消費者抵制之研究：以母子公司相似性、危機責任歸屬、產品替代性及回應策略進行探討

Abstract

抵制是消費者向業者表達不滿的一種有用的工具之一，藉由消費者抑制購買產品來達到某種目的，例如，對付不公平的價格上漲，或是改正企業不當行為等。抵制可說是市場上除了廠商自律與政府規範的他律之外，另一股新的制衡廠商之力量，也是企業與行銷領域學者越來越重視的研究課題。過去對於抵制的探討，大多數的研究是針對消費抵制的歷史發展、對於抵制分類的研究、消費者抵制對於廠商的影響，如股價、企業形象的效果或是購買意願等。然而過去對於抵制的相關研究中主要關注消費者對於單一企業發生問題時所產生的抵制行為進行討論，但過去的研究結果似乎無法解釋母子公司發生問題時，消費者對於母子公司的抵制行為。\n因此，本研究擬透過三個研究，探討消費者在考量母子公司相似性下影響其對母子公司抵制行為之差異。研究一探討母子公司發生危機時，母子公司相似性是否會影響消費者的抵制行為及相關心理機制；研究二則深入探討消費者對於產品的替代性高低，及消費者個人內、外控傾向之人格特質是否會影響到消費者的抵制行為，並提出具體建議與應用，幫助企業瞭解如何看待消費者對於母子公司的抵制行為；研究三則在考量母子公司相似度的情況下，當母公司發生不同類型的危機時，是否使用適當的溝通策略可以為消費者帶來較好的情緒、聲譽與較低的抵制行為，且藉由研究提出建議，幫助企業瞭解發生危機事件時，應該如何回應。\n本研究彌補過去抵制研究僅探討單一企業的缺口，將同化與對比理論擴展至母子公司之抵制行為，有助我們進一步瞭解當母子公司發生危機時，消費者的抵制行為，本研究結果發現：(1).當母子公司相似性高的時候，無論是母/子公司誰發生問題，消費者都比較容易因為同化效果把他們視為一體，同時抵制母和子公司，而當母子公司相似性低的時候，消費者會因為對比效果，選擇抵制發生問題的公司。(2).當消費者面對母/子公司發生危機時，其抵制行為也受產品替代性所影響，因此這也反應抵制成本影響消費者的抵制行為。(3).消費者在面對企業疏失時，其本身人格特質屬內控或外控人格傾向並非重點，他們更重視的是企業從過去到現在的表現是否值得信任，還有危機本身到底是否是企業可以控制的。(4).當母公司犯錯時，消費者對於母公司所採取的回應策略，會對母/子公司帶來不同效果，消費者對於犯錯的母公司往往會用較嚴苛的審視標準，並期待母公司採用重建策略讓消費者感受到他們較大的道歉誠意及負責的表現，因此對母公司有較好評價；相對地，消費者會認為沒犯錯的子公司只是受到牽連，此時母公司只要採用弱化策略說明事件原因，並給消費者一個交代，即可對子公司帶來好的評價。\n本研究將同化與對比理論擴展至消費者抵制母子公司的情境下，除了更瞭解消費者對母子公司的抵制行為，提出相關理論研究結果，另一方面提供企業更多實務建議。

Boycotting is an effective method used by consumers to express dissatisfaction to manufacturers and to achieve certain goals (e.g., to protest unfair price inflation or to condemn improper corporate behavior) through boycotting the purchase of certain products. Boycotting is an alternative market force that enables consumers to hold manufacturers accountable and is also a research topic receiving increasing attention from scholars in the corporate and marketing fields. Studies on boycotting have focused on the historical development of consumer boycotting, the various types of boycotting, and the effects of consumer boycotting on manufacturers, such as on stock prices, corporate image, or purchase intention. Relevant studies have also focused on the discussion of consumer boycotting behaviors when crises arise in individual companies. However, the results are insufficient to explain consumer boycotting behaviors towards parent and subsidiary corporations when crises arise in said corporations.\nTherefore, the present researchers conducted three experiments for a discussion of the differences in consumer boycotting behavior towards parent and subsidiary corporations by considering the similarities between said corporations. The first experiment discusses whether similarities between parent and subsidiary corporations affect consumer boycotting behavior and relevant psychological mechanisms when crises occur in said corporations. The second experiment features an in-depth discussion to determine whether consumers’ perceptions of the substitutability of the corporations’ products and their internal-external locus of control affected their boycotting behavior. According to the results of this experiment, this study proposes practical suggestions and measures to help corporations understand consumers’ boycotting behavior towards parent and subsidiary corporations. In the third experiment, through consideration of the similarities between parent and subsidiary corporations, the Situational Crisis Communication Theory (SCCT) is employed to determine whether proper communication strategies could prompt more favorable emotions and corporate reputation among consumers and thus prevent consumer boycotting behavior when the parent company encounters different types of crises. Through the aforementioned experiments, this study provides suggestions to corporations and assists corporations in responding to boycott-related crises.\nThis study completes the research gap resulting from the fact that other studies have solely discussed the effect of boycotting on individual corporations. By expanding the assimilation-contrast theory to consumer boycotting behaviors towards parent and subsidiary corporations, we improve our understanding of the effects of consumer boycotting behaviors towards said corporations. The findings of this study are as follows: (1) When crises occur in parent or subsidiary corporations, if the corporations have high similarity levels, consumers are more likely to view them as the same entity due to the assimilation effect and to boycott both corporations. If the similarity is low, consumers tend to boycott only the corporation with misbehavior due to the contrast effect. (2) When crises occur in parent or subsidiary corporations, the consumer boycotting behavior is affected by the substitutability of the corporation product; this indicates the effect of boycotting costs on consumer boycotting behavior. (3) The internal-external locus of control among consumers does not significantly influence their perceptions of corporate negligence; instead, consumers value the trustworthiness of the corporation’s past performance and the crisis-control abilities of the corporation. (4) When crises affect the parent corporation, the consumers’ response strategies towards the parent corporation exert different effects on the parent corporation and the subsidiary company. Specifically, consumers generally hold parent corporations to stricter standards; therefore, parent corporations must use rebuild strategies for consumers to perceive their apologies as sincere and their behavior as responsible. Parent corporations can thereby improve consumer sentiment. By contrast, consumers generally perceive that subsidiary corporations are innocent in relation to their parent corporations’ corporate negligence. Parent corporations can employ diminishing strategies in reporting the respective incidents and provide consumers with an explanation to generate positive consumer sentiment for the subsidiary corporation.\nThis study expands the assimilation-contrast theory to consumer boycotting behavior towards parent and subsidiary corporations. As well as an understanding of consumer boycotting behavior towards parent and subsidiary corporations and relevant theoretical research conclusions, practical suggestions for corporations are provided.