, Fedorikhin, Johnson, & Kamins,
2006). Such consumer-company identification (i.e., CeC identification)
can be based on two basic and distinct dimensions of a company's
identity. The first dimension pertains to the company's corporate ability
(CA), or its expertise in producing and delivering products or services
with attractive functional and/or hedonic attributes (Brown & Dacin,
1997). The second dimension pertains to the company's CSR, or “its
status and activities with respect to its perceived societal obligations”
(Brown & Dacin, 1997, p. 68). Notably, although customers can identify
with a company based on one or both of these dimensions, a company's
CSR activities comprise a particularly compelling basis for CeC iden-
tification because they convey a company's values, morality, or char-
acter (e.g., Currás-Pérez, Bigné-Alcañiz, & Alvarado-Herrera, 2009; Du,
Bhattacharya, & Sen, 2007; Pérez & Rodríguez del Bosque, 2015),
which are more central to a consumer's sense of self than ability or
competence. This is reflected in the growing prevalence of CSR-based
identification in the marketplace: our recent poll (see Appendix for
details) revealed that although CA-based identification dominates, due
primarily to consumers' greater exposure to CA than to CSR information
about brands, CSR comprises the basis for identification in the case of at

Corresponding author.
⁎

E-mail addresses: sabine.einwiller@univie.ac.at (S. Einwiller), bettina.lis@uni-bayreuth.de (B. Lis), christopher.ruppel@univia.ac.at (C. Ruppel),
sankar.sen@baruch.cuny.edu (S. Sen).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.06.036
Received 28 September 2018; Received in revised form 20 June 2019; Accepted 22 June 2019
0148-2963/ © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
 S. Einwiller, et al.

Table 1
Overview over extant studies on consumer resilience to negative publicity.
Source Type of affiliation w/ Stimulus Type(s) of nega-tive Theoretical foundation Dependent variable(s) Core findings
company/brand information

Ahluwalia et al. (2000) Brand commitment
Experiments 1 and (Exp. 1: measured, Exp. 2:
2 manipulated)
Einwiller et al. (2006) CSR-based consumer-
company identification
(manipulated)
Pullig et al. (2006) Prior attitude certainty
(manipulated)
Liu et al. (2010) Commitment,
Identification,
Sensitivity to Corporate
Social Performance (SCSP)
Athletic shoes by Nike (Exp.
1) and Mizuno (Exp. 2)
Mutual fund (fictitious)
Athletic shoes (fictitious,
Exp. 1) and Odwalla juice
(Exp. 2),
Brand positionning:
performance based, values
based, multiplex
Carrefour
Quality (faulty shock
absorbers)
Performance (moderate
and very negative)
Performance and values
related
Unethical behavior
(moderate and very
negative)
Impression formation
(negativity effect), Biased
processing
Motivated reasoning
Search-and-alignment
model, attitude challenge
(mis)matching
Impression formation
(negativity effect),
Motivated reasoning
Counterarguments, High (vs. low) commitment leads to counterarguing and
Attitude change, resistance to negative publicity
Ambivalence, Perceived
diagnosticity
Attitudes, Strong (vs. weak) identification buffers negative effects
Perceptions, when publicity is moderately negative; no buffering when
Behavioral intentions publicity is very negative
Attitude change High (vs. low) prior attitude certainty insulates from
negative publicity effects when the brand positioning is
aligned (vs. not aligned) with negative brand publicity. In
case of multiplex positioning, high prior attitude certainty
insulates brands from both performance- and values-related
negative publicity.
Attitude change High commitment, strong identification and low SCSP buffer
negative effects when unethical behavior is moderately
negative; the buffer effect is suspended when the
information is extremely negative

2
(measured)
Cheng et al. (2012) Self-brand connection BlackBerry Brand extension Self-concept, self- Self evaluation, High (vs. low) self-brand connection causes lower self-
(measured) performance affirmation Brand evaluation esteem but buffers negative effects on brand; when high SBC
consumers can affirm their self, brand evaluation decreases

Source Moderator(s) Stimulus Type(s) of nega-tive information Theoretical foundation Dependent variable Core findings
(s)

