Following an international food crisis, such as intentional contamination, a food company is less likely to experience severe economic consequences if its public message communicates the actual damage, confirms containment of the contamination, and is sensitive to varied cultural interpretations of blame, according to a new study published in the journal Risk Analysis.
Past food contamination incidents have had major economic and reputational impacts on companies, and communication about the crisis are known to play a vital role in shaping the public’s response and the outcome of the crisis; people are willing to pay more for products they perceive as safe. However, different cultural groups may respond differently to how blame is assigned.
Researchers at the University of Maryland found risk perception of dramatic events typically occurs quickly, automatically and under the influence of emotions like anger and fear. They examined how communication about the affiliation of the perpetrator and motives were received based on the cultural identity of the audience. Previous cross-cultural psychology work has highlighted the cognitive differences in individuals, dependent on whether they were raised in what is sometimes called the “holistic" East (e.g., China, Korea, Japan, or India) or the “analytical" West (e.g., United States).
To examine consumer responses, the authors recruited two groups—American and immigrant Asian—to review a news release on food contamination and respond to questions aimed at measuring their attributions of blame for the contamination, trust and anxiety levels related to the food, and intentions for future purchases.
They found no statistical difference in the degree that Asian or American message receivers blamed the company. However, in conjunction with the attribution communicated in the message, Asian participants blamed the company more and trusted it less if its message included situational/external attribution (e.g., company fires the employee, which serves as crime motivation), whereas Americans expressed distrust when the message included personal/internal attribution (e.g., company points to a “quick to anger" individual with access to the food supply).
For the American receiver, a correlation was evident between purchase intention and blame, trust, and anxiety. For Asian message receivers, however, company blame correlated with trust and anxiety, but not with purchase intention. This points to a more complex relationship between blame and related emotions and cognitions for Asians.
“Our findings suggest that any kind of attribution, external or internal, has to be carefully handled as different subgroups within the mass media audience will react differently," the researchers said.
The researchers also explored the importance of consumer trust in the company’s remediation process versus trust in the company’s image. They found that although purchase intention correlated with trust in the company’s image for Asians, American receivers desired reassurance that the company was doing everything it could to deal with the crisis, rather than to be reminded of the company’s virtues. The finding emphasizes the organizational need to provide specific details on how it is rectifying the current crisis and to outline its plans for preventing future crises.
Past food contamination incidents have had major economic and reputational impacts on companies, and communication about the crisis are known to play a vital role in shaping the public’s response and the outcome of the crisis; people are willing to pay more for products they perceive as safe. However, different cultural groups may respond differently to how blame is assigned.
Researchers at the University of Maryland found risk perception of dramatic events typically occurs quickly, automatically and under the influence of emotions like anger and fear. They examined how communication about the affiliation of the perpetrator and motives were received based on the cultural identity of the audience. Previous cross-cultural psychology work has highlighted the cognitive differences in individuals, dependent on whether they were raised in what is sometimes called the “holistic" East (e.g., China, Korea, Japan, or India) or the “analytical" West (e.g., United States).
To examine consumer responses, the authors recruited two groups—American and immigrant Asian—to review a news release on food contamination and respond to questions aimed at measuring their attributions of blame for the contamination, trust and anxiety levels related to the food, and intentions for future purchases.
They found no statistical difference in the degree that Asian or American message receivers blamed the company. However, in conjunction with the attribution communicated in the message, Asian participants blamed the company more and trusted it less if its message included situational/external attribution (e.g., company fires the employee, which serves as crime motivation), whereas Americans expressed distrust when the message included personal/internal attribution (e.g., company points to a “quick to anger" individual with access to the food supply).
For the American receiver, a correlation was evident between purchase intention and blame, trust, and anxiety. For Asian message receivers, however, company blame correlated with trust and anxiety, but not with purchase intention. This points to a more complex relationship between blame and related emotions and cognitions for Asians.
“Our findings suggest that any kind of attribution, external or internal, has to be carefully handled as different subgroups within the mass media audience will react differently," the researchers said.
The researchers also explored the importance of consumer trust in the company’s remediation process versus trust in the company’s image. They found that although purchase intention correlated with trust in the company’s image for Asians, American receivers desired reassurance that the company was doing everything it could to deal with the crisis, rather than to be reminded of the company’s virtues. The finding emphasizes the organizational need to provide specific details on how it is rectifying the current crisis and to outline its plans for preventing future crises.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment