心理科学进展 ›› 2026, Vol. 34 ›› Issue (1): 175-190.doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2026.0175 cstr: 32111.14.2026.0175
• 研究前沿 • 上一篇
收稿日期:2025-07-07
出版日期:2026-01-15
发布日期:2025-11-10
通讯作者:
关碧瑜, E-mail: guanbiyu@gdust.edu.cn基金资助:
XIAO Tingwen1(
), CHEN Feilong1, GUAN Biyu2(
)
Received:2025-07-07
Online:2026-01-15
Published:2025-11-10
摘要:
作为违背消费者−品牌关系的品牌不端行为, 品牌违规事件在“万物皆媒”的新时代背景下将迅速、广泛地获得消费者关注与讨论。消费者态度会受到品牌违规类型特征的关键影响, 而现有文献对品牌违规的划分可被归纳为违规主体、方式和内容的三维分类体系。在辨析品牌违规定义和梳理分类体系的基础上, 本文从个体心理和社会心理两个层次、中介机制和边界调节两类路径阐明了品牌违规效应的理论基础, 并进一步讨论了品牌违规类型对消费者态度的影响及其心理机制。未来研究可围绕三个主题开展, 即AI技术诱发情形下的品牌违规效应、品牌违规类型特征对中西方消费者态度的影响差异以及特定类型品牌违规对关联品牌评价的影响。本文还针对企业如何响应品牌违规提出了一些策略建议, 包括采取认知/情绪共情式沟通、制定适配的补救策略以及调整舆情引导方式等。
中图分类号:
肖婷文, 谌飞龙, 关碧瑜. (2026). “既往不咎”还是“耿耿于怀”: 品牌违规效应及其心理机制. 心理科学进展 , 34(1), 175-190.
XIAO Tingwen, CHEN Feilong, GUAN Biyu. (2026). “Letting bygones be bygones” or “holding bygones”: The effect of brand transgression and its psychological mechanisms. Advances in Psychological Science, 34(1), 175-190.
| 分类依据 | 具体类型 | 判定标准 | 参考文献 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 违规主体 | ||||
| 品牌原型来源国发展水平 | 发达国家品牌违规 | transgression by prototypical brand from Advanced Economy | 来自发达经济体的原型品牌进行违规 | Magnusson et al. ( |
| 新兴工业国家品牌违规 | transgression by prototypical brand from Newly Industrialized Country | 来自新兴工业化国家的原型品牌进行违规 | ||
| 组织盈利属性 | 非盈利组织违规 | transgression by nonprofit organization | 非盈利组织进行违规 | Hornsey et al. ( |
| 盈利组织违规 | transgression by commercial organization | 盈利组织进行违规 | ||
| 违规方式 | ||||
| 后果可被行为者意志控制的程度 | 可控违规 | controllable transgression | 违规行为被评价为品牌控制范围内且可预防 | Sinha & Lu ( |
| 不可控违规 | uncontrollable transgression | 违规行为被评价为品牌控制范围外 | ||
| 恶劣程度 | 强违规 | strong transgression | 品牌有意做出违规行为, 并认为能够逃脱惩罚 | Ge et al. ( |
| 弱违规 | weak transgression | 品牌无意做出违规行为, 若意识到将全力避免 | ||
| 可被消费者识别的程度 | 公然违规 | blatant transgression | 公然的错误 | Ryoo ( |
| 模糊违规 | ambiguous transgression | 可能而非必然的道德违背行为 | ||
| 潜在伤害程度 | 严重违规 | severe transgression | 负面社会影响较大或施加个人伤害 | Tsarenko & Tojib ( |
| 轻微违规 | mild transgression | 负面社会影响较小或造成个人损失 | ||
| 违规内容 | ||||
| 与消费者自我的相关性 | 自我相关违规 | self-relevant transgression | 对个人利益构成威胁 | Trump ( |
| 非自我相关违规 | non-self-relevant transgression | 对社会利益构成威胁 | ||