Lisjak et al. (2012) Brand identification Starbucks General negative information Self-concept, defensive Attitude change Identification buffers against negative effects when self-esteem is
(measured) and implicit self- Facebook responding, self- low and self is activated; when identified consumers can affirm
esteem affirmation their self, brand defense is reduced
Schmalz and Orth Brand attachment Coca Cola Unethical behavior (moderate Motivated reasoning Emotional Strong (vs. weak) brand attachment buffers negative effects when
(2012) McDonalds and very negative) ambivalence, unethical behavior is moderately negative; no buffering when
Purchase intentions unethical behavior is very negative
Trump (2014) Self-brand connection Nike Ethical (discrimination against Self-concept, self-relevance Brand evaluation Strong (vs. weak) self-brand connection buffers against negative
(measured) women) and product failure effects when negative info is not self-relevant and in product
domain; buffer effect is suspended when negative info is self-
relevant (women) and of ethical nature
Jeon and Baeck Brand-customer relationship Coffee franchise (fictitious): CSR (slush funds) and CA (coffee Information integration Attitudes, Strong (vs. weak) relationship strength + CSR (CA) associations
(2016) strength Sona to elicit CSR and producing origin) theory Behavioral buffer negative effects of negative CSR (CA) information; overall:
(manipulated) Pazenda to elicit CA intentions negative CSR information leads to more negative effects
associations
Journal of Business Research 104 (2019) 1–13
S. Einwiller, et al.
least a quarter of the brands with which consumers identify.
Therefore, understanding how consumers who identify with a brand
on the basis of CSR respond to negative CSR publicity about it is im-
portant. A growing body of research (Einwiller et al., 2006; Lisjak, Lee,
& Gardner, 2012; Liu, Wang, & Wu, 2010) points to a buffering effect of
stronger CeC identification on consumer reactions to negative brand
publicity, particularly when such publicity is of moderate, as opposed
to extreme, negativity. However, this research either focuses on gen-
eral, as opposed to CSR-based, identification (Lisjak et al., 2012; Liu
et al., 2010) or on negative CA, as opposed to CSR, publicity (Einwiller
et al., 2006). This buffering effect is also reflected in research (see
Table 1 for a summary) examining the link between both CSR- and CA-
related negative brand publicity and a broader variety of generic (i.e.,
neither CSR- or CA-specific) consumer-brand connections (e.g., brand
attachment (Schmalz & Orth, 2012), brand commitment (Ahluwalia,
Burnkrant, & Unnava, 2000; Liu et al., 2010), self-brand connection
(Cheng, White, & Chaplin, 2012; Trump, 2014), and brand-customer
relationship strength (Jeon & Baeck, 2016).
More specifically, Jeon and Baeck (2016) show that when con-
sumers' associations with a brand are predominantly CSR-based, a
stronger brand-customer relationship increases the likelihood of de-
fensive consumer attitudes toward negative CSR publicity, relative to
CA publicity. Pullig, Netemeyer, and Biswas (2006) echo this finding,
showing that when consumers' prior brand attitudes are held with high
certainty, they engage in more defensive processing of subsequent ne-
gative CSR-related information when the brand is positioned on CSR
than when it is positioned on CA. However, both studies treat a brand's
CSR associations as orthogonal to consumers' relationships with the
brand instead of the basis of such relationships (see also Trump (2014)),
as in the case of CSR-based identification. In sum, no research has thus
far, to the best of our knowledge, examined the effect of a CSR-based
consumer-brand relationship, such as CeC identification, on consumer
reactions to negative CSR publicity.
This paper draws on prior research on CeC identification (Bergami
& Bagozzi, 2000; Bhattacharya & Sen, 2003), consumer reactions to
competence versus integrity transgressions (Pagliaro, Ellemers, Barreto,
& Di Cesare, 2016; Skowronski & Carlston, 1987), and, more broadly,
the psychology of morality (e.g., Ellemers, van der Toorn, Paunov, &
van Leeuwen (2019)) to suggest consumers' reactions to negative CSR
publicity about a company engaged in CSR hinges on the extent to
which its CSR activities comprise the basis for their identification with
the company. More specifically, a laboratory experiment and a quasi-
experimental study involving the VW emissions scandal test our pre-
diction that when identification is based on a company's CSR activities
(i.e., CSR-based CeC identification), more strongly identified con-
sumers will react more adversely to negative CSR publicity about the
company than their more weakly identified counterparts or those who
identify based the company's CA dimension. As well, we provide evi-
dence for the mechanism theorized to underlie this identification-based
backfiring effect: when faced with negative CSR publicity, consumers
with higher CSR-based CeC identification are more likely to not only
feel betrayed by the company, but also to disidentify with it, increasing
their propensity to oppose the company, such as through negative word
of mouth.
Next, we theorize about CSR-based CeC identification and its effect
on consumer responses to negative CSR publicity. We then present the
two studies that test our predictions. We end with a discussion of the
theoretical and managerial implications of our findings, as well as their
limitations and further research.
2. Literature review and hypotheses
2.1. Consumer-company (CeC) identification
In the service of their self-esteem and self-enhancement needs,
people tend to identify with various social categories (Tajfel & Turner,
3
Journal of Business Research 104 (2019) 1–13
1986), including organizations (Ashforth & Mael, 1989). Organizational
identification is the degree to which individuals define themselves in
terms of the same traits or values that they believe define an organi-
zation (Dutton et al., 1994). This perception of overlap between the
self-concept or identity and that of the organization cause the organi-
zational values or traits to become self-referential or self-defining
(Pratt, 1998), producing a sense of connectedness to, and feeling of
oneness with, the organization (Mael & Ashforth, 1992). Importantly,
identification with an organization also occurs in the absence of formal
membership, as in the case of consumers' identification with a company
(i.e., CeC identification).
Notably, CeC identification can have diverse bases, as our mar-
ketplace poll revealed (see Appendix). In other words, the company
values or traits that constitute the company identity, with which con-
sumers identify, can vary across consumers and companies. For in-
stance, some companies, such as Patagonia, position themselves on CSR
by highlighting their social and/or environmental values, whereas
others emphasize their CA or corporate abilities, both in terms of
functional (e.g., performance by Nike) or hedonic (e.g., pure driving
pleasure by Alfa Romeo) attributes that their products offer consumers.
Of course, the identities of companies can comprise both CA and CSR,
such as Toyota, which focuses on product quality as well as on being
environmentally friendly.
Importantly, prior research suggests a CSR-based corporate identity
constitutes a particularly meaningful basis for identification (Currás-
Pérez et al., 2009; Du et al., 2007) relative to a CA-based identity. In
investigating why, Ybarra, Chan, and Park (2001) find the identity di-
mensions of CA and CSR map onto the basic domains of competence
and morality that people rely on to structure and make sense of
themselves and others. Critically, much research (e.g., Pagliaro et al.,
2016; see Ellemers, van der Toorn, and Paunov (2019), for a recent
review) suggests that of these domains, the moral one is more diag-
nostic and consequential in people's perceptions, cognitions, and eva-
luations of both themselves and others, including groups and organi-
zations. The social function of morality underscores this exalted status
of morality over competence (Haidt, 2003; Pagliaro et al., 2016): our
desire to not just see ourselves as good people (Aquino & Reed II, 2002),
but also to have relevant social others admire and accept us (Pagliaro
et al., 2011), determines our moral beliefs and behaviors. Thus, our
conceptions of morality are located in and emanate from the social
groups we belong, or aspire to belong, to (Ellemers, 2017). This points
to CSR (i.e., morality)-based CeC identification as more closely tied,
and central, to a person's social identity than CA-based CeC identifi-
cation (Brewer, 1991; Hogg & Abrams, 1988).
In sum, CSR-based identification is likely to be particularly self-re-
levant (Johnson, Matear, & Thomson, 2011) to consumers in con-
structing their self-defining and -enhancing social identities, because
CSR, more than CA, reveals the character of a company (Brown &
Dacin, 1997), humanizes it (Du et al., 2007), and is tied to its values,
ethics, and morality (Mishina, Block, & Mannor, 2012). This has clear
implications for how CSR-identified consumers respond to potentially
identity-negating CSR negative publicity, which we theorize about next.
2.2. CSR-based CeC identification and negative publicity
Much research points to the buffering effect of CeC identification on
consumers' reactions to negative company publicity (see Table 1). This
research converges on the notion that this buffering stems from the
identified consumers' motivation to protect their self-concept (Cheng
et al., 2012; Einwiller et al., 2006; Lisjak et al., 2012; Trump & Brucks,
2012), of which the company identity is a part. This identification-in-
duced self-protective motive, in turn, not only produces biased, de-
fensive information processing (e.g., Kunda, 1990), with more chari-
table attributions about the company, but also causes consumers to be
more forgiving of it (Bhattacharya & Sen, 2003).
Our central assertion is that in the case of CSR-based CeC
S. Einwiller, et al.
identification, stronger identification will exacerbate, rather than
buffer, the effect of negative CSR publicity, with the more strongly
identified consumers reacting more negatively than their more weakly
identified counterparts. Three related reasons lead to this prediction.
First, research on social inference (e.g., Pagliaro et al., 2016; Ybarra
et al., 2001) points to an asymmetry in people's dispositional ascriptions
of negative information regarding an actor's competence versus mor-
ality: people intuitively believe that whereas both dispositionally
competent and incompetent actors can commit incompetent acts, only
actors who are dispositionally immoral commit immoral acts. As a re-
sult, after exposure to negative CSR publicity consumers are more likely
to ascribe dispositional immorality to a company (i.e., “this is an in-
herently immoral company”) than they are to ascribe dispositional in-
competence to a company after exposure to negative CA publicity. In
other words, consumers are more likely to attribute negative CSR
publicity to the company's enduring character than they are to attribute
negative CA publicity to the company's enduring character (Skowronski
& Carlston, 1987).
Second, although this asymmetry in consumers' reactions to nega-
tive CSR versus CA brand publicity is likely to manifest regardless of
their identification bases and levels, we argue, based on our discussion
above, that CeC identification is more self-relevant for CSR-identified
consumers than for their CA-identified counterparts. Consequently, the
strongly identified CSR-based identifiers will react more adversely than
the strongly identified CA-based identifiers to their perception, trig-
gered by negative publicity, that the company is immoral. Because
people are more motivated to protect their moral self-view than their
competence self-view (Ellemers et al., 2019; Skitka, Bauman, & Sargis,
2005), we can expect those who identify with a company in order to
reinforce and perhaps enhance their moral, as opposed to competence,
self-view to react particularly strongly to information that renders the
company and, in turn, them, inherently immoral. Such people are more
likely than others to find the immorality reflected on them to be
aversive and stressful (Pagliaro et al., 2016), causing them to reject
more vehemently the company they no longer see as sharing their
moral convictions or aspirations (Skitka et al., 2005). In addition,
consumers with higher CSR-based identification are likely to care more
about being moral than those less identified on CSR or highly identified
on CA, causing them to find the company's moral violation particularly
abhorrent.
Third, consumers with stronger CSR-based CeC identification are
more likely than CA-identified consumers to experience negative moral
emotions, such as guilt, shame, and disgust, in response to negative CSR
publicity (Ellemers et al., 2019; Johnson et al., 2011). At the same time,
the former may experience moral anger and outrage at the company for
