學術產出-學位論文
文章檢視/開啟
書目匯出
-
題名 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
Effects of Similarities Between Parent and Subsidiary Corporations, Conglomerate’s Misbehavior, Product Substitutability, and Response Strategies on Consumer Boycotting Behavior作者 曾威智
Tseng, Wei-Chih貢獻者 樓永堅
Lou, Yung-Chien
曾威智
Tseng, Wei-Chih關鍵詞 抵制
相似性
同化-對比理論
產品替代性
情境危機溝通理論
Boycott
Similarity
Assimilation-Contrast Theory
Product Substitutability
Situational Crisis Communication Theory日期 2020 上傳時間 2-九月-2020 11:39:11 (UTC+8) 摘要 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。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。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。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.Therefore, 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.This 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.This 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.參考文獻 吳靜吉 (1975)，「內外控量表在輔導上的應用」，測驗與輔導，第10卷，頁152-153。吳靜吉、潘養源與丁興祥 (1980)，「內外控取向與工作滿足及績效之關係」，政治大學學報，第41卷，頁61-74。Albrecht, C., Campbell, C., Heinrich, D., and Lammel, M. (2013). Exploring why consumers engage in boycotts: Toward a unified model. Journal of Public Affairs, 13 (2), 180-189.Allport, G.W. (1961). Pattern and Growth in Personality. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Balabanis, G. (2013). Surrogate boycotts against multinational corporations: consumers’ choice of boycott targets. British Journal of Management, 24 (4), 515-531.Braunsberger, K. and Buckler, B. (2011). What motivates consumers to participate in boycotts: lessons from the ongoing Canadian seafood boycott. Journal of Business Research, 64 (1), 96-102.Brissett, M., & Nowicki, S., Jr. (1973). Internal versus external control of reinforcement and reaction to frustration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 25 (1), 35-44.Cissé-Depardon, K., and N’Goala, G. (2009). The effects of satisfaction, trust, and brand commitment on consumers’ decision to boycott. Recherche et Application en Marketing, 24 (1), 44-66.Claeys, A. -S., Cauberghe, V., and Vyncke, P. (2010). Restoring reputations in times of cri-sis: An experimental study of the situational crisis communication theory and the moderating effects of locus of control. Public Relations Review, 36 (3), 256–262Claeys, A. S., Cauberghe, V. (2014). What makes crisis response strategies work? The impact of crisis involvement and message framing. Journal of Business Research, 67 (2), 182-189.Collins, A.M. and Loftus, E.F. (1975). A spreading-activation theory of semantic processing. Psychological Review, 82 (6), 407-428.Coombs, W. T. (1995). Choosing the right words: The development of guidelines for the selection of the appropriate crisis-response strategies. Management Communication Quarterly, 8 (4), 447-476.Coombs, W. T. (2004). Impact of past crises on current crisis communication. Journal of Business Communication, 41 (3), 265-289.Coombs, W. T. (2007). Protecting organization reputations during a crisis: The development and application of situational crisis communication theory. Corporate Reputation Review, 10 (3), 163-176.Coombs, W. T., and Holladay, S. J. (1996). Communication and attributions in a crisis: An experiment study in crisis communication. Journal of Public Relations Research, 8 (4), 279-295.Coombs, W. T., and Holladay, S. J. (2001). An extended examination of the crisis situations: A fusion of the relational management and symbolic approaches. Journal of Public Relations Research, 13 (3), 321-340.Coombs, W. T., and Holladay, S. J. (2002). Helping crisis managers protect reputational assets. Management Communication Quarterly, 16 (2), 165-186.Corsini, R. J. (1994). Ordinary Resurrections: Encyclopedia of Psychology. New York: Wiley.Day, D. V. and Silverman, S. B. (1989). Personality and job performance: Evidence of incremental validity. Personality Psychology, 42 (1), 25-36.Farah, M. F., and Newman, A. J. (2010). Exploring consumer boycott intelligence using a socio-cognitive approach. Journal of Business Research, 63 (4), 347-355.Fishbein, M. and Ajzen I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Friedman, M. (1985). Consumer boycotts in the united states, 1970-1980: Contemporary events in historical perspective. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 19 (1), 96-117.Friedman, M. (1991). Consumer boycotts: A conceptual framework and research agenda. Journal of Social Issues, 47 (1), 149-168.Friedman, M. (1995). American consumer boycotts in response to rising food prices: Housewives` protests at the grassroots level. Journal of Consumer Policy, 18 (1), 55-72.Friedman, M. (1999). Consumer Boycotts: Effecting Change through the Marketplace and the Media. New York: Routledge.Garrett, D. E. (1987). The effectiveness of marketing policy boycotts: Environmental opposition to marketing. Journal of Marketing, 51 (2), 46-57.Goldenson, R. M. (1970). The Encyclopedia of Human Behavior: Psychology, Psychiatry, and Mental Health. New York: Doubleday.Gregoire, Y., & Fisher, R. J. (2008). Customer betrayal and retaliation: when your bestcustomers become your worst enemies, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36 (2), 247-261.Herr, P. M., Sherman, S. J., and Fazio, R. H. (1983). On the consequences of priming: Assimilation and contrast effects. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 19 (4), 232-340.Herr, P. M. (1989). Priming Price: Prior Knowledge and Context Effects, Journal of Consumer Research, 16 (1), 67-75Higgins, E.T. and King, G. (1981). Accessibility of social constructs: information-processing consequences of individual and contextual variability. Personality, Cognition and Social interaction. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 69-121.Higgins, E. T, Rholes, W. S., and Jones, C. R. (1977). Category accessibility and impression formation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 13 (2), 141-154.Hoffmann, S. (2013). Are boycott motives rationalizations? Journal of Consumer Behavior, 12 (3), 214-222.Hoffmann, S., Balderjahn, I., Seegebarth, B., Mai, R., and Peyer, M. (2018). Under which conditions are consumers ready to boycott or buycott? The roles of hedonism and simplicity. Ecological Economics, 147 (May), 167-178.Hoffmann S., and Muller S. (2009). Consumer boycotts due to factory relocation. Journal of Business Research, 62 (2), 239-247.Huang, W. (2008). The impact of other customer failure on service satisfaction. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 19 (4), 521-536Hwang, S., & G. T. Cameron (2008). Public’s expectation about an organization’s stance in crisis communication based on perceived leadership and perceived severity of threats. Public Relations Review, 34 (1), 70-73.John, A., and Klein, J. (2003). The boycott puzzle: consumer motivations for purchase sacrifice. Management Science, 49 (9), 1196-1209.Joireman, J., Smith, D., Liu, R. L., and Arthurs, J. (2015). It`s all good: Corporate social responsibility reduces negative and promotes positive responses to service failures among value-aligned customers. Journal of Public Policy & Marketingm, 34 (1), 32-49.Jones, M.A., Mothersbaugh, D.L., and Beatty, S.E. (2000). Switching barriers and repurchase intentions in service. Journal of Retailing, 76 (2), 259-274.Kamien, M. I., and Schwartz, N. L. (1982). Market Structure and Innovation. New York: Cambridge University Press.Keller, K. L. and Aaker D. A. (1992). The effects of sequential introduction of brand extensions. Journal of Marketing Research, 29 (2), 35-50.King, B. G. (2008). A political mediation model of corporate response to social movement activism. Administrative Science Quarterly, 53 (3), 395-421.Klein, J. G., Smith, N. C., and John, A. (2004). Why we boycott: Consumer motivations for boycott participation. Journal of Marketing, 68 (3), 92-109.Klein, J. and Dawar, N. (2004). Corporate social responsibility and consumers’ attributions and brand evaluations in a product-harm crisis. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 21 (3), 203-217.Kozinets, R.V. and Handelman, J. (1998). Ensouling consumption: a netnographic exploration of the meaning of boycotting behavior. Advances in Consumer Research, 25 (1), 475-480.Lam, D. and D. Mizerski (2005). The effects of locus of control on word-of-mouth communication. Journal of Marketing Communications, 11 (3), 215-228.Lavorata, L. (2014). Influence of retailers’ commitment to sustainable development on store image, consumer loyalty and consumer boycotts: Proposal for a model using the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 21 (6) 1021-1027.Maheswaran, D. and Sternthal, B. (1990). The effects of knowledge, motivation, and type of message on Ad processing and product judgments, Journal of Consumer Research, 17 (1), 66-73.Markman, A. B., and Gentner, D. (1993a). Splitting the differences: A structural alignment view of similarity. Journal of Memory and Language, 32 (4), 517-535.Markman, A. B., and Gentner, D. (1993b). Structural alignment during similarity comparisons. Cognitive Psychology, 25 (4), 431-467.Makarem S. C., and Jae H. (2016). Consumer boycott behavior: An exploratory analysis of twitter feeds. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 50 (1), 193-223.Martin, L. L., Seta, J. J., and Crelia, R. A. (1990). Assimilation and contrast as a function of people`s willingness and ability to expend effort in forming an impression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59 (1), 27-37.Meyers-Levy, J. and Sternthal, B. (1993). A two-factor explanation of assimilation and contrast effects. Journal of Marketing Research, 30 (August), 359-368.Miller, K. E., and Sturdivant, F. D. (1977). Consumer responses to socially questionable corporate behavior: An empirical test. Journal of Consumer Research, 4 (1), 1-7.Mussweiler, T., Ruter, K., and Epstude, K. (2004). The ups and downs of social comparison: mechanisms of assimilation and contrast. Journal of personality and social psychology, 87 (6), 832-844.Muthukrishnan, A. V. and Weitz, B. (1991). Role of product knowledge in evaluation of brand extensions, Advances in Consumer Research, (18), 407-413.Neilson, L. A. (2010). Boycott or buycott? Understanding political consumerism. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 9 (3), 214-227.Palepu, K. (1985). Diversification strategies, profit performance and the entropy measure. The Academy of Management Journal, 6 (3), 239-255.Park, C. W., Milberg, S. and Lawson, R. (1991). Evaluation of brand extensions: The role of product feature similarity and brand concept consistency, Journal of Consumer Research, 18 (9), 185-193.Pavelchak, M. (1989). Piecemeal and category-based evaluation: An idiographic analysis, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56 (3), 354-363.Peloza, J., Ye, C., and Montford, W. J. (2015). When companies do good, are their products good for you? How corporate social responsibility creates a health halo. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 34 (1), 19-31.Pitts, R. A., and Hopkins, H. D. (1982). Firm diversity: Conceptualization and measurement. The Academy of Management Review, 7(4), 620-629.Pruitt, S. W., and Friedman, M. (1986). Determining the effectiveness of consumer boycotts: A stock price analysis of their impact on corporate targets. Journal of Consumer Policy, 9 (4), 375-387.Roehm, M. L. and Sternthal, B. (2001). The Moderating effect of knowledge and resources on the persuasive impact of analogies, Journal of Consumer Research, 28 (2), 257-272.Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 80 (1), 1-28.Rumelt, R. P. (1974). Strategy, Structure, and Economic Performance. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Scheidler, S., and Edinger-Schons, L. M. (2020). Partners in crime? The impact of consumers` culpability for corporate social irresponsibility on their boycott attitude. Journal of business research, 109 (4), 607-620Schwarz, N., and Bless, H. (1992). Assimilation and contrast effects in attitude measurement: An inclusion/exclusion model. Advances in Consumer Research, 19 (1), 72-77.Schwarz N., and Bless, H. (2007). Mental construal processes: The inclusion/exclusion model. Assimilation and Contrast in Social Psychology, Edited by: Stapel, D. A. and Suls, J, Philadelphia: Psychology Press, 119-142.Scott, M., and Mitchell, J. (1972). The development of a money-handling inventory. Personality and Individual Differences, 17 (1), 147-152.Sen, S., Gürhan-Canli, Z., and Morwitz, V. (2001). Withholding consumption: A social dilemma perspective on consumer boycotts. Journal of Consumer Research, 28 (3), 399-417.Shin, S., and Yoon, S. W. (2018). Consumer motivation for the decision to boycott: The social dilemma. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 42 (4), 439-447.Smith, N. C. (1987). Consumer boycotts and consumer sovereignty. European Journal of Marketing, 21 (5), 7-19.Smith, N. C. (1990). Morality and the Market: Consumer Pressure for Corporate Accountability. London and New York: Routledge.Smith, D. C. and Park, C. W. (1992). The effects of brand extensions on market share and advertising efficiency. Journal of Marketing Research, 24 (8), 296-313.Spector, P. E. (1982). Behavior in organizations as a function of employees` locus of control, Psychological Bulletin, 91 (3), 482-497.Srull, T. K., and Wyer, R. S., (1980). Category accessibility and social perception: Some implications for the study of person memory and interpersonal judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38 (6), 841-856.Stapel, D.A., and Koomen, W. (2000). Distinctness of others, mutability of selves: Their impact on self-evaluations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79 (6), 1068-1087.Stapel, D. A., and Koomen, W. (2005). Competition, cooperation, and the effects of others on me. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88 (6), 1029-1038.Stapel, D. A., and Winkielman, P. (1998). Assimilation and contrast as a function of context-target similarity, distinctness, and dimensional relevance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24 (6), 634-646.Strack, F., Schwarz, N., and Gschneidinger, E. (1985). Happiness and reminiscing: The role of time perspective, mood, and mode of thinking. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49 (6), 1460 -1469.Tauber, E. M. (1981). Brand franchise extension: New product benefits from existing brand names. Business Horizons, 24 (3), 36-41.Tauber, E. M. (1988). Brand leverage: Strategy for growth in a cost-control world. Journal of Advertising Research, 28 (4), 26-30.Tsarenko, Y. and 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.Tversky, A. (1977). Features of similarity. Psychological Review, 84 (July), 327-352.Wanke, M., Bless, H., and Schwarz, N. (1998). Context effects in product line extensions: Context is not destiny. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 7 (4) 299–322.Weiner, B. (1980). Human Motivation. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 9-84.Wilson, E. J. and Sherrell, D. L. (1993). Source effects in communication and persuasion research: A meta-analysis of effect size. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 21 (Spring), 101-112.Witkowski, T. H. (1989). Colonial consumers in revolt: Buyer values and behavior during the nonimportation movement, 1764–1776. Journal of Consumer Research, 16 (2), 216-226.Wyer, R. S., and Srull, T. K. (1989). Memory and Cognition in its Social Context. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence, 47-114Yao, H. C. (2013). The influences of situational perception gaps on crisis communication effects, Journal of Management, 30 (5), 429-443.Yuksel U., and Mryteza, V. (2009). An evaluation of strategic responses to consumer boycotts. Journal of Business Research, 62 (2), 248-259. 描述 博士
國立政治大學
企業管理學系
100355506資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0100355506 資料類型 thesis dc.contributor.advisor 樓永堅 zh_TW dc.contributor.advisor Lou, Yung-Chien en_US dc.contributor.author (作者) 曾威智 zh_TW dc.contributor.author (作者) Tseng, Wei-Chih en_US dc.creator (作者) 曾威智 zh_TW dc.creator (作者) Tseng, Wei-Chih en_US dc.date (日期) 2020 en_US dc.date.accessioned 2-九月-2020 11:39:11 (UTC+8) - dc.date.available 2-九月-2020 11:39:11 (UTC+8) - dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 2-九月-2020 11:39:11 (UTC+8) - dc.identifier (其他 識別碼) G0100355506 en_US dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/131457 - dc.description (描述) 博士 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 企業管理學系 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 100355506 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) 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。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。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。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。 