The effect of affective response to corporate social irresponsibility on consumer resistance behaviour: validation of a dual-channel model

Figures & data

Figure 1. Dual channel model of consumer resistance. The study considers three dependent variables (see Appendix 1).

Table 1. Sample characteristics.

	Gender
	Women		Men		Total
Age (years)	N	(%)	N	(%)	N	(%)
16–25	36		35		71	14.31
26–35	47		41		88	17.74
36–45	44		35		79	15.93
46–55	64		47		111	22.40
56–65	51		54		105	21.17
66–70	22		20		42	8.47
German citizenship
Not specified	1		0		1	0.20
Yes	258		225		483	97.38
No	5		7		12	2.42
Total	264	53.23	232	46.77	496	100.00

Table 2. Total effect and indirect effects of affective response on consumer resistance intentions (cognitive channel).

Dependent variable	Mediator	Effect	Standard error	Boot LLCI (95%)	Boot ULCI (95%)	Boot LLCI (90%)	Boot ULCI (90%)
Boycott intention	Total effect	0.7953	0.0687	0.66	0.93	0.68	0.91
	Moral equity	0.2106	0.0836	0.04	0.37	0.07	0.34
	Relativism	0.0128	0.0401	−0.07	0.09	−0.05	0.08
	Contractualism	0.1371	0.0725	0.01	0.30	0.03	0.27
	Utilitarianism	0.1568	0.0499	0.07	0.26	0.08	0.24
Negative word of mouth intention	Total effect	0.7998	0.0919	0.62	0.98	0.65	0.95
	Moral equity	0.0875	0.0779	−0.08	0.23	−0.05	0.21
	Relativism	−0.0230	0.0312	−0.09	0.04	−0.08	0.03
	Contractualism	0.1642	0.0595	0.06	0.29	0.07	0.27
	Utilitarianism	0.1396	0.0370	0.07	0.22	0.08	0.20
Protest intention	Total effect	0.6810	0.0849	0.51	0.85	0.54	0.82
	Moral equity	0.0911	0.0826	−0.08	0.25	−0.05	0.22
	Relativism	−0.0178	0.0356	−0.09	0.05	−0.08	0.04
	Contractualism	0.1891	0.0681	0.07	0.33	0.08	0.31
	Utilitarianism	0.0930	0.0387	0.02	0.17	0.03	0.16

Confidence intervals printed in bold represent significant total and indirect effects. Standard errors for total effects of NWOM intention and protest intention are heteroscedasticity-consistent standard error estimators (HC₄); standard errors for indirect effects were estimated by means of bootstrapping. Bootstrap intervals are based on 10,000 bootstrap runs. Boot LLCI: lower-level bootstrap confidence interval; boot ULCI: upper-level bootstrap confidence interval.

Table 3. Regression models with the dimensions of ethical judgement regressed on affective response, preference for ethical products, and affective response × preference for ethical products interaction.

Dependent variable	Independent variables	Coefficient	Standard error	t-Value	p-Value	Regression model assessment
Moral equity	Constant	0.0492	0.0288	1.71	<0.10	R^2 = 0.56; F(3, 492) = 210.55; p < 0.01
	AR	0.5418	0.0285	18.98	<0.01
	PREF	0.0027	0.0010	2.80	<0.01
	AR × PREF	−0.0060	0.0010	−6.19	<0.01
Relativism	Constant	0.0170	0.0629	0.27	ns	R^2 = 0.22; F(3, 492) = 46.28; p < 0.01
	AR	0.5799	0.0624	9.29	<0.01
	PREF	0.0057	0.0021	2.67	<0.01
	AR × PREF	−0.0021	0.0021	−0.98	ns
Contractualism	Constant	0.0303	0.0437	0.69	ns	R^2 = 0.39; F(3, 492) = 105.32; p < 0.01
	AR	0.6031	0.0433	13.91	<0.01
	PREF	0.0049	0.0015	3.26	<0.01
	AR × PREF	−0.0037	0.0015	−2.51	<0.05
Utilitarianism	Constant	0.0446	0.0618	0.72	ns	R^2 = 0.23; F(3, 492) = 49.39; p < 0.01
	AR	0.5011	0.0613	8.18	<0.01
	PREF	0.0089	0.0021	4.23	<0.01
	AR × PREF	−0.0055	0.0021	−2.62	<0.01

AR indicates affective response; PREF indicates preference for ethical products. All variables have been mean-centred.

Table 4. Consumer resistance regressed on affective response, mediators and preference (interactions).

Dependent variable	Independent variables	Coefficient		Standard error	t-Value	p-Value	Regression model assessment
Boycott intention	Constant	4.8154	0.0705		68.30	<0.01	R^2 = 0.39; F(11, 484) = 28.27; p < 0.01
	AR	0.1889	0.0921		2.05	<0.05
	ME	0.3438	0.1314		2.62	<0.01
	RE	0.0072	0.0571		0.13	ns
	CO	0.1742	0.0888		1.96	<0.10
	UT	0.2159	0.0577		3.74	<0.01
	PREF	0.0158	0.0024		6.52	<0.01
	AR × PREF	−0.0061	0.0031		−1.99	<0.05
	ME × PREF	0.0091	0.0044		2.05	<0.05
	RE × PREF	−0.0003	0.0019		−0.17	ns
	CO × PREF	0.0003	0.0028		0.11	ns
	UT × PREF	−0.0067	0.0019		−3.53	<0.01
Negative word of mouth intention	Constant	5.3949	0.0732		73.68	<0.01	R^2 = 0.45; F(11, 484) = 25.07; p < 0.01
	AR	0.3818	0.1020		3.74	<0.01
	ME	0.1071	0.2076		0.52	ns
	RE	−0.0469	0.0487		−0.96	ns
	CO	0.2218	0.1013		2.19	<0.05
	UT	0.2013	0.0518		3.89	<0.01
	PREF	0.0107	0.0027		4.04	<0.01
	AR × PREF	−0.0015	0.0036		−0.43	ns
	ME × PREF	0.0020	0.0067		0.30	ns
	RE × PREF	−0.0001	0.0017		−0.07	ns
	CO × PREF	−0.0014	0.0042		−0.34	ns
	UT × PREF	−0.0028	0.0016		−1.82	<0.10
Protest intention	Constant	4.3268	0.0698		61.98	<0.01	R^2 = 0.35; F(11, 484) = 19.10; p < 0.01
	AR	0.2383	0.0794		3.00	<0.01
	ME	0.1603	0.1582		1.01	ns
	RE	−0.0243	0.0546		−0.45	ns
	CO	0.2687	0.0929		2.89	<0.01
	UT	0.1006	0.0542		1.85	<0.10
	PREF	0.0156	0.0024		6.57	<0.01
	AR × PREF	−0.0056	0.0028		−2.02	<0.05
	ME × PREF	0.0026	0.0049		0.53	ns
	RE × PREF	0.0037	0.0018		2.06	<0.05
	CO × PREF	0.0008	0.0021		0.38	ns
	UT × PREF	−0.0013	0.0017		−0.78	ns

AR, ME, RE, CO, UT and PREF indicate affective response, moral equity, relativism, contractualism, utilitarianism and preference for ethical products, respectively. All variables have been mean-centred and heteroscedasticity-resistant standard errors (HC₄) were used to determine the significance for the NWOM and the protest intention model.

Table 5. Conditional direct effect of affective response on boycott intention, negative word of mouth intention, and protest intention (affective channel) at values of the moderator preference for ethical products.

Dependent variable	Moderator	Coefficient	Standard error	t-Value	p-Value	Boot LLCI (95%)	Boot ULCI (95%)	Boot LLCI (90%)	Boot ULCI (90%)
Boycott intention	m − s	0.3700	0.1218	3.04	<0.01	0.13	0.61	0.17	0.57
	m	0.1889	0.0921	2.05	<0.05	0.01	0.37	0.04	0.34
	m + s	0.0079	0.1365	0.06	ns	−0.26	0.28	−0.22	0.23
Negative word of mouth intention	m − s	0.4276	0.1306	3.27	<0.01	0.17	0.68	0.21	0.64
	m	0.3818	0.1020	3.74	<0.01	0.18	0.58	0.21	0.55
	m + s	0.3360	0.1613	2.08	<0.05	0.02	0.65	0.07	0.60
Protest intention	m − s	0.4043	0.1226	3.30	<0.01	0.16	0.65	0.20	0.61
	m	0.2383	0.0794	3.00	<0.01	0.08	0.39	0.11	0.37
	m + s	0.0724	0.1050	0.69	ns	−0.13	0.28	−0.10	0.25

m = average value of the moderator; s = standard deviation. Bootstrap intervals are based on 10,000 bootstrap runs and confidence intervals printed in bold represent significant direct effects. Standard errors for the negative WOM and the protest intention model are HC₄ standard errors. Boot LLCI: lower-level bootstrap confidence interval; boot ULCI: upper-level bootstrap confidence interval.