| 道德属性 | 道德相关违规 | moral transgression | 道德不端行为, 可进一步划分为员工、消费者和环境相关 | Trump ( |
| 非道德相关违规 | non-moral transgression | 产品失败和服务不佳 | ||
| 人际属性 | 关系型违规 | relational transgression | 品牌态度相关的人际错误(如员工粗鲁行为) | Kim et al. ( |
| 非关系型违规 | nonrelational transgression | 品牌性能相关的非人际错误(如产品缺陷) | ||
| 损害何种层面的消费者利益 | 价值观相关违规 | value-related transgression | 未能提供承诺的心理象征利益 | Isiksal & Karaosmanoglu ( |
| 产品性能相关违规 | performance-related transgression | 未能提供承诺的物质功能利益 | ||
| 与非盈利组织愿景的相关性 | 愿景相关违规 | mission-relevant transgression | 直接违背了组织的道德愿景 | Hornsey et al. ( |
| 非愿景相关违规 | mission-irrelevant transgression | 未直接违背组织的道德愿景 | ||
| 可诊断性(严重性、核心性2 (违规对于品牌身份而言是核心的。)和一致性3 违规行为与过往行为相一致。 | 高诊断性违规 | high-diagnosticity transgression | 更多揭露个人品牌的真实自我 | Matthews & Luebke ( |
| 低诊断性违规 | low-diagnosticity transgression | 更少揭露个人品牌的真实自我 | ||
表1 品牌违规具体类型的分类依据及判定标准
| 分类依据 | 具体类型 | 判定标准 | 参考文献 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 违规主体 | ||||
| 品牌原型来源国发展水平 | 发达国家品牌违规 | transgression by prototypical brand from Advanced Economy | 来自发达经济体的原型品牌进行违规 | Magnusson et al. ( |
| 新兴工业国家品牌违规 | transgression by prototypical brand from Newly Industrialized Country | 来自新兴工业化国家的原型品牌进行违规 | ||
| 组织盈利属性 | 非盈利组织违规 | transgression by nonprofit organization | 非盈利组织进行违规 | Hornsey et al. ( |
| 盈利组织违规 | transgression by commercial organization | 盈利组织进行违规 | ||
| 违规方式 | ||||
| 后果可被行为者意志控制的程度 | 可控违规 | controllable transgression | 违规行为被评价为品牌控制范围内且可预防 | Sinha & Lu ( |
| 不可控违规 | uncontrollable transgression | 违规行为被评价为品牌控制范围外 | ||
| 恶劣程度 | 强违规 | strong transgression | 品牌有意做出违规行为, 并认为能够逃脱惩罚 | Ge et al. ( |
| 弱违规 | weak transgression | 品牌无意做出违规行为, 若意识到将全力避免 | ||
| 可被消费者识别的程度 | 公然违规 | blatant transgression | 公然的错误 | Ryoo ( |
| 模糊违规 | ambiguous transgression | 可能而非必然的道德违背行为 | ||
| 潜在伤害程度 | 严重违规 | severe transgression | 负面社会影响较大或施加个人伤害 | Tsarenko & Tojib ( |
| 轻微违规 | mild transgression | 负面社会影响较小或造成个人损失 | ||
| 违规内容 | ||||
| 与消费者自我的相关性 | 自我相关违规 | self-relevant transgression | 对个人利益构成威胁 | Trump ( |
| 非自我相关违规 | non-self-relevant transgression | 对社会利益构成威胁 | ||
| 道德属性 | 道德相关违规 | moral transgression | 道德不端行为, 可进一步划分为员工、消费者和环境相关 | Trump ( |
| 非道德相关违规 | non-moral transgression | 产品失败和服务不佳 | ||
| 人际属性 | 关系型违规 | relational transgression | 品牌态度相关的人际错误(如员工粗鲁行为) | Kim et al. ( |
