기업 부정정보의 정정주체에 따른 소비자 태도회복 효과 연구: 부정정보의 신뢰수준과 기업지위의 조절효과를 중심으로

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to investigate whether a favorable consumer attitude toward a firm, having been deflated by exposure to negative publicity, can be restored through some corrective activity. Moreover, by focusing on negative information that publicizes falsehoods about a firm, this study examined the impact of an unexpected crisis in company reputation. In particular, this study considered the extent to which the agent responsible for conducting a corrective activity exerts influence on the degree of recovery by comparing the firm’s remedial response (e.g., assumption of responsibility, apology, denial, silence) and the third party’s corrective activity. The degree of deviation and the extent of recovery depend on the qualities of the negative information because not all negative information has the same impact on consumer attitude. Consequently, this study focused on the moderating role of consumer belief about the negative information on the process of attitude recovery. Finally, because negative information could jeopardize the reputation of any firm, regardless of size or industry category,the present study addressed the moderating role of a firm’s characteristics on the consumer attitude recovery process. Taken together, the following hypotheses reflect the purposes of this study:H1: As the degree of consumer belief increases, the recovery effect will vary based on the party who conducts the corrective activity. H2: As the firm’s market position increases, the recovery effect will be different depending on the party who conducts the corrective activity. A 2 (correction unit: neutral party-affected firm) x 2 (belief level: high-low) x 2 (firm’s market position: high-low) factorial between-subjects design was used to test the hypotheses. The firms were selected by pretest. The participants were selected using convenient sampling and included 165 undergraduate students, enrolled in large university in Korea, who had experienced the company and the product. Two-way ANOVA on the dependent variable (the discrepancy in consumer attitude) and the independent variables of belief level and corrective agent was used to test hypothesis 1. Interaction effects were found on both independent variables (F (1, 163) =15.904, p<.01), demonstrating that belief level moderates the impact of corrective agent. Based on these interaction effects, pair-wise comparisons were examined to discover how the results varied by belief level. The results indicate that under the high belief condition, the discrepancy in consumer attitude was higher (t (81) = 4.81, p<.01) when the corrective agent was the firm (△M=1.46) than when it was a neutral party (△M=0.38). Therefore, hypothesis 1-1 was fully supported. Under the low belief condition (H1-2),follow-up pair-wise comparisons revealed that consumer attitude was not significantly different (t(79)=-0.326, p>.1) when the corrective agent was the firm (△M=0.25) from when it was a neutral party (△M=0.30) (see Figure 1). Thus, H1-2 was also supported. To test hypothesis 2, two-way ANOVA on the dependent variable (the discrepancy in consumer attitude) and the independent variable of the firm’s market position and corrective agent was used. The results showed that there were significant interaction effects (F(1, 163)=4.282, p<.05) between the firm’s market position and the corrective agent, indicating that the former moderates the impact of the latter. Based on these interaction effects, pair-wise comparisons were examined to discover how the results varied by the firm’s market position. The results demonstrated that under the high market position condition, the discrepancy in consumer attitude was higher (t (81) = 4.81, p<.01) when the corrective agent was the firm (△M=0.87) than when it was a neutral party (△M=0.01). Thus, hypothesis 2-1 was supported. Under the low market position condition (H2-2), follow-up pair-wise comparisons revealed that consumer attitude was not significantly different (t (89)=1.13, p>.1), when the corrective agent was the firm (△M=0.83)from when it was a neutral party (△M=0.61). Therefore, hypothesis 2-2 was also supported (see Figure 2). pair-wise comparisons were examined. The results showed that consumer attitude toward the affected firm before exposure to negative information (M=5.18) differed from consumer attitude after the corrective activity (M=4.60) (t (163) =7.22, p<.01). Follow- up pair-wise comparisons revealed that although the affected firm conducted the correction activity, consumer attitude clearly did not return to its original level. Independent t-tests for discrepancy in consumer attitude before exposure to negative information and after the correction activity were examined. As expected, the results showed that the gap in consumer attitude was greater when the corrective activity was conducted by the firm (△M=0.85) than when it was conducted by a neutral party (△M=0.34). Therefore, the recovery effect should be greater when the corrective activity is conducted by a neutral party. This study contributes to the field because it investigated the recovery effect by analyzing the discrepancy in consumer attitude before exposure to negative information and after the correction activity instead of analyzing the discrepancy before and after the correction activity alone. Previous studies have not examined the under-correction effect of correction activity because they did not focus on the recovery effect. Moreover, this study not only demonstrates how the corrective agent differentiates correction effects, a factor rarely addressed by previous studies, but also provides implications for future research and practice. The findings of this study confirm that belief level of the consumer and market position of the affected firm do play roles in determining the correction effect. Especially noteworthy is that this study found that belief level of the consumer moderates the consumer attitude recovery process. However, this finding partially conflicts with previous research, which has demonstrated the of the negative effects that arise from negative information (i.e., impression perseverance model or conversational norm theory). This study also provides implications for professionals by confirming the under-correction effect; accordingly, firms need to invest communication resources into activities that prevent exposure to negative information. Furthermore,firms need to utilize neutral parties as corrective agents when a crisis arises, depending on their market position and the level of consumer belief.