Table 6. Conditional indirect effects of affective response on consumer resistance intentions (cognitive channel) at values of the moderator preference for ethical products.

Dependent variable	Mediator	Moderator	Effect	Standard error	Boot LLCI (95%)	Boot ULCI (95%)	Boot LLCI (90%)	Boot ULCI (90%)
Boycott intention	ME	m − s	0.0538	0.1225	−0.1825	0.2986	−0.1430	0.2609
		m	0.1863	0.0801	0.0328	0.3463	0.0569	0.3179
		m + s	0.2222	0.1052	0.0355	0.4507	0.0612	0.3979
	RE	m − s	0.0111	0.0557	−0.0899	0.1282	−0.0733	0.1098
		m	0.0042	0.0337	−0.0633	0.0716	−0.0503	0.0589
		m + s	−0.0015	0.0409	−0.0891	0.0778	−0.0719	0.0579
	CO	m − s	0.1179	0.0933	−0.0537	0.3131	−0.0319	0.2719
		m	0.1051	0.0657	0.0060	0.2635	0.0217	0.2333
		m + s	0.0903	0.0977	−0.0029	0.3693	0.0089	0.3142
	UT	m − s	0.2743	0.0634	0.1494	0.3961	0.1687	0.3748
		m	0.1082	0.0354	0.0423	0.1813	0.0528	0.1666
		m + s	0.0063	0.0278	−0.0527	0.0636	−0.0392	0.0503
Negative word of mouth intention	ME	m − s	0.0343	0.1135	−0.1882	0.2592	−0.1497	0.2271
		m	0.0580	0.0735	−0.0953	0.1916	−0.0754	0.1724
		m + s	0.0604	0.0815	−0.1471	0.1824	−0.1026	0.1605
	RE	m − s	−0.0276	0.0447	−0.1227	0.0548	−0.1052	0.0430
		m	−0.0272	0.0273	−0.0885	0.0205	−0.0775	0.0132
		m + s	−0.0263	0.0346	−0.1139	0.0251	−0.0943	0.0166
	CO	m − s	0.1882	0.0820	0.0207	0.3421	0.0428	0.3169
		m	0.1338	0.0531	0.0449	0.2508	0.0575	0.2304
		m + s	0.0886	0.0645	0.0145	0.2602	0.0241	0.2283
	UT	m − s	0.1890	0.0526	0.0951	0.3008	0.1097	0.2817
		m	0.1009	0.0308	0.0481	0.1690	0.0557	0.1553
		m + s	0.0399	0.0280	−0.0011	0.1063	0.0038	0.0907
Protest intention	ME	m − s	0.0602	0.1163	−0.1657	0.2938	−0.1244	0.2578
		m	0.0868	0.0708	−0.0494	0.2310	−0.0197	0.2042
		m + s	0.0859	0.0692	−0.0548	0.2221	−0.0263	0.1949
	RE	m − s	−0.0868	0.0515	−0.1916	0.0118	−0.1730	−0.0050
		m	−0.0141	0.0315	−0.0775	0.0458	−0.0672	0.0369
		m + s	0.0449	0.0406	−0.0216	0.1366	−0.0118	0.1194
	CO	m − s	0.1743	0.0914	−0.0012	0.3600	0.0280	0.3269
		m	0.1620	0.0623	0.0527	0.2960	0.0720	0.2725
		m + s	0.1445	0.0719	0.0375	0.3189	0.0534	0.2828
	UT	m − s	0.0928	0.0530	−0.0132	0.1954	0.0063	0.1799
		m	0.0504	0.0288	−0.0020	0.1108	0.0067	0.1004
		m + s	0.0207	0.0259	−0.0235	0.0825	−0.0151	0.0677

ME, RE, CO and UT, indicate moral equity, relativism, contractualism and utilitarianism, respectively; m = average value of the moderator; s = standard deviation. Bootstrap intervals are based on 10,000 bootstrap runs and confidence intervals printed in bold represent significant indirect effects. Boot LLCI: lower-level bootstrap confidence interval; boot ULCI: upper-level bootstrap confidence interval.