| 非关系型违规 | nonrelational transgression | 品牌性能相关的非人际错误(如产品缺陷) | ||
| 损害何种层面的消费者利益 | 价值观相关违规 | value-related transgression | 未能提供承诺的心理象征利益 | Isiksal & Karaosmanoglu ( |
| 产品性能相关违规 | performance-related transgression | 未能提供承诺的物质功能利益 | ||
| 与非盈利组织愿景的相关性 | 愿景相关违规 | mission-relevant transgression | 直接违背了组织的道德愿景 | Hornsey et al. ( |
| 非愿景相关违规 | mission-irrelevant transgression | 未直接违背组织的道德愿景 | ||
| 可诊断性(严重性、核心性2 (违规对于品牌身份而言是核心的。)和一致性3 违规行为与过往行为相一致。 | 高诊断性违规 | high-diagnosticity transgression | 更多揭露个人品牌的真实自我 | Matthews & Luebke ( |
| 低诊断性违规 | low-diagnosticity transgression | 更少揭露个人品牌的真实自我 | ||
| 分析层次与解释路径 | 理论名称 | 理论适用范畴 | 理论功能定位 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 个体心理层次 | 中介机制路径 | 期望违背理论 | 个体在期望与实际体验出现偏差时的认知评估与行为响应 | 非盈利(vs. 盈利)组织违规导致的心理落差 |
| 道德理论 | 个体基于多维度对行为的直觉性评判 | 价值观(vs. 产品性能)相关违规激起道德义愤 | ||
| 边界调节路径 | 归因理论 | 个体对行为事件因果关系的推断过程 | 强联结消费者将模糊(vs. 公然)违规前道德行为归因为低不道德性; 独立型自我建构消费者将不可控(vs.可控)违规归因为显著正义担忧 | |
| 认知失调理论 | 个体在心理不一致状态下对态度或行为的调整 | 紧文化消费者面对本国(vs. 外国)品牌违规时产生矛盾心理反应 | ||
| 社会心理层次 | 中介机制路径 | 原型理论 | 事物的典型性特征被用于范畴化社会认知 | 发达国家(vs.新兴工业国家)品牌违规损害微观/宏微观国家形象 |
| 社会身份认同理论 | 通过群体归属建构自我概念的过程 | 本国(vs.外国)品牌违规更多威胁群体权力地位和价值观; 高诊断性(vs.低诊断性)违规损害品牌认同 | ||
| 边界调节路径 | 制度理论 | 组织/个人适应和服从社会机构规定的基本规则和标准 | 道德(vs. 非道德)相关违规更多偏离西方发达国家、更少偏离东南亚发展中国家制度背景下道德标准 | |
| 社会等级的双策略理论 | 地位威胁情境激活不同应对策略 | 道德(vs. 非道德)相关违规发生时, 采取优胜者而非劣势者叙事策略的品牌被推断为采取支配策略而非声望策略获取市场地位 | ||
表2 品牌违规效应相关理论的适用范畴与功能定位
| 分析层次与解释路径 | 理论名称 | 理论适用范畴 | 理论功能定位 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 个体心理层次 | 中介机制路径 | 期望违背理论 | 个体在期望与实际体验出现偏差时的认知评估与行为响应 | 非盈利(vs. 盈利)组织违规导致的心理落差 |
| 道德理论 | 个体基于多维度对行为的直觉性评判 | 价值观(vs. 产品性能)相关违规激起道德义愤 | ||
| 边界调节路径 | 归因理论 | 个体对行为事件因果关系的推断过程 | 强联结消费者将模糊(vs. 公然)违规前道德行为归因为低不道德性; 独立型自我建构消费者将不可控(vs.可控)违规归因为显著正义担忧 | |
| 认知失调理论 | 个体在心理不一致状态下对态度或行为的调整 | 紧文化消费者面对本国(vs. 外国)品牌违规时产生矛盾心理反应 | ||
| 社会心理层次 | 中介机制路径 | 原型理论 | 事物的典型性特征被用于范畴化社会认知 | 发达国家(vs.新兴工业国家)品牌违规损害微观/宏微观国家形象 |
| 社会身份认同理论 | 通过群体归属建构自我概念的过程 | 本国(vs.外国)品牌违规更多威胁群体权力地位和价值观; 高诊断性(vs.低诊断性)违规损害品牌认同 | ||
| 边界调节路径 | 制度理论 | 组织/个人适应和服从社会机构规定的基本规则和标准 | 道德(vs. 非道德)相关违规更多偏离西方发达国家、更少偏离东南亚发展中国家制度背景下道德标准 | |
| 社会等级的双策略理论 | 地位威胁情境激活不同应对策略 | 道德(vs. 非道德)相关违规发生时, 采取优胜者而非劣势者叙事策略的品牌被推断为采取支配策略而非声望策略获取市场地位 | ||
| [1] |
谌飞龙, 肖婷文, 熊曦, 吴群. (2021). 多产地农业企业使用地理标志品牌的意愿性研究: 原产地资源禀赋视角. 经济地理, 41(2), 174-184.