violating one or more moral mandates that drew them to the company
in the first place (Tetlock, 2003). These distressing emotions are likely
to constitute strong motivators for consumers to turn against the
company based on the negative CSR publicity, allowing them to alle-
viate at least somewhat their affective discomfort.
In sum, we suggest that negative CSR publicity is more likely than
negative CA publicity to make the company attitudes and consequent
behaviors of CSR-identified consumers contrast away from, rather than
assimilate toward, their prior positive perception about the company.
More formally:
H1. Unlike in the case of CA-related negative publicity, CSR-related
negative publicity produces more negative attitudes toward a company
among consumers high on CSR-based CeC identification than among
consumers low on CSR-based CeC identification.
More specifically, because CSR-related negative publicity under-
mines the basis of the consumer-company bond for CSR-identified
consumers and destroys the moral assurance they derive from the re-
lationship with the company, such consumers are likely to feel betrayed
by the company they had previously trusted as a part of their social
identity (Bhattacharya & Sen, 2003). This sense of betrayal engenders
4
Journal of Business Research 104 (2019) 1–13
the kind of strong emotional reactions that are more characteristic of
moral violations that reflect poorly on the self than of comparable
competence violations (Skitka et al., 2005). We suggest this perceived
betrayal, defined as a customer's belief that a firm has deliberately
violated the norms in the context of their relationship, is likely to cause
the strongly CSR-identified consumer to disidentify with the company.
Disidentification, a distinct psychological state, entails disconnecting
from aspects of the company (Kreiner & Ashforth, 2004). Dis-
identification ensues when identified consumers realize the basis for
their identification has been violated, and that they can no longer at-
tribute to the company the specific traits guiding their identification. In
other words, the company with which consumers identified now poses a
threat to their moral identity, causing them to actively repudiate and
reject it in an effort to protect and restore their sense of moral self.
Employee research also supports this effect (Kreiner & Ashforth, 2004).
Rousseau (1989) shows that disidentification occurs when employees
perceive an employer as violating the psychological contract, or the
mutual beliefs, perceptions, and informal obligations between them. As
in the case of the employer-employee relationship, a strong CeC
identification can be construed as an implicit psychological contract
between the consumer and the company. Thus, a corporate transgres-
sion in the domain of a consumer's basis of identification (i.e., CSR) is
likely to constitute a perceived breach of psychological contract, pro-
ducing a sense of betrayal and disidentification.
Prior research suggests a key behavioral manifestation of dis-
identification is brand opposition and, more specifically, intentions to
punish the company (Grégoire & Fisher, 2008; Wolter, Bach, Cronin, &
Bronn, 2016). The sense of betrayal identified consumers feel toward
the company and their consequent efforts at disidentification are likely
to trigger these intentions to punish the company. As discussed earlier,
such behaviors are particularly likely in the case of strongly CSR-
identified consumers, stemming from their efforts to alleviate and
ideally repair the stress and emotional distress the company's perceived
moral betrayal produced. Such opposition behaviors can take direct
forms, such as vindictive complaining, or more indirect forms, such as
spreading negative word of mouth (Coombs & Holladay, 2009; Johnson
et al., 2011), harming the company's reputation and encouraging others
to avoid patronizing it (Grégoire & Fisher, 2008). In sum, we suggest
that CSR-based negative publicity causes CSR-based identifiers to feel
betrayed by the company, producing disidentification and, in turn,
opposition behaviors toward the company. More formally:
H2. Negative CSR publicity causes strongly CSR-identified consumers
to feel betrayed. These feelings of betrayal are, in turn, likely to produce
disidentification among such consumers, increasing their intentions to
display brand-opposition behaviors (negative word of mouth and
punishment).
3. Study 1
3.1. Design and procedure
Study 1 tested H1 with a two-factor design: (1) CSR-based CeC
identification (measured), and (2) negative publicity type (three levels:
(1) control (no negative publicity), (2) negative CSR-related, (3) ne-
gative CA-related). In total, 123 undergraduate students (70% women,
30% men, Mage = 24) took part in the experiment at the end of class.
Participation was voluntary and not compensated by course credit or
other incentives. We informed participants they would be participating
in a “study on investment decisions” and asked them to imagine that a
substantial amount of money they inherited was invested in funds
managed by the (fictitious) asset-management firm Ecoworld. This in-
struction was intended to increase participants' interest in the scenario
and their potential for CSR-based CeC identification with the firm (see
Einwiller et al., 2006). We then asked participants to carefully read a
screenshot of the company's homepage describing its business
S. Einwiller, et al.
principles. Ecoworld was positioned in this screenshot as a socially re-
sponsible company, focused on functional risk management with op-
timal returns and the creation of mutual funds that invested solely in
companies meeting screening requirements for social and environ-
mental responsibility. We expected this description of the asset-man-
agement firm to result in strong identification among those participants
for whom social and environmental responsibility is important to their
self-concept.
Next, participants completed the identification measures and were
assigned, at random, to one of three (negative) publicity conditions, in
the guise of a news report that had allegedly appeared on an in-
dependent online news site. In the control condition, the post read as
follows:
The investment company ECOWORLD continues its investment
plan. With its newly issued ECOWORLD Growing Markets Fund the
investment company extends its investments in companies that op-
erate predominantly in Asian emerging markets. Thereby, ECOW-
ORLD follows the current trend to partake the economic growth of
developing countries.
In the negative CSR-related condition, the neutral post was sup-
plemented with the following information:
Untimely for the company comes the report of the business maga-
zine WiSo from November 30th that points out mismanagement at
ECOWORLD. In a current investigation by the magazine it is stated
that ECOWORLD invested to a significant degree in companies that
offend against central principles of environmental and social
agreeableness. This is contrary to ECOWORLD's publicized guiding
principles.
In the negative CA-related condition, the neutral post was supple-
mented as follows:1
Untimely for the company comes the report of the business maga-
zine WiSo from November 30th that points out mismanagement at
ECOWORLD. In a current investigation by the magazine it is stated
that ECOWORLD invested to a significant degree in companies that
experts consider highly risky investments. This is contrary to ECO-
WORLD's publicized guiding principles.
Following the news post, we measured participants' general attitude
toward the company and their social responsibility (SR) values, as well
as their age and gender. Participants were then debriefed and dis-
missed.
3.2. Measures
All variables were measured with established scales. After partici-
pants read the screenshot from the Ecoworld homepage, they indicated
their identification with the company on an eight-item scale from
Einwiller et al. (2006), comprising the following statements: “I am
somewhat associated with Ecoworld,” “I have a sense of connection with
Ecoworld,” “I consider myself as belonging to the group of people who
are in favor of Ecoworld,” “Customers of Ecoworld are probably similar
to me,” “Employees of Ecoworld are probably similar to me,” “Ecoworld
shares my values,” “Being a customer of Ecoworld is part of my sense of
who I am,” and “Purchasing Ecoworld's mutual funds would help me
express my identity.” We measured responses on a 9-point scale
(1 = strongly disagree, 9 = strongly agree) and averaged them to obtain
an index for CSR-based CeC identification (M = 4.56, SD = 1.53,
α = 0.91).
1
A broader conceptualization of CSR may encompass this aspect of carless
product management as responsibility for customers. Yet, in this study, we
focus on social and environmental aspects of CSR and therefore do not subsume
“carless product management” under the CSR concept.
5
Journal of Business Research 104 (2019) 1–13
Following their exposure to the news post, we gauged participants'
general attitudes toward the company, using four 9-point semantic
differentials taken from Spears and Singh (2004): bad (1) – good (9),
unpleasant – pleasant, unappealing – appealing, unlikable – likable. We
averaged the four items to form an attitude index (M = 4.65,
SD = 1.02, α = 0.81). Then, we measured participants' SR values in
terms of three statements taken from Einwiller et al. (2006): “It is ex-
tremely important to me that companies behave responsibly when it
comes to social and environmental matters,” “Investors and consumers
should make an effort to support socially responsible companies,” and
“I would prefer to invest in a socially responsible company.” We mea-
sured responses to each statement on a 9-point scale (1 = strongly dis-
agree, 9 = strongly agree) and averaged them to obtain an SR-values
index (M = 5.56, SD = 1.92, α = 0.93). Finally, participants stated
their gender and age.
3.3. Manipulation checks
To ensure the successful manipulation of negative publicity, we
conducted a pretest among 59 undergraduate students (64% women,
31% men, 5% no answer; Mage = 23) belonging to the same population
as in the main study. We informed participants that they would be
participating in a “study on the depiction of a financial service provider
in the media” and presented them with one of the three versions of the
news report (negative CSR, negative CA, or control). They rated the
news report on two 7-point semantic differentials: negative (1) – posi-
tive (7), uninteresting (1) – interesting (7). Results showed participants
perceived the negative messages (NCA = 20, NCSR = 20) as more ne-
gative than the control message (Ncontrol = 19) (Mneg = 3.18 vs.
Mcontrol = 4.00; t (57) = 3.37, p < .01) but equally interesting
(Mneg = 3.18 vs. Mcontrol = 2.83; t(57) = 0.89, p = .38). The two ne-
gative messages were not significantly different on either negativity or
interestingness (negative: MCA = 3.35 vs. MCSR = 3.00; t(38) = 1.32,
p = .19; interesting: MCA = 3.15 vs. MCSR = 3.20; t(38) = −0.12,
p = .91). Furthermore, the two negative publicity conditions were rated
on two additional items concerning the media allegations: not serious
(1) – serious (7), unworthy of condemnation (1) – worthy of con-
demnation (7). Participants saw the allegations as equally serious
(MCA = 3.85 vs. MCSR = 3.30; t (38) = 1.13, p = .27) and worthy of
condemnation (MCA = 3.70 vs. MCSR = 3.30; t (38) = 0.94, p = .35).
In the main study, the company description was successful in gen-
erating stronger and weaker identified participants as intended. The
median for CSR-based CeC identification was 4.75 (i.e., around the
midpoint of the scale); about half of the sample revealed stronger and
half exhibited weaker CSR-based CeC identification with Ecoworld. In
addition, participants' identification with Ecoworld was significantly
correlated with the extent to which they endorsed SR values (r
(121) = 0.85, p < .001), providing convergent validity for the basis of
participants' identification with the company; individuals with stronger
SR values identified more strongly with the stimulus company because
of its social and environmental identity.
3.4. Results
To test the hypothesized interaction between CSR-based CeC
identification and negative publicity, we conducted a simple modera-
tion analysis with PROCESS 2.15 for SPSS (Hayes, 2012). The regres-
sion equation included a continuous variable for CSR-based CeC
identification, two dummy-coded variables for negative publicity
(dummy 1: negative CSR-related publicity = 0 and negative CA-related
publicity = 1; dummy 2: negative CSR-related publicity = 0 and con-
trol information = 1), and two interaction terms for identification x
dummy 1 (CSR-related vs. CA-related) and identification x dummy 2
(CSR-related vs. control).
Results revealed that both two-way interactions of negative pub-
licity and CSR-based CeC identification on attitude toward the
S. Einwiller, et al.
company were significant (identification x dummy 1: b = 0.425, t
(117) = 3.665, p < . 001; identification x dummy 2: b = 0.333, t
(117) = 3.086, p < . 01). The whole model explained a significant