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) 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.Therefore, 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.This 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.This 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. en_US dc.description.tableofcontents 第一章 緒論 1第一節 研究背景與動機 1第二節 研究目的 5第二章 文獻探討與假設推導 7第一節 抵制 7第二節 母子公司相似性與同化/對比效果 14一、母子公司相似性 14二、同化/對比效果 17第三章 研究一:母子公司相似性與危機發生事主對抵制行為的影響 23第一節 研究一之觀念性架構 23第二節 研究一之前測 24一、實驗設計 24二、實驗刺激物與衡量 24三、實驗流程 25四、受測者 25五、實驗結果 25第三節 研究一之設計與結果 27一、實驗設計 27二、實驗刺激物與衡量 27三、實驗流程 28四、受測者 28五、實驗結果 29第四節 研究一之討論 34第四章 研究二：母子公司相似性、危機發生事主、母子公司產品替代性對抵制行為的影響，以內、外控人格特質當作調節變數 35第一節 研究二之文獻探討與假設推導 35一、社會困境與產品替代性 35二、內、外控傾向之人格特質 39第二節 研究二之研究規劃及架構 42第三節 研究二之設計 43一、實驗設計、刺激物與相關衡量 43二、實驗流程 47三、受測者 47第四節 研究二之實驗結果 48一、操弄檢定 48二、同化與對比效果分析 50三、真實抵制行為之衡量 54四、內外控人格特質調節之檢定 64第五節 研究二之討論 72第五章 研究三：母子公司相似性、危機類型及回應策略對抵制行為之影響 75第一節 研究三之文獻探討與假設推導 75一、危機類型 75二、危機回應策略 77三、情境式危機溝通理論 78第二節 研究三之研究規劃及架構 83第三節 研究三之設計 84一、實驗設計、刺激物與相關衡量 84二、實驗流程 88三、受測者 88第四節 研究三實驗結果 89一、操弄檢定 89二、同化與對比效果分析 90三、各種危機情境與回應策略下對母公司影響 91四、在不考量危機情境下，母公司採取各回應策略對於子公司的影響 93五、母公司危機情境與回應策略配對下對子公司的影響 94六、在母子公司不同相似程度下，看各種危機情境與回應策略對子公司影響 95七、抵制行為之探討 100八、各種回應策略下抵制母子企業之因素 102第五節 研究三之討論 103第六節 系列研究之主題、假設和驗證結果 106第六章 結論與建議 109第一節 研究結果與討論 109一、消費者會因為母子公司相似性程度之高低，產生同化與對比效果，進而影響其抵制行為 109二、消費者面對母或子公司發生危機時，其抵制行為除了受母子公司相似性，也受產品替代性及內外控人格特質所影響 110三、消費者面對母公司犯錯時，對母公司有較高的期待，對受牽連的子公司則採取相對寬鬆的態度 111第二節 研究貢獻 112一、將同化對比理論擴展至母子公司之抵制行為 113二、在母子公司不同相似程度下，針對產品替代性高低進行探討 114三、除了探討內外控人格特質，更進一步以歸因理論來解釋抵制行為 115四、將情境式危機溝通理論用來解釋母公司發生危機時，其回應策略對母/子公司的影響 116五、將情境式危機溝通策略中的重建策略加以新的詮釋 117第三節 實務意涵 118第四節 研究限制與未來建議 120一、實驗法無法全然符合真實行為 120二、實驗對象皆為學生 121三、母子公司的簡介與設定 121四、母子公司產品的選用 121五、真實抵制的衡量 121六、抵制動機對抵制行為的影響 122七、企業針對危機所採用的回應策略 122八、企業犯錯之抵制行為、企業社會責任與母子公司相似與否的關係 122九、使用次級資料來進行相關研究 123參考文獻 125附錄 133一、附錄一：前測問卷 133二、附錄二：研究一之正式問卷 139三、附錄三：研究一之刺激物 145四、附錄四：研究二之正式問卷 148五、附錄五：研究二之刺激物 157六、附錄六：研究三之正式問卷 163七、附錄七：研究三之刺激物 173 zh_TW dc.format.extent 1808723 bytes - dc.format.mimetype application/pdf - dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0100355506 en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) 抵制 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 相似性 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 同化-對比理論 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 產品替代性 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 情境危機溝通理論 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) Boycott en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Similarity en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Assimilation-Contrast Theory en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Product Substitutability en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Situational Crisis Communication Theory en_US dc.title (題名) 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 zh_TW dc.title (題名) Effects of Similarities Between Parent and Subsidiary Corporations, Conglomerate’s Misbehavior, Product Substitutability, and Response Strategies on Consumer Boycotting Behavior en_US dc.type (資料類型) thesis en_US dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 吳靜吉 (1975)，「內外控量表在輔導上的應用」，測驗與輔導，第10卷，頁152-153。吳靜吉、潘養源與丁興祥 (1980)，「內外控取向與工作滿足及績效之關係」，政治大學學報，第41卷，頁61-74。Albrecht, C., Campbell, C., Heinrich, D., and Lammel, M. (2013). Exploring why consumers engage in boycotts: Toward a unified model. Journal of Public Affairs, 13 (2), 180-189.Allport, G.W. (1961). Pattern and Growth in Personality. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Balabanis, G. (2013). Surrogate boycotts against multinational corporations: consumers’ choice of boycott targets. British Journal of Management, 24 (4), 515-531.Braunsberger, K. and Buckler, B. (2011). What motivates consumers to participate in boycotts: lessons from the ongoing Canadian seafood boycott. Journal of Business Research, 64 (1), 96-102.Brissett, M., & Nowicki, S., Jr. (1973). Internal versus external control of reinforcement and reaction to frustration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 25 (1), 35-44.Cissé-Depardon, K., and N’Goala, G. (2009). The effects of satisfaction, trust, and brand commitment on consumers’ decision to boycott. Recherche et Application en Marketing, 24 (1), 44-66.Claeys, A. -S., Cauberghe, V., and Vyncke, P. (2010). Restoring reputations in times of cri-sis: An experimental study of the situational crisis communication theory and the moderating effects of locus of control. Public Relations Review, 36 (3), 256–262Claeys, A. S., Cauberghe, V. (2014). What makes crisis response strategies work? The impact of crisis involvement and message framing. Journal of Business Research, 67 (2), 182-189.Collins, A.M. and Loftus, E.F. (1975). A spreading-activation theory of semantic processing. Psychological Review, 82 (6), 407-428.Coombs, W. T. (1995). Choosing the right words: The development of guidelines for the selection of the appropriate crisis-response strategies. Management Communication Quarterly, 