Table

Affective response to CSI (VIF = 2.275)
	How do you feel when thinking about the inhumane working conditions and child labour on cocoa plantations in Western Africa?
AR_1	Glad – angry (0.89/0.89/0.89)
AR_2	Happy – unhappy (0.89/0.88/0.89)
AR_3	Good – bad (0.90/0.90/0.90)
AR_4	Calm – anxious (0.90/0.90/0.90)
AR_5	Pleased – displeased (0.93/0.93/0.93)
AR_6	Not at all disgusted – disgusted (0.80/0.80/0.80)
Moral equity (VIF = 3.399)
	It is … that chocolate producers accept inhumane working conditions and child labour.
ME_1	Just – unjust (0.97/0.97/0.97)
ME_2	Fair – unfair (0.96/0.96/0.96)
ME_3	Acceptable to my family – not acceptable to my family (0.82/0.82/0.82)
ME_4	Morally right – not morally right (0.90/0.90/0.90)
Relativism (VIF = 1.723)
	It is … that chocolate producers tolerate inhumane working conditions and child labour.
RE_1	Culturally acceptable – culturally unacceptable (0.80/0.80/0.80)
RE_2	Always rather acceptable for most people – always rather unacceptable for most people (0.85/0.85/0.85)
RE_3	Always rather acceptable for my friends and acquaintances – always rather unacceptable for my friends and acquaintances (0.82/0.82/0.82)
Contractualism (VIF = 2.575)
	The behaviour of the criticised chocolate producers…
CO_1	Does not violate an unwritten contract – violates an unwritten contract (0.94/0.94/0.94)
CO_2	Does not violate an unspoken promise – violates an unspoken promise (0.94/0.94/0.94)
CO_3	Does not violate moral rules – violates moral rules (0.68/0.68/0.68)
Utilitarianism (VIF = 1.718)
	The behaviour of the criticised chocolate producers…
UT_1	Maximises benefits while minimises harm – minimises benefits while maximises harm (0.84/0.84/0.85)
UT_2	Leads to the greatest good for the greatest number – leads to the least good for the greatest number (0.85/0.85/0.85)
UT_3	Is rather advantageous to all – is rather disadvantageous to all (0.71/0.72/0.71)
Boycott intention
BI_1	I am boycotting the products of the criticised chocolate producers. (0.94)
BI_2	I am sure that I will actually boycott the products of the criticised chocolate producers. (0.94)
BI_3	I am not boycotting the products of the criticised chocolate producers. (0.84)
Negative word of mouth intention
	I can well imagine…
WOMI_1	Saying negative things about the chocolate manufacturers criticised to friends, relatives, and other people. (0.79)
WOMI_2	Recommending that my friends, relatives, and other people do not buy products of the chocolate manufacturers criticised. (0.87)
WOMI_3	Discrediting the chocolate manufacturers criticised with my friends, relatives, and other people. (0.88)
Protest intention
	Furthermore, I can well imagine…
PI_1	Participating in actions of resistance on the internet against the chocolate manufacturers criticised (e.g. blogging or posting on social networks). (0.74)
PI_2	Signing an online petition directed towards the chocolate manufacturers criticised, addressed to political decision makers in Berlin and Brussels (0.80)
PI_3	Sending money to an organisation that devoted itself to fighting abusive labour conditions and child work on cocoa plantations in Western Africa. (0.53)
Preference for ethical products (VIF = 1.183)
	What is the share of fair-trade chocolate when you buy chocolate products?
PREF	My personal share of fair trade chocolate is … %.

The factor loadings are reported in an ordered sequence and, in each case, refer to the boycott model, the negative WOM model, and the protest model.

Table

	Mean value	Standard deviation	Cronbach’s alpha	Composite reliability	Average variance extracted	Fornell–Larcker ratio
Affective response to CSI	6.3061	1.0841	0.95	0.96	0.77	0.81
Moral equity	6.5726	0.9284	0.95	0.95	0.83	0.77
Relativism	5.5780	1.5206	0.86	0.86	0.67	0.79
Contractualism	6.1714	1.1956	0.88	0.89	0.74	0.77
Utilitarianism	5.4422	1.5044	0.83	0.85	0.66	0.78