proportion of the variance in attitude toward the company (R2 = 0.50,
F(5, 117) = 23.611, p < .001), of which a significant proportion was
due to the incorporated interaction terms (increase in R2 = 0.064, F
(2,117) = 7.570, p < .001).
Given the significant moderator effect, we next examined its parti-
cular form (see Fig. 1). In line with H1, the slope in the negative CSR-
related publicity condition was negative (b = −0.165, t
(121) = −2.001, p < . 05), indicating that the more participants
identified with Ecoworld, the worse their attitude after exposure to CSR-
related negative publicity. By contrast, the slope in the negative CA-
related publicity condition was positive (b = 0.260, t(121) = 3.186,
p < . 01), indicating the buffering effect of CeC identification holds
when the negative publicity is not related to the basis of identification.
To gain more detailed insights into the pattern of effects, we con-
ducted several spotlight analyses comparing all three negative-publicity
conditions at weak (-1SD = 3.03), moderate (M = 4.56), and strong
(+1SD = 6.08) levels of CSR-based CeC identification. When partici-
pants were weakly identified, negative publicity degraded their attitude
toward the company regardless of the domain of the publicity (i.e., CSR
or CA). Spotlight analysis at 1 SD below the mean of CSR-based CeC
identification showed that in both negative publicity conditions, CSR-
related (b = −1.101, t(120) = 4.725, p < . 001) and CA-related
(b = −0.752, t(120) = 3.334, p < .01) consumers held worse atti-
tudes than in the control condition, but we found no significant dif-
ference between the two negative-information conditions (b = 0.350, t
(120) = 1.344, p = .182).
Yet, already at a moderate level of CSR-based CeC identification,
the backfiring and buffering effects resulted in a significant publicity
domain-specific difference (b = −0.998, t(120) = 6.074, p < . 001).
Although exposure to both CSR- and CA-related negative publicity had
a negative impact on the attitudes of participants relative to the control
condition, this negative effect was greater for participants in the CSR-
related condition (b = −1.608, t(120) = 9.595, p < . 001) than in the
CA-related condition (b = −0.610., t(120) = 3.705, p < . 001).
Finally, the buffering versus backfiring effect was most evident at a
6
Journal of Business Research 104 (2019) 1–13
Fig. 1. Results (study 1), interaction (attitude toward
Ecoworld): CSR-based CeC identification x information
type
Note. Arrows represent significant differences (p < .05)
between the information types for low (-1SD), medium,
and high (+1SD) CSR-based CeC identification.
high level of CSR-based CeC identification. Participants who strongly
identified with Ecoworld were rather insensitive to CA-related negative
publicity but particularly sensitive to negative publicity in the CSR
domain. In line with buffering, strongly identified consumers favored
the company regardless of whether it had done anything wrong or
whether it had received negative CA-related publicity. We found no
significant attitude difference between the control and the negative CA-
related condition (b = 0.469, t(120) = 1.962, p = .052). By contrast,
when the negative publicity was CSR related, strongly identified par-
ticipants indicated significantly lower attitudes compared to the control
(b = −2.116, t(120) = 8.943, p < . 001) and the negative CA-related
condition (b = −1.647, t(120) = 7.436, p < . 001). Together, these
patterns provide support for H1. In the next study, we replicated H1 and
test H2 using a real negative CSR-related publicity context.
4. Study 2
Using a real-world setting, study 2 extends the study 1 findings by
comparing the effects of negative CSR publicity depending on the basis
of CeC identification, CSR versus CA, and showing these effects not
only on attitudes but also on consumers' disidentification and brand-
opposition intentions. In doing so, study 2 sheds light on our theorized
process (H2).
4.1. Procedure and participants
The study context was the Volkswagen (VW) emissions scandal that
erupted in September 2015 after the company was accused of cheating
pollution emissions tests in the US. VW had employed a hybrid posi-
tioning strategy, focusing on aspects such as affordability and sporti-
ness, as well as promoting its diesel cars as environmentally friendly.
The company had even received the Green Car of The Year award in
2009 and 2010 for two of its diesel models; these prizes were with-
drawn in the wake of the crisis (Kaye, 2015). Because VW breached its
environment-related promises, which represents a CSR-related corpo-
rate transgression, this case is particularly suited to test the predicted
backfiring effect of CSR-based CeC identification.
We conducted two surveys, one in the US, where the VW emissions
S. Einwiller, et al.
scandal broke, and one in Germany, the country of origin and home
market of VW. We recruited participants, as part of a larger study,
through automobile-specific online panels, described in more detail in
the next section. The survey procedure and questionnaire were identical
in both countries. Because measuring respondents' level of pre-scandal
CeC identification directly was difficult, we applied a two-step proce-
dure to establish a valid indicator of CSR-based CeC identification.
First, we selected for the purposes of this study only those survey par-
ticipants who had demonstrated loyalty to VW before the transgression
became public, by having bought a VW car at least twice before the
scandal broke. Loyalty, which is defined as a deeply held commitment
to re-buy a preferred product (Oliver, 2010), is considered a key con-
sequence of CeC identification (Bhattacharya & Sen, 2003). Loyalty
behavior can also be due to other factors, such as convenience, habit, or
a lack of alternatives (e.g., Dick & Basu, 1994). The automobile sector,
however, is not short of alternatives, and a car purchase—being a high-
involvement purchase—is unlikely to happen simply out of convenience
or habit. Notably, research has shown the effect of brand identification
on consumer loyalty in the automobile sector (Kuenzel & Halliday,
2008), as well as in other sectors including consumer goods
(Stokburger-Sauer, Ratneshwar, & Sen, 2012), financial services (Pérez
& Rodríguez del Bosque, 2015), mobile telecommunications services
(He & Li, 2011), and travel agencies (Homburg, Wieseke, & Hoyer,
2009). Therefore, we consider behavioral loyalty to be a viable proxy
measure for CeC identification in our focal context.
Second, we asked participants in our study sample to cast their
minds back to when they bought their current VW car and to indicate
their buying motivation by indicating the importance of different at-
tributes for their decision to choose the make and model they did
(Hsieh, Pan, & Setiono, 2004). These attributes included eco-friendli-
ness (three items) hedonic ones such as sportiness, and basic factors
such as safety (see below for complete list of items). Respondents' eco-
friendliness ratings served as indicators of CSR's (in this case, eco-
friendliness) self-relevance to them. To validate that this ecological
motivation was indeed self-relevant and self-defining for the VW cus-
tomer's identity, we also measured respondents' general green con-
sumption values (Haws, Winterich, & Naylor, 2014)2 at the end of the
survey. As expected, green consumption values and ecological buying
motivation were strongly correlated (r (441) = 0.604, p < .001). Be-
cause our sample comprised only loyal owners, strongly identified with
VW, respondents' eco-friendliness buying motivation (i.e., attribute
importance ratings) served as indicators of their level of CSR-based CeC
identification and as the independent variable for testing our hy-
potheses. To show the predicted backfiring effect does not hold when
identified consumers value aspects other than eco-friendliness (i.e.,
aspects not related to the scandal), we also included respondents' he-
donic buying motivation, which reflects CA-based CeC identification,
as an independent variable in our analysis.
Following the retrospective assessment of the CeC identification
basis, the questionnaire turned to the present time and the VW emission
scandal. This section included measurements for respondents' percep-
tions of betrayal, consumer disidentification, and brand-opposition in-
tentions. To conclude, we asked participants several sociodemographic
questions.
2
The green consumption scale by Haws et al. (2014) comprises the following
items: “It is important to me that the products I use do not harm the environ-
ment,” “I consider the potential environmental impact of my actions when
making many of my decisions,” “My purchase habits are affected by my concern
for our environment,” “I am concerned about wasting the resources of our
planet,” “I would describe myself as environmentally responsible,” and “I am
willing to be inconvenienced in order to take actions that are more en-
vironmentally friendly” (α = 0.95).
7
Journal of Business Research 104 (2019) 1–13
4.2. Sample
We collected data, as part of a larger study, through an online
survey among current VW owners in the US and Germany, whom we
contacted through an independent and global market research com-
pany. The company maintains a wide range of consumer panels
with > 5.5 million members in 45 country markets, and uses a com-
prehensive validation approach to ensure the quality of respondents.
The company's vehicle profiler allowed us to target VW customers in
both countries. Qualified respondents were provided a link to the online
survey and incented adequately relative to the survey length.
For the purposes of this study, we selected only those participants
from the total sample who had bought a VW at least twice before
September 18, 2015, the day the allegations of cheating emissions tests
first broke in the US. This selection process yielded 169 respondents in
the US and 274 in Germany. The German sample was gender balanced
(GER: 49.6% women), whereas in the US sample, a majority of re-
spondents were women (US: 69.2% women). The average age was 53
(SD = 15.34) in the US and 49 (SD = 13.34) in the German sample. Of
the US respondents 49% had a monthly net income of < 3300 USD;
64% of the German respondents had a monthly net income of < 3000
Euro (≈ 3270 USD). Data collection took place in January of 2016,
about half a year after the scandal had erupted.
4.3. Measures
All measures employed 7-point scales and were based on previous
research (see Table 2 for descriptive statistics). We measured re-
spondents' motivation for buying their current VW car (1 = not at all
important, 7 = very important) using various items adapted from Hsieh
et al. (2004). Based on exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses,
we identified three distinct buying motivations: ecological (“eco-
friendly,” “low on emissions,” “manufacturer showed concern for the
environment”), hedonic (“fun to drive,” “sporty,” “exciting”), and a
hygiene factor including basic attributes (“durability,” “reliability,”
“safe in accidents”), which participants rated as highly important
throughout the sample (M = 6.29, SD = 0.82). We measured perceived
betrayal using three statements adapted from Grégoire and Fisher
(2008): “I feel cheated,” “I feel betrayed,” and “I feel lied to”
(1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). We measured disidentifica-
tion using a scale developed by Kreiner and Ashforth (2004): “I feel
alienated from VW,” “I feel detached from VW,” “I am embarrassed to
own a VW,” “I find VW to be disgraceful,” “I want people to know that I
disagree with how VW behaves,” and “I am ashamed of what goes on at
VW” (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). In addition, we gauged
customers' intention to oppose the brand with two items (1 = highly
unlikely, 7 = most likely) on negative word of mouth (“I will encourage
friends or relatives NOT to buy cars from VW” and “I will say negative
things about VW and its cars to other people”) taken from Coombs and
Holladay (2009) and one item from Grégoire, Tripp, and Legoux's
(2009) desire-for-revenge scale (“I will try to punish VW in some way”).
4.4. Data analysis and results
4.4.1. Reliability, validity, and common-method bias
Prior to hypothesis testing, we subjected the described measurement
scales to a commonly used validation process to assess their reliability,
validity, and unidimensionality. Using Cronbach's alpha as a first in-
dicator, all measurements showed satisfying reliability with values
ranging from 0.82 to 0.95. In the next step, we used confirmatory factor
analysis (CFA) to verify the convergent and discriminant validity of the
measures. As indicated by the fit statistics, the supposed measurement
model fit well with the data (χ2(172) = 423.30, p < .001, χ2/df = 2.46,
CFI = 0.962, TLI = 0.954, RMSEA = 0.057, SRMR = 0.050); all con-
sidered indices fulfilled commonly accepted cutoff criteria (Hu &
Bentler, 1999). Furthermore, convergent validity among the measures
S. Einwiller, et al. Journal of Business Research 104 (2019) 1–13

Table 2
Construct descriptives, correlations, reliability and validity measures (study 2).
Variables (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

(1) Hygiene factor (0.63) 0.23 0.30 0.06 0.10 0.20

(2) Hedonic motivation 0.21 (0.72) 0.29 0.03 0.07 0.06
(3) Ecological motivation 0.23 0.27 (0.79) 0.32 0.26 0.19
(4) Perceived betrayal 0.05 0.03 0.29 (0.86) 0.62 0.34
(5) Consumer disidentification −0.08 0.02 0.26 0.64 (0.61) 0.58
(6) Intention to brand opposition −0.24 0.02 0.17 0.34 0.57 (0.68)
Mean 6.29 4.86 4.69 3.80 2.71 2.08
Standard deviation 0.82 1.49 1.55 2.04 1.51 1.43
Cronbach's α 0.82 0.88 0.91 0.95 0.91 0.85
Composite Reliability 0.84 0.88 0.92 0.95 0.90 0.86

Note. The parenthesized number in the diagonal is the AVE (average variance extracted), below the diagonal elements are the correlations between the constructs,
above the diagonal elements are the HTMT (heterotrait-monotrait) ratios.

was achieved, as all factor loadings were above 0.67 and statistically
significant (p < .001), and all AVE (average variance extracted) scores
were above the minimum threshold of 0.50. Composite reliabilities
ranging from 0.84 to 0.95, which exceeds the minimum threshold of
0.70, further support strong reliability (Hair, Tatham, Anderson, &
Black, 1998). Using the Fornell-Larcker criterion, we checked for dis-
criminant validity among the measures (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). All
AVEs were larger than the squared correlation between the construct
and any others. Finally, we calculated heterotrait-monotrait ratios
(HTMT) of correlations to gauge discriminant validity. All were lower
than the conservative threshold of 0.85 (Henseler, Ringle, & Sarstedt,
2015). The highest HTMT score was 0.62 for the constructs consumer
disidentification and perceived betrayal. Overall, our constructs exhibit
sound measurement properties (see Table 2).
Because all measures are self-reported, common-method bias (CMB)
can be a potential problem (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff,
2003). We tried to mitigate this problem in various procedural ways
(MacKenzie & Podsakoff, 2012), by, for instance, easing respondents'
task to recall restrospective buying motivation, introducing a clear
temporal separation between this retrospective measurement and
measurements pertaining to the negative publicity, enhancing re-
spondents' geneneral motivation through careful instructions, and
minmizing the repetitiveness of scales. In addition, we applied statis-
tical methods to assess CMB. Using CFA, we compared three different
models of the considered measurements: (1) a one-factor model, in
which all items loaded on a common factor; (2) a full measurement six-
factor model, in which the items loaded on their respective factors (i.e.,
ecological motivation, hedonic motivation, the hygiene factor, per-
ceived betrayal, consumer disidentification, and intention to retaliate);
and (3) a seven-factor model, in which all items were further con-
strained to load equally on an unmeasured latent method factor. The
one-factor model (χ2(189) = 4207.64, p < .001, χ2/df = 22.26,
CFI = 0.40, TLI = 0.33, RMSEA = 0.219, SRMR = 0.174,
BIC = 4463.57) fitted our data poorly. Comparing the seven-factor
model (χ2(171) = 412.6, p < .001, χ2/df = 2.41, CFI = 0.964,
TLI = 0.955, RMSEA = 0.057, SRMR = 0.051, BIC = 778.24) with our
original six-factor model (χ2(172) = 423.30, p < .001, χ2/df = 2.46,
CFI = 0.962, TLI = 0.954, RMSEA = 0.057, SRMR = 0.050,
BIC = 782.82) shows model fit did not improve substantially upon in-
clusion of an unmeasured latent method factor. Besides, no substantial
differences (> 0.2) emerged for any of the central constructs when
comparing standardized regression weights in both models. Further-
more, in line with Homburg, Müller, and Klarmann (2011), we included
the latent method factor in the structural model for hypothesis testing
(see also Elbedweihy, Jayawardhena, Elsharnouby, & Elsharnouby,
2016). The inclusion of this factor did not affect our findings. In sum,
these results indicate CMB was not a significant issue in our data.
4.4.2. Serial multiple mediation analysis
Having established the reliability and validity of our measurements,
we tested the hypothesized relationships in a serial multiple mediation
model based on a bias-corrected bootstrapping procedure with the
PROCESS 2.15 macro in SPSS (Hayes, 2012). As depicted in Fig. 2,
PROCESS 2.15 estimates all possible direct and indirect effects of an

Fig. 2. Tested serial multiple mediation model for the influence of ecological motivation (study 2).

8
S. Einwiller, et al.
Table 3
Results (study 2) for serial multiple mediation model.
Path coefficients
to perceived betrayal (M1) to consumer disidentification (M2)
Model variables
Ecological motivation 0.41 (0.06)⁎⁎⁎ 0.10 (0.04)⁎
Perceived betrayal 0.41 (0.03)⁎⁎⁎
Consum. disidentification
Covariates
Hygiene factor −0.05 (0.12) −0.23 (0.07)⁎⁎
Hedonic motivation −0.08 (0.07) 0.02 (0.04)
R2 0.09⁎⁎⁎ 0.36⁎⁎⁎
Indirect effects
Total
EM ➔ PB ➔ OPP
EM➔ PB ➔ CD ➔ OPP
EM ➔ CD ➔ OPP
Note. N = 443. M1 = first mediator, M2 = second mediator, Y = outcome variable, CI = Confidence Interval, EM = Ecological Motivation, PB = Perceived Betrayal,
CD = Consumer Disidentification, OPP = Intention to Brand Opposition. Model coefficients are reported in unstandardized form, standard errors are displayed in
parentheses, confidence intervals are based on 10,000 bootstrap samples.
⁎
p < .05.
⁎⁎
p < .01.
⁎⁎⁎
p < .001.
independent variable X through a sequence of two (or more) mediators
on a dependent variable Y. This has the advantage of not ignoring
potential effects that one has not assumed a priori (Hayes, 2013). In our
case this means that ecological buying motivation (X), i.e. the proxy for
the level of CSR-based CeC identification, is linked to customers' in-
tention to brand opposition (Y) in four ways: (1) a direct effect from
ecological motivation to intention to brand opposition, (2) an indirect
effect through perceived betrayal (M1) only, (3) an indirect effect
through consumer disidentification (M2) only, and (4) an indirect effect
through perceived betrayal and consumer disidentification sequen-
tially. The described sequential indirect effect corresponds to our hy-
pothesis H2 regarding the process underlying the backfiring effect of
CSR-based CeC identification.
We included two covariates in the model estimation: The hygiene
factor was included, because its attributes were rated highly important
by most of the survey participants and could therefore play a role in
participants' intention to brand opposition. Hedonic buying motivation
as an alternative source of CeC identification was included in order to
demonstrate that this factor does not affect the assumed process un-
derlying the backfiring effect. Hedonic attributes are particularly suited
for this purpose, because they not only have a high potential to be self-
relevant and to serve as a basis of CeC identification, but are also un-
related to VW's CSR-related transgression.
Table 3 displays the detailed results for path estimates and indirect
effects. All path estimates are reported in an unstandardized form, and
95% bias-corrected bootstrap confidence intervals are based on 10,000
bootstrap samples. In support of H2, the predicted sequential indirect
effect through perceived betrayal and consumer disidentification was
significant as indicated by a bootstrapping confidence interval (CI)
entirely above zero (CI: 0.045; 0.114). As hypothesized, the more the
identified customers valued eco-friendliness as an attribute, the more
they felt betrayed (a1 = 0.41) by VW. Perceived betrayal was, in turn,
positively related to consumer disidentification (d21 = 0.41), which
increased customers' intention to brand opposition (b2 = 0.43). We also
tested the model separately for the two countries to show that the hy-
pothesized mediational process underlying the backfiring effect of CSR-
based CeC identification emerged in both samples. The sequential in-
direct effect through perceived betrayal and consumer disidentification
was significant in the US (CI: 0.023; 0.134) and in the German sample
(CI: 0.036; 0.137) as indicated by bootstrapping confidence intervals
9
Journal of Business Research 104 (2019) 1–13
Indirect effects
to brand opposition (Y) Estimate Bias-corrected bootstrap 95% CI
0.09 (0.04)⁎
0.01 (0.04)
0.43 (0.05)⁎⁎⁎
−0.28 (0.07)⁎⁎⁎
0.02 (0.04)
0.28⁎⁎⁎
0.12 (0.02) 0.080; 0.178
0.01 (0.02) −0.028; 0.041
0.07 (0.02) 0.045; 0.114
0.04 (0.02) 0.010; 0.085
entirely above zero.
Beside this hypothesized sequential mediated process, two other
effects showed significance in the analysis. First, ecological buying
motivation also had a marginally significant and positive direct effect
on customers' intention to oppose VW (c’ = 0.09). Second, the indirect
effect through consumer disidentification alone was significant as in-
dicated by a bootstrapping confidence interval entirely above zero (CI:
0.010; 0.085). Identified customers who valued ecological attributes
tended to disidentify (a2 = 0.10) with VW after the company had vio-
lated their psychological contract by cheating on emissions tests, and
consumer disidentification in turn stimulated people's intention to
brand opposition (b2 = 0.43). However, the indirect effect mediated
through perceived betrayal alone was not significant, since the boot-
strapping confidence interval included zero (CI: −0.028; 0.041).
As a covariate, hedonic buying motivation did not affect any vari-
able in the model. To further validate our findings concerning the
backfiring effect of CSR-based CeC identification, we also tested the
serial multiple mediation model with hedonic buying motivation as the
independent variable instead, controlling for ecological buying moti-
vation. Results indicate that hedonic buying motivation affected cus-
tomers' intention to brand opposition neither directly nor indirectly.
Overall, the results of study 2 corroborate study 1's support for the
backfiring effect of CSR-based CeC identification in the case of CSR-
related negative publicity. Using the real-world case of the VW emis-
sions scandal, we demonstrate that the stronger customers' CSR-based
CeC identification, the more, rather than less, they tended to turn
against VW. Importantly, study 2 sheds light on the mediating effects by
showing that people's perception that VW had betrayed them, and their
ensuing disidentification, mediated the effects of CSR-based CeC
identification on customers' intentions to oppose the brand. This was
not the case when customers' CeC identification was based on CA-re-
lated aspects of the corporate identity.
5. Discussion
CSR is high on the global corporate agenda, motivated, at least in
part, by the business case that “doing good” has positive effects on key
stakeholder groups, such as protecting against negative publicity due to
CSR's positive influence on consumers' identification with the company.
This research shows that the buffering effect of CSR-based CeC
S. Einwiller, et al.
identification on attitudes toward the company is reversed when
identified consumers learn about a corporate moral misconduct. Worse
yet, loyal customers who initially identified with VW because of the
alleged eco-friendliness of its cars were seriously inclined to spread
negative word of mouth and punish the automaker for cheating on its
emissions tests, because they felt betrayed, which produced dis-
identification with and opposition to the company. In providing these
insights, this paper makes three important contributions: It advances
our understanding of the conditions under which CeC identification
helps versus hurts in protecting against negative publicity. Second, it
sheds light on the process underlying the backfiring effect of CeC
identification. Finally, it advances our understanding of disidentifica-
tion as an outcome of this backfiring. Below, we discuss these three
contributions.
5.1. Theoretical implications
A number of previous studies document a buffering effect of CeC
identification (Einwiller et al., 2006; Lisjak et al., 2012; Liu et al., 2010)
or commitment (Ahluwalia et al., 2000) on consumer reactions to ne-
gative publicity about a company or brand. This effect is suspended
when the negativity of the information is extreme and thus cannot be
downplayed without hurting one's self-concept (Einwiller et al., 2006;
Liu et al., 2010), and when a transgression is self-relevant for the
strongly connected consumer (Trump, 2014). We advance these in-
sights for the domain of moral misconduct by showing the buffering
effect of identification is not only suspended but is reversed—turning
into a backfiring effect—when both identification and the negative
information are in the more self-relevant domain of morality (i.e., CSR).
When consumers who strongly identify with a company because of CSR
are confronted with negative publicity about CSR, the centrality to their
self-concept of morality, which underlies CSR, contributes to a severe
disconnect between their own moral identity and the “real” identity of
the company that infringed on their moral values. This perceived dis-
connect leads them to dramatically revise their judgment of the com-
pany. By contrast, when the identification is based on less self-relevant
dimensions, such as competence (i.e., a company's CA), the self-concept
is less threatened, causing identification and loyalty with the company
to remain untainted even by a severe moral transgression like VW's
cheating on emissions tests.
Importantly, the findings of this research also shed light on the
process mediating this backfiring effect of CSR-based CeC identifica-
tion in the case of moral misconduct. As Bhattacharya and Sen (2003)
argue, negative reactions occur because consumers perceive betrayal
when the domain of the malpractice is the central basis for their
identification. When loyal VW customers who identified with the au-
tomaker because of the alleged eco-friendliness of its cars found out VW
broke the promises it gave in the psychological contract and empha-
sized in its communications, they felt betrayed by the company. Per-
ceived betrayal being a relational construct helps us explain not only
the detrimental effect of identification on attitude, but also customers'
conversion from identifying to disidentifying with the violator.
Grégoire and Fisher (2008) speak of the “love becomes hate” effect,
which implies that “as relationship quality increases, customers ex-
perience a greater sense of betrayal when they perceive low levels of
fairness” (p. 251). We extend this notion by showing that not only
fairness but also violation of the basis of identification drives this effect,
because perceived betrayal only emerged when both the domain of
identification and negative publicity were particularly self-relevant to
consumers. We furthermore find, contrary to Grégoire and Fisher
(2008), that perceived betrayal alone is not what influences customers
to want to seek revenge and punish the violator; rather, it is a perceived
disconnect from and rejection of the company, that is, disidentification.
This shows the power of disidentification, a yet under-researched
construct.
Kreiner and Ashforth (2004) consider disidentification a unique
10
Journal of Business Research 104 (2019) 1–13
psychological state separate from identification. Thus, when consumers
learned about the CSR misconduct, CSR-based CeC identification
turned into this new state of rejection and disconnect. Although per-
ceived betrayal fueled this disconnect, CSR-based CeC identification
also affected disidentification directly. This finding suggests CeC dis-
identification contains a considerable social component (Wolter et al.,
2016). Aside from being driven by the individual's perception of be-
trayal, it is also elicited by people's concern about how others perceive
them. The construct comprises the social dimension of feeling embar-
rassed and ashamed to own one of the company's products and by the
desire to let others know that one disagrees with the company, which is
implied by specific items included in the scale to measure dis-
identification (Kreiner & Ashforth, 2004). With respect to organiza-
tional members, Kreiner and Ashforth argue that “disidentification may
entail a repulsion of the organization's mission, culture, or centrally
defining aspects to the point that a person consciously or actively se-
parates his or her identity and reputation from those of the organiza-
tion” (p. 3).
Yet, like disidentified employees, disidentified car owners cannot
easily terminate their connection with the company, because selling a
car can be effortful and buying a new one can be expensive. Especially
during the emissions crisis, selling a VW car meant high losses because
the value of the cars—especially of those with diesel engines—had
dropped significantly. Thus, disidentified customers were stuck with
their cars, just as disidentified employees often are stuck with their
employer. Such locked-in customers can have severe negative con-
sequences for the company, because to protect their social identity, they
may publicly disavow the company. In line with our study 2 findings,
this effort could include being vocal about the aspects of the company
that the disidentified customer finds objectionable. Like employees,
customers who are highly familiar with the product are credible sources
of information. Thus, the retaliatory behaviors of disidentified custo-
mers can deepen the reputational damage caused by the crisis, produ-
cing, eventually, financial losses for the company.
5.2. Managerial implications
For managers, our results emphasize that a CSR positioning
strategy, or a hybrid strategy including CSR, is a serious commitment
that has to be firmly grounded in the company's business plan and
backed by corporate and employee conduct, not just by symbolic
communication. If not, greenwashing accusations can harm the firm's
reputation more than the CSR claims have helped to strengthen it. In a
vigilant society, the transgression and misleading intent of the corpo-
rate communication act will eventually be detected. When it is, con-
sumers who believed the misleading green messages and identified with
the company on that account can turn into the firm's worst enemies
(Grégoire & Fisher, 2008). To dampen their retaliatory behavior, the
company must invest considerable effort to appease this group of dis-
enchanted customers. As stressed in crisis-communication literature
(e.g., Coombs, 2015), responding quickly and openly and commu-
nicating accommodative messages is important. Coombs and Holladay
(2008) show that expressing sympathy and compensation can be as
effective as apologizing in order to produce favorable reactions. Yet,
this finding refers to people who are not victims of the crisis. For vic-
tims—particularly loyal customers whose identification has turned into
disidentification—also issuing a sincere apology and explanation seems
important. Importantly, disidentified customers need to be treated with
great care so that they at least do not have reasons to complain about
how the company treated them after the breach of trust. This way, their
opposition behavior may be reduced, if not eliminated.
Our research shows that a considerable number of customers do not
identify with a brand or company because of CSR but, instead, because
of CA. Our findings suggest CA-identified customers are unlikely to
evince a backfiring effect in the face of negative CSR-based publicity.
This finding implies a hybrid strategy can work as a protection, because
S. Einwiller, et al. Journal of Business Research 104 (2019) 1–13

