The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
When Hostile Consumers Wreak Havoc on Your Brand: The Phenomenon of Consumer Brand Sabotage
Abstract
In recent years, companies have been confronted with a new type of negative consumer behavior: consumers who have turned hostile and who are strongly determined to cause damage to the brand. Empowered by new technological possibilities, an individual consumer can now wreak havoc on a brand with relatively little effort. In reflection of this new phenomenon, the authors introduce the concept of consumer brand sabotage (CBS). On the basis of different underlying motives, a conceptual framework distinguishes CBS (a form of hostile aggression: harming the brand as dominant motive) from other forms of negative consumer behavior, such as customer retaliation and negative word of mouth (instrumental aggression: harming a brand is only a means to achieve other objectives, e.g., restoring equity). This framework adapts insights from aggression and appraisal theories as well as qualitative interviews with actual saboteurs to a consumer–brand relationship context in order to develop an improved theoretical understanding of the under-researched phenomenon of CBS. The authors analyze the mental escalation processes of individual consumers toward CBS and develop a road map for future research.
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.
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
Lazarus, R. S. (1991) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780195069945.001.0001 · Cited by 12,691
Anderson, C. A., & Bushman, B. J. (2002) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135231 · Cited by 3,915
Customer engagement behavior: Theoretical foundations and research directions
van Doorn, J., Lemon, K. N., Mittal, V., Nass, S., Pick, D., Pirner, P., & Verhoef, P. C. (2010) · Journal of Service Research · doi:10.1177/1094670510375599 · Cited by 3,536
Frustration-aggression hypothesis: Examination and reformulation.
Berkowitz, L. (1989) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.106.1.59 · Cited by 2,283
Mano, H., & Oliver, R. L. (1993) · Journal of Consumer Research · doi:10.1086/209361 · Cited by 1,973
Video games and aggressive thoughts, feelings, and behavior in the laboratory and in life.
Anderson, C. A., & Dill, K. E. (2000) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.78.4.772 · Cited by 1,778
Appraisal components, core relational themes, and the emotions
Smith, C. A., & Lazarus, R. S. (1993) · Cognition & Emotion · doi:10.1080/02699939308409189 · Cited by 1,302
Service Failure and Recovery: The Impact of Relationship Factors on Customer Satisfaction
Hess Jr., R. L., Ganesan, S., & Klein, N. M. (2003) · Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science · doi:10.1177/0092070302250898 · Cited by 959
Cited by
Developing and validating a service robot integration willingness scale
Lu, L., Cai, R., & Gursoy, D. (2019) · International Journal of Hospitality Management · doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2019.01.005 · Cited by 1,013
Metadata
- Authors
- Kähr, A., Nyffenegger, B., Krohmer, H., & Hoyer, W. D.
- Venue
- Journal of Marketing
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2016-05
- Volume
- 80
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 25-41
- ISSN
- 0022-2429 (ISSN-L)
- 1547-7185
- OpenAlex
- W2262553232
- Cited by
- 270
- References
- 8
- FWCI
- 45.22
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
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.