Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorYU, Fang
dc.date.accessioned2016-03-30T13:17:53Z
dc.date.available2016-03-30T13:17:53Z
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10464/8934
dc.description.abstractA brand-harm crisis not only affects the scandalized brand, but may also influence competing brands. Thus, marketers of competing brands need to develop response strategies for reducing negative spillover effects. This research takes a competitor’s perspective and introduces two types of response strategies used to convey a sense of denial: sensegiving and sensehiding. It also investigates how the effects of response strategies are contingent upon brand relatedness and individual thinking styles. The results from three experimental studies show that using a sensegiving strategy reduces negative spillover effects more than using a sensehiding strategy. Additionally, the studies suggest that the observed difference in the effects of response strategy tends to be greater when the level of brand relatedness is high than when it is low. However, individual thinking styles (holistic vs. analytic) seem to have little impact on consumers’ responses to the two denial strategies. This research contributes to the brand-harm crisis literature and provides novel insights into a competitor’s response to potential negative spillover effects.en_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.publisherBrock Universityen_US
dc.subjectsensegivingen_US
dc.subjectsensehidingen_US
dc.subjectbrand-harm crisisen_US
dc.subjectspilloveren_US
dc.subjectbrand relatednessen_US
dc.titleAlleviating Negative Spillover of a Brand-Harm Crisis: Sensegiving vs. Sensehiding in a Competitor’s Denial Response Strategyen_US
dc.typeElectronic Thesis or Dissertationen_US
dc.degree.nameM.Sc. Managementen_US
dc.degree.levelMastersen_US
dc.contributor.departmentFaculty of Business Programsen_US
dc.degree.disciplineFaculty of Businessen_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record