those customers whose CeC identification is based on attributes other
than CSR are resilient in the face of negative publicity. Thus, managers
need to thoroughly assess their company's true strengths and develop a
positioning strategy that is closely aligned with them. If CSR is not
among those strengths, abstaining from accentuating its absence in the
brand's positioning is wise. Although CSR is particularly suitable to
foster identification, if it is not firmly rooted in the company's strategy
and operations, the brand should emphasize strong attributes in the
domain of CA that also have the potential to foster identification. As
this research shows, hedonic attributes like sportiness and fun are also
suitable for establishing identification and for protecting against the
effects of negative publicity. In the case of VW, the company's hybrid
strategy seems to have helped reduce the harm caused by the crisis. The
automaker's sales figures rebounded in 2017 after having dropped due
to the emissions scandal, yet US sales have still not returned to the level
achieved before the diesel scandal (Boudette, 2017).
5.3. Limitations and further research
Several limitations of this research need to be addressed. In study 1,
using a fictitious company, the level of CSR-based CeC identification
may not have been as strong as if participants had actually invested in a
similar fund and developed a connection with the company over time.
Also, testing the hypotheses with participants other than under-
graduates, who are more experienced with regards to the respective
product category, could have improved the external validity of the
findings. To address these shortcomings, study 2 used VW as a real-
world crisis object and loyal VW customers as research participants.
Yet, this real-world case entailed its own challenge with regards to
measuring CeC identification before the breakout of the crisis.
However, by using loyalty and ecology-motivated buying as proxies for
CSR-based CeC identification, we addressed this challenge as effec-
tively as possible.
Our studies point to several avenues for further research. Although
we argue, based on the literature on morality versus competence, for
the qualitatively distinct nature of CSR-based identification from that
based on CA, we did not test for this explicitly. Because our focus is on
CSR, a test of whether CA-based negative publicity would produce a
buffering or, in fact, a backfiring effect in the case of consumers
strongly identified on CA is outside the scope of the current research.
However, the conceptual importance of establishing through further
research how CA-identified consumers might react to CA-based
negative publicity is undeniable, underscored by the greater prevalence
of CA-based identification in today's marketplace. Also worth testing is
the possibility, given that some consumers may identify based on both
CA and CSR, that these two bases interact in their effect on consumer
reactions to CSR-based negative publicity. Self-protective motives may
cause such consumers to rely on the CA dimension of their identifica-
tion to buffer the impact of the negative publicity, particularly because
buffering seem less effortful and emotionally taxing than dis-
identification and brand opposition.
In addition, more research is needed to explain how identification
turns into disidentification. Here, we establish the role of perceived
betrayal; however, it only partly mediated the relationship between
identification and disidentification. Previous research pronounced the
social component of consumer disidentification and the role of corpo-
rate disrepute as an influential antecedent (Wolter et al., 2016). Future
studies need to clarify the relative importance of betrayal versus dis-
repute in the conversion process from a state of perceived oneness to a
state of separation and rejection. We expect differential effects on
emotional and behavioral outcomes depending on whether perceived
betrayal due to self-company dissimilarity or concerns about self-re-
presentation to relevant others is more pronounced. Although the
former might elicit more anger and offensive reactions, the latter may
lead to stronger embarrassment and consequently to more avoidance
and separation efforts by disidentified consumers.
Ethical approval
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants
were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/
or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration
and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants in-
cluded in the studies.
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by the University of Vienna, internal
funds to the first author.

Appendix

Marketplace poll “Reasons for identifying with brands or companies”.

We conducted a poll among N = 355 US consumers (participants on the platform Prolific; equal distribution of women and men; mean age, 34).
Participants were asked to name one or possibly two brands they feel connected to because they reflect who they are or want to be, and rate why they
feel connected (four items for CSR, four for CA; scale from 1 = not at all to 7 = very much). Results for the Top 2 mentions (i.e., ratings of 6 or 7)
across all brand mentions (N = 711) were as follows:

CSR CA

Socially responsible: 42% High quality: 84%

Focus on sustainability: 39% Great design: 77%
Highly ethical: 38% Superb service: 64%
Concern for the environment: 31% Innovativeness or technological excellence: 57%

For each of the brands they mentioned, participants were also asked to indicate, in one sentence, why they feel connected to this brand. Of the
262 different brands named across all participants, 68 brands (26%) were associated with CSR attributes and 194 (74%) were associated with CA
attributes. Brands that were most often associated with CSR were Patagonia (n = 10), REI Co-op (n = 6), and Tom's shoes (n = 6). Brands most often
associated with CA-related attributes were Apple (n = 33), Samsung (n = 15), Nike (n = 14), Amazon (n = 13), Adidas (n = 9), and Google (n = 8).

