Consumer Response to a Firm's Endorser (Dis) Association Decisions

Abstract

Two studies address how companies should react when celebrity endorsers with whom they wish to associate are blameless or blameworthy for causing negative events (e.g., accidents). Research findings on stigmas suggest a linear endorser blame-company evaluation relationship, such that companies should associate (disassociate) with endorsers who have low (high) levels of blame for negative events. In contrast, research findings on defensive distortions suggest a nonmonotonic blame-evaluation relationship: Owing to the tendency to downgrade low blame persons so that they seem deserving of bad fate, companies benefit from associating with moderate, rather than low or high, blame celebrities. The current research suggests that the stage of the company-endorser relationship influences the pattern of findings and the type of endorser decisions companies should make. In Study 1 (n=121), consistent with stigma research, companies fared better when dismissing existing endorsers with high blame and keeping those with low blame. In Study 2 (n=108), consistent with research on defensive distortions, when making decisions about potential endorsers, companies fared best when hiring low blame candidates and worst when rejecting moderate blame candidates.