doi: 10.15957/j.cnki.jjdl.2021.02.019 |
| [2] | 韩杰, 王德胜, 杨志浩. (2022). 国货品牌跨界联合的顾客契合行为研究——基于扎根理论的探索. 经济管理, 44(7), 175-192. |
| [3] | 何云, 钟科, 孙程程. (2017). 城门失火, 可否“惠”及池鱼? ——成品负面事件对要素品牌的反向溢出效应研究. 外国经济与管理, 39(11), 3-13. |
| [4] | 蒋舸. (2025). AIGC版权判定的认知经济性分析. 中国法学, (2), 127-147. |
| [5] |
李厅, 王迣, 罗跃嘉, 封春亮. (2025). 不确定性下的第三方惩罚: 心理与脑网络机制. 心理科学进展, 33(6), 1036-1046.
doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2025.1036 |
| [6] | 李耀, 郝帅昌, 周密. (2022). 企业实施品牌霸权一定会导致消费者品牌报复吗——中国式归因方式的调节作用. 南开管理评论, 25(3), 182-193. |
| [7] |
肖婷文, 卫海英, 陈斯允, 刘福. (2023). 品牌名称视听形式表征对消费者心理的影响及作用机制. 心理科学进展, 31(9), 1756-1774.
doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2023.01756 |
| [8] | 肖娴, 邱凌云, 庞隽. (2025). 文化产品评论主题对有用性影响的跨文化研究. 管理评论, 37(2), 163-174. |
| [9] | 徐岚, 李振全, 蒋怡然, 崔楠. (2018). 品牌犯错情境下的自黑式回应策略. 中国工业经济, (1), 174-192. |
| [10] |
叶巍岭, 徐苏, 周欣悦. (2024). 不同道德情境下叠音品牌名称对消费者道德反应的影响——心智知觉理论的视角. 心理学报, 56(5), 650-669.
doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2024.00650 |
| [11] |
郑好, 陈荣荣, 买晓琴. (2024). 第三方惩罚行为的认知神经机制. 心理科学进展, 32(2), 398-419.
doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2024.00398 |
| [12] | 周俊. (2017). 制度情境与企业违规, 基于跨国面板数据的实证研究. 外国经济与管理, 39(3), 114-128. |
| [13] | 朱沛华, 李方方, 李军林. (2024). 高管外部薪酬差距的激励扭曲效应——以企业违规为例的研究. 经济管理, 46(4), 113-131. |
| [14] |
祝养浩, 龙立荣, 刘文兴. (2023). 领导感激表达能提高员工的追随行为吗?情绪表达真诚性的作用. 心理学报, 55(7), 1160-1175.
doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2023.01160 |
| [15] | Aaker J., Fournier S., & Brasel S. A. (2004). When good brands do bad. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(1), 1-16. |
| [16] | Ahn H., Sung Y., & Drumwright M. E. (2016). Consumer emotional intelligence and its effects on responses to transgressions. Marketing Letters, 27(2), 223-233. |
| [17] | Aw E. C.-X., & Labrecque L. I. (2023). Celebrities as brand shields: The role of parasocial relationships in dampening negative consequences from brand transgressions. Journal of Advertising, 52(3), 387-405. |
| [18] | Burgoon J., & Le Poire B. (1993). Effects of communication expectancies, actual communication, and expectancy disconfirmation on evaluations of communicators and their communication behavior. Human Communication Research, 20(1), 67-96. |
| [19] | Chen L., Yan Y., & Smith A. N. (2022). What drives digital engagement with sponsored videos? An investigation of video influencers’ authenticity management strategies. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 51(1), 198-221. |
| [20] |
Cheng J. T., Tracy J. L., Foulsham T., Kingstone A., & Henrich J. (2013). Two ways to the top: Evidence that dominance and prestige are distinct yet viable avenues to social rank and influence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104(1), 103-125.