11
S. Einwiller, et al.
References
Ahluwalia, R., Burnkrant, R. E., & Unnava, H. R. (2000). Consumer response to negative
publicity: The moderating role of commitment. Journal of Marketing Research, 37(2),
203–214.
Aquino, K., & Reed, A., II (2002). The self-importance of moral identity. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 83(6), 1423–1440.
Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of
Management Review, 14(1), 20–39.
Bergami, M., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2000). Self-categorization, affective commitment and
group self-esteem as distinct aspects of social identity in the organization. British
Journal of Social Psychology, 39(4), 555–577.
Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. (2003). Consumer-company identification: A framework for
understanding consumers' relationships with companies. Journal of Marketing, 67(2),
76–88.
Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. (2004). Doing better at doing good: When, why, and how
consumers respond to corporate social initiatives. California Management Review,
47(1), 9–24.
Boudette, N. E. (2017). Volkswagen sales in U.S. rebound after diesel scandal. New York
Times onlinehttps://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/01/business/volkswagen-sales-
diesel.html?login=email.
Brewer, M. (1991). The social self: On being the same and different at the same time.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17(5), 475–482.
Brown, T. J., & Dacin, P. A. (1997). The company and the product: Corporate associations
and consumer product responses. Journal of Marketing, 61(1), 68–84.
Cheng, Y. Y., White, T. B., & Chaplin, L. N. (2012). The effects of self–brand connections
on responses to brand failure: A new look at the consumer–brand relationship.
Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22(2), 280–288.
Coombs, W. T. (2015). Ongoing crisis communication. Planning managing and responding.
Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Coombs, W. T., & Holladay, S. J. (2008). Comparing apology to equivalent crisis response
strategies: Clarifying apology's role and value in crisis communication. Public
Relations Review, 34(3), 252–257.
Coombs, W. T., & Holladay, S. J. (2009). Further explorations of post-crisis commu-
nication: Effects of media and response strategies on perceptions and intentions.
Public Relations Review, 35(1), 1–6.
Currás-Pérez, R., Bigné-Alcañiz, E., & Alvarado-Herrera, A. (2009). The role of self-defi-
nitional principles in consumer identification with a socially responsible company.
Journal of Business Ethics, 89(4), 547–564.
Dick, A. S., & Basu, K. (1994). Customer loyalty: Toward an integrated conceptual fra-
mework. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 22(2), 99–113.
Du, S., Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. (2007). Reaping relational rewards from corporate
social responsibility: The role of competitive positioning. International Journal of
Research in Marketing, 24(3).
Dutton, J. E., Dukerich, J. M., & Harquail, C. V. (1994). Organizational images and
member identification. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39(2), 239–263.
Einwiller, S. A., Fedorikhin, A., Johnson, A. R., & Kamins, M. A. (2006). Enough is en-
ough! When identification no longer prevents negative corporate associations.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34(2), 185–194.
Elbedweihy, A. M., Jayawardhena, C., Elsharnouby, M. H., & Elsharnouby, T. H. (2016).
Customer relationship building: The role of brand attractiveness and consumer–brand
identification. Journal of Business Research, 69(8), 2901–2910.
Ellemers, N. (2017). Morality and the regulation of social behavior: Groups as moral anchors.
Milton Park, UK: Routledge.
Ellemers, N., van der Toorn, J., Paunov, Y., & van Leeuwen, T. (2019). The Psychology of
Morality: A Review and Analysis of Empirical Studies Published From 1940 Through
2017. Personality and Social Psychology Reviewhttps://doi.org/10.1177/
1088868318811759.
Ewing, J. (2017). Faster, higher, farther: The Volkswagen scandal. New York, NY: W.W.
Norton & Company.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with un-
observable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1),
39–50.
Grégoire, Y., & Fisher, R. (2008). Customer betrayal and retaliation: When your best
customers become your worst enemies. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
36(2), 247–261.
Grégoire, Y., Tripp, T. M., & Legoux, R. (2009). When customer love turns into lasting
hate: The effects of relationship strength and time on customer revenge and avoid-
ance. Journal of Marketing, 73(6), 18–32.
Haidt, J. (2003). Elevation and the positive psychology of morality. In C. L. M. Keyes, & J.
Haidt (Eds.). Flourishing: Positive psychology and the life well-lived (pp. 275–289).
Washington DC: American Psychological Association.
Hair, J. F., Tatham, R. L., Anderson, R. E., & Black, W. (1998). Multivariate data analysis
(5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Haws, K. L., Winterich, K. P., & Naylor, R. W. (2014). Seeing the world through GREEN-
tinted glasses: Green consumption values and responses to environmentally friendly
products. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 24(3), 336–354.
Hayes, A. F. (2012). PROCESS: A versatile computational tool for observed variable
mediation, moderation, and conditional process modeling. White paper http://www.
afhayes.com/public/process2012.pdf.
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis:
A regression-based approach. New York: Guilford Press.
He, H., & Li, Y. (2011). CSR and service brand: The mediating effect of brand identifi-
cation and moderating effect of service quality. Journal of Business Ethics, 100(4),
673–688.
12
Journal of Business Research 104 (2019) 1–13
Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing dis-
criminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115–135.
Hogg, M. A., & Abrams, D. (1988). Social identifications: A social psychology of intergroup
relations and group processes. London: Routledge.
Homburg, C., Müller, M., & Klarmann, M. (2011). When should the customer really be
king? On the optimum level of salesperson customer orientation in sales encounters.
Journal of Marketing, 75(2), 55–74.
Homburg, C., Wieseke, J., & Hoyer, W. D. (2009). Social identity and the service-profit
chain. Journal of Marketing, 73(2), 38–54.
Hsieh, M.-H., Pan, S.-L., & Setiono, R. (2004). Product-, corporate-, and country-image
dimensions and purchase behavior: A multicountry analysis. Journal of the Academy
of Marketing Science, 32(3), 251–270.
Hu, L.t., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure
analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling:
A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55.
Jeon, J. O., & Baeck, S. (2016). What drives consumer's responses to brand crisis? The
moderating role of brand associations and brand-customer relationship strength. The
Journal of Product and Brand Management, 25(6), 550–567.
Johnson, A. R., Matear, M., & Thomson, M. (2011). A coal in the heart: Self-relevance as a
post-exit predictor of consumer anti-brand actions. Journal of Consumer Research,
38(1), 108–125.
Kaye, L. (2015). Volkswagen, Audi return 2009 & 2010 green Car of the year awards.
Thursday, Oct 1st, 2015 Triple Pundithttps://www.triplepundit.com/2015/10/
volkswagen-audi-return-2009-2010-green-car-of-the-year-awards/.
Kreiner, G. E., & Ashforth, B. E. (2004). Evidence toward an expanded model of orga-
nizational identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(1), 1–27.
Kuenzel, S., & Halliday, S. V. (2008). Investigating antecedents and consequences of
brand identification. The Journal of Product and Brand Management, 17(5), 293–304.
Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108(3),
480–498.
Lisjak, M., Lee, A. Y., & Gardner, W. L. (2012). When a threat to the brand is a threat to
the self the importance of brand identification and implicit self-esteem in predicting
defensiveness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(9), 1120–1132.
Liu, T.-C., Wang, C.-Y., & Wu, L.-W. (2010). Moderators of the negativity effect.
Commitment, identification, and consumer sensitivity to corporate social perfor-
mance. Psychology and Marketing, 27(1), 54–70.
MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, P. M. (2012). Common method Bias in marketing: Causes,
mechanisms, and procedural remedies. Journal of Retailing, 88(4), 542–555.
Mael, F., & Ashforth, B. E. (1992). Alumni and their alma mater: A partial test of the
reformulated model of organizational identification. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 13(2), 103–123.
Mishina, Y., Block, E. S., & Mannor, M. J. (2012). The path dependence of organizational
reputation: How social judgment influences assessments of capability and character.
Strategic Management Journal, 33(5), 459–477.
Oliver, R. L. (2010). Satisfaction: A behavioral perspective on the consumer (2nd ed.).
Armonk, N.Y: M.E. Sharpe.
Pagliaro, S., Ellemers, N., & Barreto, M. (2011). Sharing Moral Values: Anticipated
Ingroup Respect as a Determinant of Adherence to Morality-Based (but Not
Competence-Based) Group Norms. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37(8),
1117–1129.
Pagliaro, S., Ellemers, N., Barreto, M., & Di Cesare, M. (2016). Once dishonest, always
dishonest? The impact of perceived pervasiveness of moral evaluations of the self on
motivation to restore a moral reputation. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 586.
Pérez, A., & Rodríguez del Bosque, I. (2015). An integrative framework to understand
how CSR affects customer loyalty through identification, emotions and satisfaction.
Journal of Business Ethics, 129(3), 571–584.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method
biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended
remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.
Pratt, M. G. (1998). To be or not to be: Central questions in organizational identification.
In D. A. Whetten, & P. C. Godfrey (Eds.). Identity in organizations: Building theory
through conversations CA: Sage (pp. 171–207). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Pullig, C., Netemeyer, R. G., & Biswas, A. (2006). Attitude basis, certainty, and challenge
alignment: A case of negative brand publicity. Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 34(4), 528–542.
Rousseau, D. M. (1989). Psychological and implied contracts in organizations. Employee
Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 2(2), 121–139.
Schmalz, S., & Orth, U. R. (2012). Brand attachment and consumer emotional response to
unethical firm behaviour. Psychology & Marketing, 29(11), 869–884.
Sen, S., Du, S., & Bhattacharya, C. B. (2016). Corporate social responsibility: A consumer
psychology perspective. Current Opinion in Psychology, 10, 70–75.
Skitka, L. J., Bauman, C. W., & Sargis, E. G. (2005). Moral conviction: Another contributor
to attitude strength or something more? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
88(6), 895–917.
Skowronski, J. J., & Carlston, D. E. (1987). Social judgment and social memory: The role
of cue diagnosticity in negativity, positivity, and extremity biases. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 52(4), 689–699.
Spears, N., & Singh, S. N. (2004). Measuring attitude toward the brand and purchase
intentions. Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising, 26(2), 53–66.
Stokburger-Sauer, N., Ratneshwar, S., & Sen, S. (2012). Drivers of consumer–brand
identification. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 29(4), 406–418.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behaviour. In
W. G. Austin, & S. Worchel (Eds.). Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7–24).
Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall.
Tetlock, P. E. (2003). Thinking the unthinkable: Sacred values and taboo cognitions.
S. Einwiller, et al.
Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 320–324.
Trump, R. (2014). Connected consumers' responses to negative brand actions: The roles of
transgression self-relevance and domain. Journal of Business Research, 67(9),
1824–1830.
Trump, R. K., & Brucks, M. (2012). Overlap between mental representations of self and
brand. Self and Identity, 11(4), 454–471.
UN Global Compact, & Accenture (2016). There's a clear path for business on sustain-
ability, finds United Nations global compact-accenture strategy study. News release,
June 23 2016. https://newsroom.accenture.com/news/theres-a-clear-path-for-
business-on-sustainability-finds-united-nations-global-compact-accenture-
strategy-study.htm.
Wolter, J. S., Bach, S., Cronin, J. J., & Bronn, M. (2016). Symbolic drivers of con-
sumer–brand identification and disidentification. Journal of Business Research, 69(2),
785–793.
Ybarra, O., Chan, E., & Park, D. (2001). Young and old adults' concerns about morality
and competence. Motivation and Emotion, 25(2), 85–100.
Sabine Einwiller is a Professor of Public Relations Research at the University of Vienna,
Austria, Department of Communication where she is head of the Corporate
Communication Research Group. Prior to this appointment she was a Professor at
Johannes Gutenberg-University Mainz, Germany. Sabine Einwiller studied Psychology at
the University of Mannheim, Germany and received her PhD in Business Administration
from the University of St. Gallen, Switzerland. Her main research areas comprise cor-
porate reputation management, CSR communication, and the effects of negative publicity
and complaining.
13
Journal of Business Research 104 (2019) 1–13
Bettina Lis is a Professor at the University of Bayreuth, Germany, where she holds the
Chair of General Management and Business Administration. Before, she was Assistant
Professor at Johannes Gutenberg-University Mainz. She graduated both in
Communication Science and Business Administration. Her research focusses on human
behavior related questions in the fields of management, marketing and media.
Christopher Ruppel is a research scholar and doctoral candidate at the University of
Vienna's Department of Communication. Prior to this appointment he worked as a re-
search scholar at Johannes Gutenberg-University Mainz, Germany where he also finished
his master's degree in communication with a minor in economics. His research interests
comprise corporate branding, consumer-company (dis)identification and CSR.
Sankar Sen is the Lawrence and Carol Zicklin Chair in Corporate Integrity and
Governance at Baruch College/City University of New York. He is also currently a Scholar
in Residence at the Sasin Graduate Institute of Business Administration of Chulalongkorn
University. Sen's research interests lie at the intersection of sustainability and consumer
behavior. His book, Leveraging Corporate Responsibility: The Stakeholder Route to
Maximizing Business and Social Value, was published by Cambridge University Press. As
well, Sen's research has appeared in both academic (e.g., Journal of Business Ethics; Journal
of Consumer Research; Journal of Marketing Research; Journal of Marketing; Management
Science) and practitioner journals (e.g., California Management Review; Sloan Management
Review; Business Horizons). Sen serves as an associate editor of the Journal of Consumer
Research and on the editorial boards of Journal of Marketing, Journal of Public Policy and
Marketing, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Academy of Marketing Science Review, and
Corporate Reputation Review.