8 (4), 447-476.Coombs, W. T. (2004). Impact of past crises on current crisis communication. Journal of Business Communication, 41 (3), 265-289.Coombs, W. T. (2007). Protecting organization reputations during a crisis: The development and application of situational crisis communication theory. Corporate Reputation Review, 10 (3), 163-176.Coombs, W. T., and Holladay, S. J. (1996). Communication and attributions in a crisis: An experiment study in crisis communication. Journal of Public Relations Research, 8 (4), 279-295.Coombs, W. T., and Holladay, S. J. (2001). An extended examination of the crisis situations: A fusion of the relational management and symbolic approaches. Journal of Public Relations Research, 13 (3), 321-340.Coombs, W. T., and Holladay, S. J. (2002). Helping crisis managers protect reputational assets. Management Communication Quarterly, 16 (2), 165-186.Corsini, R. J. (1994). Ordinary Resurrections: Encyclopedia of Psychology. New York: Wiley.Day, D. V. and Silverman, S. B. (1989). Personality and job performance: Evidence of incremental validity. Personality Psychology, 42 (1), 25-36.Farah, M. F., and Newman, A. J. (2010). Exploring consumer boycott intelligence using a socio-cognitive approach. Journal of Business Research, 63 (4), 347-355.Fishbein, M. and Ajzen I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Friedman, M. (1985). Consumer boycotts in the united states, 1970-1980: Contemporary events in historical perspective. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 19 (1), 96-117.Friedman, M. (1991). Consumer boycotts: A conceptual framework and research agenda. Journal of Social Issues, 47 (1), 149-168.Friedman, M. (1995). American consumer boycotts in response to rising food prices: Housewives` protests at the grassroots level. Journal of Consumer Policy, 18 (1), 55-72.Friedman, M. (1999). Consumer Boycotts: Effecting Change through the Marketplace and the Media. New York: Routledge.Garrett, D. E. (1987). The effectiveness of marketing policy boycotts: Environmental opposition to marketing. Journal of Marketing, 51 (2), 46-57.Goldenson, R. M. (1970). The Encyclopedia of Human Behavior: Psychology, Psychiatry, and Mental Health. New York: Doubleday.Gregoire, Y., & Fisher, R. J. (2008). Customer betrayal and retaliation: when your bestcustomers become your worst enemies, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36 (2), 247-261.Herr, P. M., Sherman, S. J., and Fazio, R. H. (1983). On the consequences of priming: Assimilation and contrast effects. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 19 (4), 232-340.Herr, P. M. (1989). Priming Price: Prior Knowledge and Context Effects, Journal of Consumer Research, 16 (1), 67-75Higgins, E.T. and King, G. (1981). Accessibility of social constructs: information-processing consequences of individual and contextual variability. Personality, Cognition and Social interaction. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 69-121.Higgins, E. T, Rholes, W. S., and Jones, C. R. (1977). Category accessibility and impression formation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 13 (2), 141-154.Hoffmann, S. (2013). Are boycott motives rationalizations? Journal of Consumer Behavior, 12 (3), 214-222.Hoffmann, S., Balderjahn, I., Seegebarth, B., Mai, R., and Peyer, M. (2018). Under which conditions are consumers ready to boycott or buycott? The roles of hedonism and simplicity. Ecological Economics, 147 (May), 167-178.Hoffmann S., and Muller S. (2009). Consumer boycotts due to factory relocation. Journal of Business Research, 62 (2), 239-247.Huang, W. (2008). The impact of other customer failure on service satisfaction. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 19 (4), 521-536Hwang, S., & G. T. Cameron (2008). Public’s expectation about an organization’s stance in crisis communication based on perceived leadership and perceived severity of threats. Public Relations Review, 34 (1), 70-73.John, A., and Klein, J. (2003). The boycott puzzle: consumer motivations for purchase sacrifice. Management Science, 49 (9), 1196-1209.Joireman, J., Smith, D., Liu, R. L., and Arthurs, J. (2015). It`s all good: Corporate social responsibility reduces negative and promotes positive responses to service failures among value-aligned customers. Journal of Public Policy & Marketingm, 34 (1), 32-49.Jones, M.A., Mothersbaugh, D.L., and