Modeling multiple forms of consumer animosity through fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis

Abstract

Purpose Consumer animosity toward a foreign country can affect negatively international brands. Existing international marketing research offers inconsistent accounts of the factors that explain product quality perceptions, negative word of mouth (NWOM) and product avoidance in animosity contexts. This paper aims to demonstrate that such inconsistency is caused by the fact that different explanations apply to different consumer subgroups. Searching for a single solution, thus, leads to erroneous predictions for sizable subgroups of consumers. Design/methodology/approach The study implements a fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis to two quantitative surveys examining Chinese consumers’ (n = 476) reactions to Japanese products and American consumers’ (n = 517) reactions to Chinese products. Findings The analysis yields novel explanations of the outcomes of animosity. Only in some causal configurations reduced quality evaluations explain product avoidance and NWOM, while in others negative behaviors co-exist with positive quality perceptions. Moreover, negative emotions’ role varies across forms of animosity. While anger is often associated with the behavioral outcomes of animosity, fear plays an important role in only a few specific combinations. Research limitations/implications General models of animosity need to be complemented with accounts that examine the multiple mechanisms underpinning animosity outcomes. Practical implications Marketers should identify which animosity model applies to their consumer segment(s) as different mechanisms require different marketing approaches. Originality/value To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study recognizing that the same animosity outcomes are explained by multiple mechanisms offering a more nuanced picture of the motivations associated with consumer animosity.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 13 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.