doi: 10.1037/a0030398 pmid: 23163747 |
| [21] | Cheng S. 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. |
| [22] | Coombs W. T., Frandsen F., Holladay S. J., & Johansen W. (2010). Why a concern for apologia and crisis communication? Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 15(4), 337-349. |
| [23] | Davvetas V., Ulqinaku A., & Katsikeas C. S. (2024). Brand transgressions: How, when, and why home country bias backfires. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 52(4), 976-997. |
| [24] | Eda, S., & Zeynep G. C. (2015). Feeling attached to symbolic brands within the context of brand transgressions. In Macinnis D. J., Park C. W. (Eds.). Review of marketing research (pp. 233-256). Emerald Group Publishing Limited. |
| [25] | Escalas J. E. (2007). Self-referencing and persuasion: Narrative transportation versus analytical elaboration. Journal of Consumer Research, 33(4), 421-429. |
| [26] | Festinger L. (1962). Cognitive dissonance. Scientific American, 207(4), 93-106. |
| [27] | Fragale A. R., Rosen B., Xu C., & Merideth I. (2009). The higher they are, the harder they fall: The effects of wrongdoer status on observer punishment recommendations and intentionality attributions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108(1), 53-65. |
| [28] | Ge J., Jo M.-S., & Sarigollu E. (2023). How does cultural tightness-looseness affect attitudes toward a local vs foreign brand transgression? International Marketing Review, 40(6), 1456-1479. |
| [29] | 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 avoidance. Journal of Marketing, 73(6), 18-32. |
| [30] | Greitemeyer T., & Sagioglou C. (2018). When positive ends tarnish the means: The morality of nonprofit more than of for-profit organizations is tainted by the use of compliance techniques. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 76, 67-75. |
| [31] | Haidt J., & Joseph C. (2004). Intuitive ethics: How innately prepared intuitions generate culturally variable virtues. Daedalus, 133(4), 55-66. |
| [32] | Han D., Lalwani A. K., & Duhachek A. (2017). Power distance belief, power, and charitable giving. Journal of Consumer Research, 44(1), 182-195. |
| [33] | Heider F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. Psychology Press. |
| [34] | Hill Cummings K., Herhausen D., Roggeveen A. L., & Grewal D. (2025). Countering virtual brand sabotage: The power of informative responses. Journal of Service Research, 28, 451-468. |
| [35] | Hinojosa A. S., Gardner W. L., Walker H. J., Cogliser C., & Gullifor D. (2017). A review of cognitive dissonance theory in management research: Opportunities for further development. Journal of Management, 43(1), 170-199. |
| [36] | Hoang H. T., Ho K. N. B., Tran T. P., & Le T. Q. (2022). The extension of animosity model of foreign product purchase: Does country of origin matter? Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 64, 102758. |
| [37] | Hofstede G. (1980). Culture and organizations. International Studies of Management and Organization, 10(4), 15-41. |
| [38] | Hornsey M. J., Chapman C. M., Mangan H., La Macchia S., & Gillespie N. (2021). The moral disillusionment model of organizational transgressions: Ethical transgressions trigger more negative reactions from consumers when committed by nonprofits. Journal of Business Ethics, 172(4), 653-671. |
| [39] | Huber F., Vollhardt K., Matthes I., & Vogel J. (2010). Brand misconduct: Consequences on consumer-brand relationships. Journal of Business Research, 63(11), 1113-1120. |
| [40] |
Iglesias O., Markovic S., Singh J. J., & Sierra V. (2019). Do customer perceptions of corporate services brand ethicality improve brand equity? Considering the roles of brand heritage, brand image, and recognition benefits. Journal of Business Ethics, 154(2), 441-459.
