Saying no to the glow: Why consumers resist arrogant brands
In five studies, we demonstrate that when consumers experience a self-threat, they may avoid brands that convey arrogance in favor of a competing, non-arrogant alternative. Such avoidance, in turn, has positive implications for vulnerable consumers, as it helps them to restore their self-worth and feel better about themselves.
In five studies, we demonstrate that when consumers experience a self-threat, they may avoid brands that convey arrogance in favor of a competing, non-arrogant alternative. Such avoidance, in turn, has positive implications for vulnerable consumers, as it helps them to restore their self-worth and feel better about themselves.
When natural disasters happen, the media’s role is to convey the cries of victim. Although donating to a good cause is an “incontrovertible part of the American consumer’s life” (Brooks, 2006), Winterich, Mittal and Ross (2009) assert that “though volitional, donations to domestic versus international causes seem to differ.” Part of the reason for these differential donations may be that victims of Sandy are seen as belonging to an in-group, whereas victims of the Japanese Tsunami are seen as belonging to an out-group (Cuddy, Rock, and , 2007; Kogut and Ritov, 2007). In addition, with the power of advertising, in-group and out-group donors perceive a different “need” to donate to the respective groups of victims (domestic vs. international). However, it is unclear the type of message that differentiates individual’s donation behavior. This study seeks to further the understanding of prosocial behavior by exploring the motivation behind donation, attitude towards helping others, one ethnic identity, and one’s attitude towards different types of donation ads (e.g. message) and their impact on charitable donation advertising effectiveness that is tied to one’s ethnic identity.
