Cited by 618Corporate Identity and ReputationPublic Relations and Crisis CommunicationCorporate Social Responsibility Reporting

Keeping up Appearances: Reputational Threat and Impression Management after Social Movement Boycotts

McDonnell, Mary-Hunter, King, Brayden·2013·Administrative Science Quarterly

Abstract

This paper explores the extent to which firms targeted by consumer boycotts strategically react to defend their public image by using prosocial claims: expressions of the organization’s commitment to socially acceptable norms, beliefs, and activities. We argue that prosocial claims operate as an impression management tactic meant to protect targeted firms by diluting the negative media attention attracted by the boycott. We test our hypotheses using a sample of 221 boycotts announced between 1990 and 2005. Results suggest that boycotted firms do significantly increase their prosocial claims activity after a boycott is announced. Firms are likely to react with a larger increase in prosocial claims when the boycott is more threatening (it receives more media attention), when the firm has a higher reputation, or when the firm engaged in more prosocial claims before the boycott. We demonstrate that firms fall back on their established impression management strategies when they face a reputational threat and will increase these previously perfected performances as the threat increases. In this way, the severity of a threat positively moderates the relationship between a firm’s prior performance repertoire and future performance repertoire, a mechanism we refer to as “threat amplification.” When an organization with high reputational standing has bolstered its position by using prosocial claims in its past performance repertoire, however, it will perceive itself to be shielded from…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0001839213500032

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Reputational threats occur when stakeholders publicize organizational misdeeds and pressure the organization to rectify or take responsibility.

    “Reputational threats can occur when stakeholders recognize organizational misdeeds and bring those actions to light in an effort to pressure the organization to rectify its actions or take responsibility for its transgressions”

    From Strategic Silence: Withholding Certification Status as a Hypocrisy Avoidance Tactic (2018) · cites this paper as McDonnell and King, 2013

  • Certifications reveal otherwise hidden organizational attributes and provide assurance that the organization is trustworthy and aligned with socially prescribed values.

    “By revealing information about organizational attributes that would otherwise be hidden from external audiences (King, Lenox, and Terlaak, 2005), certifications provide assurance that the organization is trustworthy and that its actions are aligned with socially prescribed values and actions (McDonnell and King, 2013).”

    From Strategic Silence: Withholding Certification Status as a Hypocrisy Avoidance Tactic (2018) · cites this paper as McDonnell and King, 2013

  • Positive organizational claims may be effectively used to deflect criticism or direct attention away from a reputational threat.

    “Recent work has argued that positive organizational claims may be effectively used to deflect criticism or to direct attention away from a reputational threat”

    From Strategic Silence: Withholding Certification Status as a Hypocrisy Avoidance Tactic (2018) · cites this paper as McDonnell and King, 2013

  • Company size is positively correlated with the likelihood of environmental disclosure and the number of prosocial claims made by a firm.

    “prior research has found company size to be positively correlated with the likelihood of environmental disclosure (Reid and Toffel, 2009;Lewis, Walls, and Dowell, 2014) and, more generally, the number of prosocial claims made by a firm (McDonnell and King, 2013)”

    From Strategic Silence: Withholding Certification Status as a Hypocrisy Avoidance Tactic (2018) · cites this paper as McDonnell and King, 2013

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
McDonnell, M.-H., & King, B.
Affiliations
  • Georgetown University (US)
  • Northwestern University (US)
Venue
Administrative Science Quarterly
Published
2013-08-09
Volume
58
Issue
3
Pages
387-419
ISSN
  • 0001-8392 (ISSN-L)
  • 1930-3815
OpenAlex
W3123354546
Cited by
618
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 48 · 2025: 48 · 2024: 63 · 2023: 54 · 2022: 57 · 2021: 47 · 2020: 39 · 2019: 65 · 2018: 49 · 2017: 32 · 2016: 49 · 2015: 34 · 2014: 24 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 3
FWCI
109.25
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Administrative Science Quarterly (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Corporate Identity and Reputation
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Public Relations and Crisis Communication
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Corporate Social Responsibility Reporting
Keywords
consumer boycotts, impression management, corporate image, reputational threats, buffering, corporate reputation, corporate social responsibility, media attention

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