ISSN 0439-755X
CN 11-1911/B

心理学报 ›› 2014, Vol. 46 ›› Issue (6): 864-875.doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2014.00864

• 论文 • 上一篇    下一篇

品牌承诺能抵御负面信息吗? ——自我调节导向的调节作用


  1. (1广州农村商业银行品牌管理中心, 广州 510623) (2中山大学管理学院, 广州 510275) (3五邑大学经济管理学院, 江门 529020) (4南京大学商学院, 南京210032)
  • 收稿日期:2012-05-17 出版日期:2014-06-30 发布日期:2014-06-30
  • 通讯作者: 田阳
  • 基金资助:

    国家自然科学基金项目(71102037和71272243), 教育部人文社会科学研究规划基金项目(12YJA630038), 广东省自然科学基金项目(S2011010000855)资助。

Can Brand Commitment Resist Negative Publicity? —— the Moderate Effect of Regulatory Focus

TIAN Yang;WANG Haizhong;LIU Wumei;HE Liu;HUANG Yunhui   

  1. (1 Brand Management Department, GRC Bank, Guang Zhou 510623, China) (2 School of Business, Sun Yat-Sen University, Guang Zhou 510275, China) (3 School of Business, Wu Yi University, Jiang Men 529020, China) (4 School of Business, Nan Jin University, Nan Jin 210032, China)
  • Received:2012-05-17 Online:2014-06-30 Published:2014-06-30
  • Contact: TIAN Yang


传统研究中, 品牌承诺被认为是消费者抵御品牌负面信息的关键, 高承诺消费者的品牌态度不易受到负面信息的影响。然而实验表明, 这一过程会受到自我调节导向的调节:当消费者处于促进型调节导向的时候, 低承诺消费者的品牌态度显著下降, 而高承诺消费者的品牌态度不受影响; 当消费者处于防御调节导向的时候, 无论其品牌承诺高低, 品牌态度均会受到负面信息的影响。这是因为处于防御调节导向的时候, 高品牌承诺消费者的态度保护动机受到抑制, 难以对品牌负面信息产生抵抗作用。研究还发现促进型调节导向的消费者较防御型调节导向的消费者更不容易受到品牌负面信息的影响。

关键词: 品牌承诺, 品牌负面信息, 自我调节导向, 准确性动机, 态度保护动机


In previous research, brand commitment is regarded as the key factor for consumers to resist negative publicity, scholars generally agree that consumers who have high brand commitment are less likely to change their brand attitudes when they are exposed to the brand’s negative publicity. But this is not always the case, evidence shows that some of the high commitment consumers also lower their brand attitudes and even drop their purchasing behavior when facing the brand’s negative publicity. Thus, It is reasonable to infer that the effect of brand commitment on consumers’ responses to negative publicity could be dependent on certain conditions instead of linear. Based on the regulatory focus theory, this study examines whether regulatory focus can moderate the high commitment consumers’ resistance to the negative publicity. Two studies were conducted to test the hypotheses that when consumers in prevention focus, no matter how high their brand commitment was, their brand attitudes would be lowered by the negative publicity; While when consumers in promotion focus, the low commitment consumers’ attitudes would be lowered and the high commitment consumers’ attitudes would remain the same. In study 1, a 2 (regulatory focus: prevention vs. promotion) × 2 (brand scandal: yes vs. no) between-subjects experiment was adopted. Firstly, Participants were required to see the target brand CANON’s LOGO and introduction, reported their brand commitment and familiarity. Then, there regulatory focus were manipulated by using Lee, Keller and Sternthal (2010)’s method; Thirdly, participants in the scandal group were exposed to Canon’s negative publicity regarding its poor quality, and then reported their brand attitudes, involvements, etc, While participants in the control group reported their brand attitudes and involvements without being exposed to the negative publicity. Two–way ANOVA analysis on brand attitudes found a significant interaction between the brand commitment and regulatory focus, and simple effect analysis indicated that when consumers’ prevention focus salient, the brand attitudes of participants with both high commitment and low commitment were lowered by the negative publicity; However, when the promotion focus salient, the low commitment consumers’ attitude was lowered but the high commitment consumers’ attitude did not change. In study 2, we re-tested the hypothesis by using a 2 (brand commitment: high vs. low) × 2 (regulatory focus: prevention vs. promotion) × 2 (brand scandal: yes vs. no) between-subjects experiment. We used KFC as the high commitment brand and DICOS as the low commitment brand, adopted the “Dream and Duty” method to manipulate the regulatory focus. To explore the underlying mechanisms of the phenomenon reported by study 1, we tested the participants’ accuracy motivation and defense motivation. The results supported our hypothesis, and what’ more, we found that when consumers in prevention focus, the accuracy motivation was dominated no matter the brand commitment was; when consumers in promotion focus, the high commitment people was dominated by defense motivation and the low commitment people was dominated by accuracy motivation. This study investigated the regulatory focus’ moderate effect to the brand commitment’s resistance mechanism to the negative publicity, which is a breakthrough of the classical conclusion. It provides a better understanding about people’s reaction to brands’ negative publicity, which may benefit future research on consumers’ commitment and regulatory focus. Furthermore, it also provides practical implications on companies’ brand crisis management.

Key words: brand commitment, negative publicity, regulatory focus, accuracy motivation, defense motivation

[an error occurred while processing this directive]