Beatty, S.E. (2000). Switching barriers and repurchase intentions in service. Journal of Retailing, 76 (2), 259-274.Kamien, M. I., and Schwartz, N. L. (1982). Market Structure and Innovation. New York: Cambridge University Press.Keller, K. L. and Aaker D. A. (1992). The effects of sequential introduction of brand extensions. Journal of Marketing Research, 29 (2), 35-50.King, B. G. (2008). A political mediation model of corporate response to social movement activism. Administrative Science Quarterly, 53 (3), 395-421.Klein, J. G., Smith, N. C., and John, A. (2004). Why we boycott: Consumer motivations for boycott participation. Journal of Marketing, 68 (3), 92-109.Klein, J. and Dawar, N. (2004). Corporate social responsibility and consumers’ attributions and brand evaluations in a product-harm crisis. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 21 (3), 203-217.Kozinets, R.V. and Handelman, J. (1998). Ensouling consumption: a netnographic exploration of the meaning of boycotting behavior. Advances in Consumer Research, 25 (1), 475-480.Lam, D. and D. Mizerski (2005). The effects of locus of control on word-of-mouth communication. Journal of Marketing Communications, 11 (3), 215-228.Lavorata, L. (2014). Influence of retailers’ commitment to sustainable development on store image, consumer loyalty and consumer boycotts: Proposal for a model using the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 21 (6) 1021-1027.Maheswaran, D. and Sternthal, B. (1990). The effects of knowledge, motivation, and type of message on Ad processing and product judgments, Journal of Consumer Research, 17 (1), 66-73.Markman, A. B., and Gentner, D. (1993a). Splitting the differences: A structural alignment view of similarity. Journal of Memory and Language, 32 (4), 517-535.Markman, A. B., and Gentner, D. (1993b). Structural alignment during similarity comparisons. Cognitive Psychology, 25 (4), 431-467.Makarem S. C., and Jae H. (2016). Consumer boycott behavior: An exploratory analysis of twitter feeds. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 50 (1), 193-223.Martin, L. L., Seta, J. J., and Crelia, R. A. (1990). Assimilation and contrast as a function of people`s willingness and ability to expend effort in forming an impression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59 (1), 27-37.Meyers-Levy, J. and Sternthal, B. (1993). A two-factor explanation of assimilation and contrast effects. Journal of Marketing Research, 30 (August), 359-368.Miller, K. E., and Sturdivant, F. D. (1977). Consumer responses to socially questionable corporate behavior: An empirical test. Journal of Consumer Research, 4 (1), 1-7.Mussweiler, T., Ruter, K., and Epstude, K. (2004). The ups and downs of social comparison: mechanisms of assimilation and contrast. Journal of personality and social psychology, 87 (6), 832-844.Muthukrishnan, A. V. and Weitz, B. (1991). Role of product knowledge in evaluation of brand extensions, Advances in Consumer Research, (18), 407-413.Neilson, L. A. (2010). Boycott or buycott? Understanding political consumerism. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 9 (3), 214-227.Palepu, K. (1985). Diversification strategies, profit performance and the entropy measure. The Academy of Management Journal, 6 (3), 239-255.Park, C. W., Milberg, S. and Lawson, R. (1991). Evaluation of brand extensions: The role of product feature similarity and brand concept consistency, Journal of Consumer Research, 18 (9), 185-193.Pavelchak, M. (1989). Piecemeal and category-based evaluation: An idiographic analysis, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56 (3), 354-363.Peloza, J., Ye, C., and Montford, W. J. (2015). When companies do good, are their products good for you? How corporate social responsibility creates a health halo. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 34 (1), 19-31.Pitts, R. A., and Hopkins, H. D. (1982). Firm diversity: Conceptualization and measurement. The Academy of Management Review, 7(4), 620-629.Pruitt, S. W., and Friedman, M. (1986). Determining the effectiveness of consumer boycotts: A stock price analysis of their impact on corporate targets. Journal of Consumer Policy, 9 (4), 375-387.Roehm, M. L. and Sternthal, B. (2001). The Moderating effect of knowledge and resources on the persuasive impact of analogies, Journal of Consumer Research, 28 (2), 257-272.Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 80 (1), 1-28.Rumelt, R. P. (1974). Strategy, Structure, and Economic Performance. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Scheidler, S., and Edinger-Schons, L. M. (2020). Partners in crime? The impact of consumers` culpability for corporate social irresponsibility on their boycott attitude. Journal of business research, 109 (4), 607-620Schwarz, N., and Bless, H. (1992). Assimilation and contrast effects in attitude measurement: An inclusion/exclusion model. Advances in Consumer Research, 19 (1), 72-77.Schwarz N., and Bless, H. (2007). Mental construal processes: The inclusion/exclusion model. Assimilation and Contrast in Social Psychology, Edited by: Stapel, D. A. and Suls, J, Philadelphia: Psychology Press, 119-142.Scott, M., and Mitchell, J. (1972). The development of a money-handling inventory. Personality and Individual Differences, 17 (1), 147-152.Sen, S., Gürhan-Canli, Z., and Morwitz, V. (2001). Withholding consumption: A social dilemma perspective on consumer boycotts. Journal of Consumer Research, 28 (3), 399-417.Shin, S., and Yoon, S. W. (2018). Consumer motivation for the decision to boycott: The social dilemma. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 42 (4), 439-447.Smith, N. C. (1987). Consumer boycotts and consumer sovereignty. European Journal of Marketing, 21 (5), 7-19.Smith, N. C. (1990). Morality and the Market: Consumer Pressure for Corporate Accountability. London and New York: Routledge.Smith, D. C. and Park, C. W. (1992). The effects of brand extensions on market share and advertising efficiency. Journal of Marketing Research, 24 (8), 296-313.Spector, P. E. (1982). Behavior in organizations as a function of employees` locus of control, Psychological Bulletin, 91 (3), 482-497.Srull, T. K., and Wyer, R. S., (1980). Category accessibility and social perception: Some implications for the study of person memory and interpersonal judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38 (6), 841-856.Stapel, D.A., and Koomen, W. (2000). Distinctness of others, mutability of selves: Their impact on self-evaluations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79 (6), 1068-1087.Stapel, D. A., and Koomen, W. (2005). Competition, cooperation, and the effects of others on me. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88 (6), 1029-1038.Stapel, D. A., and Winkielman, P. (1998). Assimilation and contrast as a function of context-target similarity, distinctness, and dimensional relevance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24 (6), 634-646.Strack, F., Schwarz, N., and Gschneidinger, E. (1985). Happiness and reminiscing: The role of time perspective, mood, and mode of thinking. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49 (6), 1460 -1469.Tauber, E. M. (1981). Brand franchise extension: New product benefits from existing brand names. Business Horizons, 24 (3), 36-41.Tauber, E. M. (1988). Brand leverage: Strategy for growth in a cost-control world. Journal of Advertising Research, 28 (4), 26-30.Tsarenko, Y. and 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.Tversky, A. (1977). Features of similarity. Psychological Review, 84 (July), 327-352.Wanke, M., Bless, H., and Schwarz, N. (1998). Context effects in product line extensions: Context is not destiny. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 7 (4) 299–322.Weiner, B. (1980). Human Motivation. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 9-84.Wilson, E. J. and Sherrell, D. L. (1993). Source effects in communication and persuasion research: A meta-analysis of effect size. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 21 (Spring), 101-112.Witkowski, T. H. (1989). Colonial consumers in revolt: Buyer values and behavior during the nonimportation movement, 1764–1776. Journal of Consumer Research, 16 (2), 216-226.Wyer, R. S., and Srull, T. K. (1989). Memory and Cognition in its Social Context. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence, 47-114Yao, H. C. (2013). The influences of situational perception gaps on crisis communication effects, Journal of Management, 30 (5), 429-443.Yuksel U., and Mryteza, V. (2009). An evaluation of strategic responses to consumer boycotts. Journal of Business Research, 62 (2), 248-259. zh_TW dc.identifier.doi (DOI) 10.6814/NCCU202001644 en_US