doi: 10.1007/s10551-017-3455-0 |
| [41] | Isiksal D. G., & Karaosmanoglu E. (2020). Can self-referencing exacerbate punishing behavior toward corporate brand transgressors? Journal of Brand Management, 27(6), 629-644. |
| [42] | Jisu H., Michelle R. N., & Cristel A. R. (2023). ChatGPT, AI advertising, and advertising research and education. Journal of Advertising, 52(4), 477-482. |
| [43] | Jonathan, H. (2003). The moral emotions. In R. J. Davidson, K. R. Scherer, & H. H. Goldsmith (Eds.), Handbook of affective sciences(pp. 852-870). Oxford University Press. |
| [44] | Kakkar H., Sivanathan N., & Gobel M. S. (2020). Fall from grace: The role of dominance and prestige in the punishment of high-status actors. Academy of Management Journal, 63(2), 530-553. |
| [45] | Khamitov M., Grégoire Y., & Suri A. (2020). A systematic review of brand transgression, service failure recovery and product-harm crisis: integration and guiding insights. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 48(3), 519-542. |
| [46] | Kim Y., Park K., & Stacey Lee S. (2019). The underdog trap: The moderating role of transgression type in forgiving underdog brands. Psychology & Marketing, 36(1), 28-40. |
| [47] | Krishna A., & Kim S. (2021). Exploring the dynamics between brand investment, customer investment, brand identification, and brand identity fusion. Journal of Business Research, 137, 267-277. |
| [48] | Kübler R. V., Langmaack M., Albers S., & Hoyer W. D. (2020). The impact of value-related crises on price and product-performance elasticities. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 48(4), 776-794. |
| [49] | Lam S. K., Ahearne M., Mullins R., Hayati B., & Schillewaert N. (2013). Exploring the dynamics of antecedents to consumer-brand identification with a new brand. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 41, 234-252. |
| [50] | Lin J. S., & Sung Y. (2014). Nothing can tear us apart: The effect of brand identity fusion in consumer-brand relationships. Psychology & Marketing, 31(1), 54-69. |
| [51] | Magnusson P., Krishnan V., Westjohn S. A., & Zdravkovic S. (2014). The spillover effects of prototype brand transgressions on country image and related brands. Journal of International Marketing, 22(1), 21-38. |
| [52] | Matthews A. L., & Luebke S. S. F. (2023). Sympathy or shock: How transgression diagnosticity impacts consumer perceptions and intentions regarding person-brands. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 32(8), 1399-1411. |
| [53] | Minton E. A., Cornwell T. B., & Kahle L. R. (2017). A theoretical review of consumer priming: Prospective theory, retrospective theory, and the affective-behavioral- cognitive model. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 16(4), 309-321. |
| [54] | North J. (1987). Wrongdoing and forgiveness. Philosophy, 62, 499-508. |
| [55] | Okimoto, T. G., & Wenzel M. (2008). The symbolic meaning of transgressions:Towards a unifying framework of justice restoration. In K. Eds.), Justice: Advances in group processes (pp. 291-326). Emerald. |
| [56] | Ozdemir O., Kolfal B., Messinger P. R., & Rizvi S. (2023). Human or virtual: How influencer type shapes brand attitudes. Computers in Human Behavior, 145, 107771. |
| [57] | Pearson D. (2004). Brand failures: The truth about the 100 biggest branding mistakes of all time. Journal of Brand Management, 11(3), 253-254. |
| [58] | Rhee M., & Haunschild P. R. (2006). The liability of good reputation: A study of product recalls in the U.S. automobile industry. Organization Science, 17(1), 101-117. |
| [59] | Rosch E., & Mervis C. B. (1975). Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology, 7(4), 573-605. |
| [60] | Ryoo Y. (2022). Moral credentials versus moral credits: Two paths to consumers’ licensing of brand transgressions. Journal of Business Research, 146, 13-31. |
| [61] | Schumacher A., & Mai R. (2024). Organizational Top Dog (vs. Underdog) Narratives Increase the Punishment of Corporate Moral Transgressions: When Dominance is a Liability and Prestige is an Asset. Journal of Business Ethics, 194(1), 19-36. |
| [62] | Scott W. R. (2001). Institutions and organizations. Sage Publications. |
| [63] | Shimp T. A., & Sharma S. (1987). Consumer ethnocentrism: Construction and validation of the CETSCALE. Journal of Marketing Research, 24(3), 280-289. |
| [64] | Sinha J., & Lu F. (2016). “I” value justice, but “we” value relationships: Self-construal effects on post-transgression consumer forgiveness. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 26(2), 265-274. |
| [65] | Sohn Y., & Lariscy R. W. (2015). A “buffer” or “boomerang?” The role of corporate reputation in bad times. Communication Research, 42(2), 237-259. |
| [66] | Tajfel H. (2010). Social identity and intergroup relations. Cambridge University Press. |
| [67] | Tran H. A., Evanschitzky H., Grégoire Y., Nguyen B., Gustafsson A., & Ludwig S. (2025). The role of empathy in providers’ online customer complaints management. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-025-01114-4 |
| [68] | Tran T. T. H., & Bartsch F. (2025). Consumers’ Responses to Moral Transgressions in the Fashion Industry: Comparative Insights from Western Developed and Southeast Asian Emerging Markets. Journal of Business Ethics, 196, 773-806. |
| [69] | Trump R. K. (2014). Connected consumers’ responses to negative brand actions: The roles of transgression self- relevance and domain. Journal of Business Research, 67(9), 1824-1830. |
| [70] | Tsarenko Y., & Tojib D. (2015). Consumers’ forgiveness after brand transgression: The effect of the firm’s corporate social responsibility and response. Journal of Marketing Management, 31(17-18), 1851-1877. |
| [71] | Weerakkody V., Dwivedi Y. K., & Irani Z. (2009). The diffusion and use of institutional theory: A cross-disciplinary longitudinal literature survey. Journal of Information Technology, 24, 354-368. |
| [72] |
Weiner B. (2019). Wither attribution theory? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 40(5), 603-604.
