The DOI matches its Crossref record; 16 of the 16 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Social Identification and Corporate Irresponsibility: A Model of Stakeholder Punitive Intentions
Abstract
Scholars hypothesize that retaliations against corporate social irresponsibility (CSI) are more likely when observers share the social identity of the victims. We present a model that explains in‐group bias against irresponsibility and identify collective narcissism as a moderator of this effect. Experiment 1 demonstrates that the effect of identity on retaliations is mediated by the perceived similarity of the victims which reinforces feelings of sympathy towards the victims and anger towards the corporation. These emotions drive stakeholders’ attitudes and retaliations. Our study shows that appraisals of the victims of CSI are an important antecedent of stakeholders’ emotions and behavioural intentions. Our evidence also demonstrates that sympathy, an emotion neglected by past research in this area, has a unique effect on individuals’ reactions. Experiment 2 demonstrates that social identity biases in individual punitive intentions are moderated by individuals’ level of collective narcissism. Collective narcissists see out‐group victims as very dissimilar from the self, whereas individuals with low levels of collective narcissism do not differentiate between victims of CSI on the basis of their identity. We extend knowledge on stakeholders’ reactions to CSI and offer insights to organizations promoting campaigns against irresponsible behaviour or managing the fallout from cases of corporate irresponsibility.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“For control variables, crisis severity (α = .91)comprises six items (adapted from Antonetti & Maklan, 2016;Liu et al., 2016).”
From Distinguishing Moral Outrage and Empathetic Anger: Advancing the Triadic Appraisal Framework of Situational Crisis Communication Theory (2026) · cites this paper as Antonetti & Maklan, 2016
In the citing paper
“Moral outrage comprises six items (adapted from Antonetti & Maklan, 2016;Batson et al., 2009).”
From Distinguishing Moral Outrage and Empathetic Anger: Advancing the Triadic Appraisal Framework of Situational Crisis Communication Theory (2026) · cites this paper as Antonetti & Maklan, 2016
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879 · Cited by 82,194
Running experiments on Amazon Mechanical Turk
Paolacci, G., Chandler, J., & Ipeirotis, P. G. (2010) · Judgment and Decision Making · doi:10.1017/s1930297500002205 · Cited by 3,767
Webb, T. L., & Sheeran, P. (2006) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.132.2.249 · Cited by 3,732
Conventional wisdom on measurement: A structural equation perspective.
Bollen, K., & Lennox, R. (1991) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.110.2.305 · Cited by 3,618
Compassion: an evolutionary analysis and empirical review
Goetz, J. L., Keltner, D., & Simon-Thomas, E. (2010) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/a0018807 · Cited by 2,200
Inside the Turk: Understanding Mechanical Turk as a Participant Pool
Paolacci, G., & Chandler, J. (2014) · Current Directions in Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0963721414531598 · Cited by 2,136
Ellemers, N., Spears, R., & Doosje, B. (2002) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135228 · Cited by 1,845 · cited 1×
“Social identity theory shows that individuals are prone to defensive processing to rationalize negative information about the in-group (Ellemers, Spears, and Doosje, 2002; Sherman and Kim, 2005).”
Leach, C. W., van Zomeren, M., Zebel, S., Vliek, M. L. W., Pennekamp, S. F., Doosje, B., Ouwerkerk, J. W., & Spears, R. (2008) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.95.1.144 · Cited by 1,826 · cited 1×
“Scholars examine how individuals identify with, or differentiate from, various social groups (e.g. Leach et al., 2008).”
Reputation as a sufficient condition for data quality on Amazon Mechanical Turk
Peer, E., Vosgerau, J., & Acquisti, A. (2014) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/s13428-013-0434-y · Cited by 1,618 · cited 1×
“Only very few participants (11 in Study 1 and 4 in Study 2) answered the wrong country or said they could not remember (Pe’er et al., 2014).”
Intergroup Threat and Outgroup Attitudes: A Meta-Analytic Review
Riek, B. M., Mania, E. W., & Gaertner, S. L. (2006) · Personality and Social Psychology Review · doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr1004_4 · Cited by 1,588
Research works printed but not linked: 123
- 10.1177/0149206311436079 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1037/0021-9010.90.3.574 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1037/0033-2909.126.4.556 · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.126.4.556 · Paper page
- 10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.411 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1007/s10551‐014‐2487‐y · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1037/0033-2909.130.1.80 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.2307/23044044 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1007/BF02723327 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1111/j.1467-8551.2012.00822.x · DOI
- 10.1037/0021-9010.90.4.629 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1016/j.jesp.2008.07.017 · DOI
- 10.1002/ejsp.434 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1177/1088868307301033 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1207/S15327663JCP1304_11 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1037/1528-3542.4.2.107 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1509/jmkg.67.2.76.18609 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1007/s10551-008-9730-3 · DOI · Paper page
- Bollen K. A., 2012, Handbook of Causal Analysis for Social Research, 301
- 10.1002/ejsp.2420240603 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1016/j.jbusres.2009.12.008 · DOI
- 10.1037/0033-2909.86.2.307 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1111/0022-4537.00126 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1037/0003-066X.62.8.726 · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.62.8.726
- 10.1177/1745691610393980 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1177/1368430208101053 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1037/0022-3514.83.2.284 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.3758/s13428-013-0365-7 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1080/01973533.2012.693347 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.obhdp.2008.06.001 · DOI
- 10.1037/0022-3514.92.4.631 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1348/014466608X314935 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1207/S15327957PSPR0704_05 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1080/14792779943000017 · DOI
- 10.1006/jesp.1997.1327 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1002/(SICI)1099-0992(199903/05)29:2/3<371::AID-EJSP932>3.0.CO;2-U · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1016/j.jbusres.2009.03.019 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1037/a0036103 · DOI
- Fishbein M., 1975, Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research
- 10.1037/0022-3514.82.6.878 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1177/002224378101800104 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1037/0022-3514.83.4.843 · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.83.4.843 · Paper page
- 10.1177/0149206309348060 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1016/j.jesp.2007.08.003 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2011.00351.x · DOI
- 10.1037/a0032215 · DOI
- 10.1177/1368430201004004002 · DOI
- 10.1002/ejsp.296 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.02.002 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1007/s11747-013-0340-y · DOI
- 10.1007/s11747-009-0186-5 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1509/jmkg.73.6.18 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1037/0022-3514.51.3.609 · DOI
- Hair J. F., 2010, Multivariate Data Analysis
- 10.1057/jibs.2014.74 · DOI
- 10.1002/0470029307.ch2 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115045 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1080/03637750903310360 · DOI · Paper page
- Hayes A. F., 2013, Introduction to Mediation, Moderation and Conditional Process Analysis
- 10.1177/01461672972310002 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.2044-8309.1989.tb00874.x · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1016/j.jbusres.2008.01.031 · DOI
- 10.2307/2787127 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1177/0146167202238377 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1080/152988602317232777 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1002/ejsp.72 · DOI
- 10.1037/0022-3514.86.6.862 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1016/j.jretai.2013.03.002 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1108/17471110910977249 · DOI
- 10.1177/002224299806200108 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1509/jmkg.68.3.92.34770 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1002/bdm.492 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1037/1528-3542.3.3.254 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.5465/amr.2010.0522 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1037/0022-3514.93.2.234 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1016/j.pubrev.2012.08.006 · DOI
- 10.1177/0146167210376391 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1037/0021-9010.86.1.114 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.09.022 · DOI
- 10.1177/0146167213514280 · DOI
- 10.1037/1089-2680.11.2.112 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1037/1082-989X.7.1.83 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.2307/259398 · doi:10.2307/259398 · Paper page
- 10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.324 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195300314.003.0005 · DOI
- 10.1111/peps.12055 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1037/0022-3514.90.4.629 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.02.001 · DOI
- 10.1037/a0015968 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1002/ejsp.754 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.paid.2006.04.021 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1111/j.1467-9221.2007.00563.x · DOI
- 10.1037/0003-066X.51.9.918 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1086/209499 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1002/mar.20664 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1037/1528-3542.4.2.145 · DOI
- 10.1037/0022-3514.67.2.206 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1016/j.jesp.2009.09.006 · DOI
- 10.1037/0022-3514.67.2.186 · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.67.2.186 · Paper page
- 10.1007/s11002-009-9082-5 · DOI
- 10.1177/0956797613486988 · DOI
- 10.1111/0162-895X.00140 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1037/0022-3514.88.1.108 · DOI
- 10.1023/A:1022299422219 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1086/527268 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.obhdp.2010.03.001 · DOI
- 10.1037/0022-3514.88.3.532 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.02.003 · DOI · Paper page
- Tajfel H., 1979, The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations, 33
- 10.1002/ejsp.2420010202 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1037/emo0000021 · DOI
- 10.1348/014466608X373589 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.jesp.2011.10.017 · DOI
- 10.1177/0956797612441221 · DOI
- 10.1177/1754073910380969 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1002/ejsp.2420050102 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1007/BF00866883 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.pubrev.2014.03.004 · DOI
- 10.1007/s10551-012-1590-1 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1111/j.1467-8551.2007.00557.x · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1037/0022-3514.50.2.314 · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.50.2.314 · Paper page
- 10.1111/j.1467-8551.1996.tb00123.x · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1037/a0037679 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1086/651257 · DOI · Paper page
Cited by
Niu, R., Eng, N., & Jin, Y. (2026) · Journal of Public Relations Research · doi:10.1080/1062726x.2026.2667179 · Cited by 2
Metadata
- Authors
- Antonetti, P., & Maklan, S.
- Affiliations
- Queen Mary University of London, School of Business and Management London E1 4NS UK
- Cranfield University Cranfield School of Management Cranfield Bedford MK43 0AL UK
- Venue
- British Journal of Management
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2016-05-02
- Volume
- 27
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 583-605
- ISSN
- 1045-3172
- 1467-8551
- Cited by
- 68
- References
- 16
- Language
- en
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Social Identification and Corporate Irresponsibility: A Model of Stakeholder Punitive Intentions. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/1467-8551.12168
- The paper
- Antonetti, P., & Maklan, S. (2016). Social Identification and Corporate Irresponsibility: A Model of Stakeholder Punitive Intentions. British Journal of Management. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12168
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.