doi: 10.1002/job.2398 |
| [73] | Xie E., Liu M., Liu J., Gao X., & Li X. (2022). Neural mechanisms of the mood effects on third‐party responses to injustice after unfair experiences. Human Brain Mapping, 43(12), 3646-3661. |
| [74] | Xu H. (Felix), Bolton L. E., & Winterich K. P. (2021). How Do Consumers React to Company Moral Transgressions? The Role of Power Distance Belief and Empathy for Victims. Journal of Consumer Research, 48(1), 77-101. |
| [1] | 戴佳彤, 杨璐. 信息助推策略对消费者食物浪费行为的干预效果及机制[J]. 心理科学进展, 2025, 33(7): 1155-1169. |
| [2] | 匡仪, 黄元娜, 马家涛, 尹述飞. 时空框架效应的理论与应用探索[J]. 心理科学进展, 2024, 32(9): 1416-1429. |
| [3] | 侯佳雯, 刘凤军, 孟陆. 独处及其在营销领域的表现与心理机制[J]. 心理科学进展, 2024, 32(4): 677-688. |
| [4] | 雷贺雅, 黄文欣, 陈为聪, 洪金珠, 郑岩, 黄亮. 眼睛效应不稳定性的原因阐释: 基于主客观因素与心理机制视角[J]. 心理科学进展, 2024, 32(3): 486-498. |
| [5] | 陈寿勇, 李静. 环境物质主义的发生机制及条件[J]. 心理科学进展, 2024, 32(12): 2109-2123. |
| [6] | 曾昭携, 白洁, 郭永玉, 张跃, 顾玉婷. 越富有越不支持再分配?——社会阶层与再分配偏向的关系及其心理机制[J]. 心理科学进展, 2022, 30(6): 1336-1349. |
| [7] | 李丹惠, 杜建刚, 李晓楠. 注视线索对消费者的影响机制[J]. 心理科学进展, 2022, 30(11): 2607-2618. |
| [8] | 衡书鹏, 赵换方, 范翠英, 周宗奎. 视频游戏虚拟化身对自我概念的影响[J]. 心理科学进展, 2020, 28(5): 810-823. |
| [9] | 衡书鹏, 赵换方, 孙丽君, 周宗奎. 虚拟销售代理的拟人效应[J]. 心理科学进展, 2019, 27(5): 884-904. |
| [10] | 骆紫薇, 吕林祥. 善因营销对消费者态度的影响及其理论解释[J]. 心理科学进展, 2019, 27(4): 737-747. |
| [11] | 殷继兴, 胡传鹏. 神经科学偏见效应:可重复性及其心理机制的探索[J]. 心理科学进展, 2019, 27(12): 1988-1995. |
| [12] | 赵娜, 马敏, 辛自强. 生命意义感获取的心理机制及其影响因素[J]. 心理科学进展, 2017, 25(6): 1003-1011. |
| [13] | 余小霞;苑媛;辛自强. 文字与数字量尺的差异及心理机制:兼论量尺制作的方法学问题[J]. 心理科学进展, 2017, 25(2): 201-210. |
| [14] | 王财玉;雷雳. 网络购物情境下的羊群效应:内涵、影响因素与机制[J]. 心理科学进展, 2017, 25(2): 298-311. |
| [15] | 张琪;尹天子;冉光明. 动态面孔表情优势效应的心理机制及神经基础[J]. 心理科学进展, 2015, 23(9): 1514-1522. |
| 阅读次数 | ||||||
|
全文 |
|
|||||
|
摘要 |
|
|||||