The Impact of Collective Guilt on the Preference for Japanese Products

집체범죄감대경향일본산품적영향(集体犯罪感对倾向日本产品的影响)

Arab boycotts of Danish products, Australian boycotts of French products and Chinese consumer aversion toward Japanese products are all examples of how adverse actions at the country level might impact consumers' behavior. The animosity literature has examined how consumers react to the adverse actions of other countries, and how such animosity impacts consumers' attitudes and preferences for products from the transgressing country. For example, Chinese consumers are less likely to buy Japanese products because of Japanese atrocities during World War II and the unjust economic dealings of the Japanese (Klein, Ettenson and Morris 1998). The marketing literature, however, has not examined how consumers react to adverse actions committed by their own country against other countries, and whether such actions affect their attitudes towards purchasing products that originated from the adversely affected country. The social psychology literature argues that consumers will experience a feeling called collective guilt, in response to such adverse actions. Collective guilt stems from the distress experienced by group members when they accept that their group is responsible for actions that have harmed another group (Branscombe, Slugoski, and Kappenn 2004). Examples include Americans feeling guilty about the atrocities committed by the U.S. military at Abu Ghraib prison (Iyer, Schamder and Lickel 2007), and the Dutch about their occupation of Indonesia in the past (Doosje et al. 1998). The primary aim of this study is to examine consumers' perceptions of adverse actions by members of one's own country against another country and whether such perceptions affected their attitudes towards products originating from the country transgressed against. More specifically, one objective of this study is to examine the perceptual antecedents of collective guilt, an emotional reaction to adverse actions performed by members of one's country against another country. Another objective is to examine the impact of collective guilt on consumers' perceptions of, and preference for, products originating from the country transgressed against by the consumers' own country. If collective guilt emerges as a significant predictor, companies originating from countries that have been transgressed against might be able to capitalize on such unfortunate events. This research utilizes the animosity model introduced by Klein, Ettenson and Morris (1998) and later expanded on by Klein (2002). Klein finds that U.S. consumers harbor animosity toward the Japanese. This animosity is experienced in response to events that occurred during World War II (i.e., the bombing of Pearl Harbor) and more recently the perceived economic threat from Japan. Thus this study argues that the events of Word War II (i.e., bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki) might lead U.S. consumers to experience collective guilt. A series of three hypotheses were introduced. The first hypothesis deals with the antecedents of collective guilt. Previous research argues that collective guilt is experienced when consumers perceive that the harm following a transgression is illegitimate and that the country from which the transgressors originate should be responsible for the adverse actions. (Wohl, Branscombe, and Klar 2006). Therefore the following hypothesis was offered: H1a. Higher levels of perceived illegitimacy for the harm committed will result in higher levels of collective guilt. H1b. Higher levels of responsibility will be positively associated with higher levels of collective guilt. The second and third hypotheses deal with the impact of collective guilt on the preferences for Japanese products. Klein (2002) found that higher levels of animosity toward Japan resulted in a lower preference for a Japanese product relative to a South Korean product but not a lower preference for a Japanese product relative to a U.S. product. These results therefore indicate that the experience of collective guilt will lead to a higher preference for a Japanese product if consumers are contemplating a choice that inv olves a decision to buy Japanese versus South Korean product but not if the choice involves a decision to buy a Japanese versus a U.S. product. H2. Collective guilt will be positively related to the preference for a Japanese product over a South Korean product, but will not be related to the preference for a Japanese product over a U.S. product. H3. Collective guilt will be positively related to the preference for a Japanese product over a South Korean product, holding constant product judgments and animosity. An experiment was conducted to test the hypotheses. The illegitimacy of the harm and responsibility were manipulated by exposing respondents to a description of adverse events occurring during World War II. Data were collected using an online consumer panel in the United States. Subjects were randomly assigned to either the low levels of responsibility and illegitimacy condition (n=259) or the high levels of responsibility and illigitemacy (n=268) condition. Latent Variable Structural Equation Modeling (LVSEM) was used to test the hypothesized relationships. The first hypothesis is supported as both the illegitimacy of the harm and responsibility assigned to the Americans for the harm committed against the Japanese during WWII have a positive impact on collective guilt. The second hypothesis is also supported as collective guilt is positively related to preference for a Japanese product over a South Korean product but is not related to preference for a Japanese product over a U.S. product. Finally there is support for the third hypothesis, since collective guilt is positively related to the preference for a Japanese product over a South Korean product while controlling for the effect of product judgments about Japanese products and animosity. The results of these studies lead to several conclusions. First, the illegitimacy of harm and responsibility can be manipulated and that they are antecedents of collective guilt. Second, collective guilt has an impact on a consumers' decision when they face a choice set that includes a product from the country that was the target of the adverse action and a product from another foreign country. This impact however disappears from a consumers' decision when they face a choice set that includes a product from the country that was the target of the adverse action and a domestic product. This result suggests that collective guilt might be a viable factor for company originating from the country transgressed against if its competitors are foreign but not if they are local.

阿拉伯人联合抵制丹麦产品, 澳大利亚人联合抵制法国产品, 而中国人厌恶日本产品, 这些是国家间的敌对行为影响消费行为的案例. 敌意文献中已考查过消费者对其他国家敌对行为的反应, 以及这种敌意如何影响消费者对敌对国家产品的态度和倾向. 例如, 中国消费者不愿购买日本产品, 是由于日本人在第二次世界大战中的暴行, 以及不平等的经济往来(Klein, Ettenson and Morris 1998). 然而在市场营销文献中, 却没有考查过那些对他国实施敌对行为的国家消费者的反应, 这些敌对行为是否会影响他们购买受害国产品的态度. 社会心理学文献认为, 消费者面对这样的敌对行为时, 会产生一种集体犯罪感. 集体犯罪感源于当组织成员认为组织要对伤害其他组织的行为负责时所产生的痛苦感(Branscombe, Slugoski, and Kappenn 2004). 案例包括美国人由于美军在Abu Ghraib监狱的暴行而产生犯罪感(Iyer, Schamder and Lickel 2007), 荷兰由于过去对印度尼西亚的占领而产生犯罪感(Doosje et al. 1998). 本研究的主要目的是考查当国家成员对他国有敌对行为时消费者的感知, 这种感知是否会影响他们对敌对国家产品的态度. 更准确的说, 本研究的目标之一是考查集体犯罪感的感知前提, 以及当国家成员对他国有敌对行为时, 人们的情绪反应. 另一个目标是考查集体犯罪感如何影响消费者对敌对国产品的感知和倾向. 如果集体犯罪感能起到明显的预言作用, 敌对国双方的公司可能会从这类不幸的事件中受益. 本研究利用了由Klein, Ettenson and Morris (1998)提出并经Klein (2002)发展的敌意模式. Klein发现美国消费者对日本人怀有敌意, 起因是二战期间的事件(如日军偷袭珍珠港)和近年来日本的经济威胁. 因此本研究认为, 二战间的事件(如广岛长崎的原子弹爆炸)可能导致美国消费者的集体犯罪感. 曾有过一系列的三个假设, 第一个假设关于集体犯罪感的前提. 之前有研究认为当消费者感知到侵害造成的非法伤害, 并且认为侵犯者来自的国家应为此负责, 集体犯罪感就产生了(Wohl, Branscombe, and Klar 2006). 因此提出下列假设: 假设1a: 感知到的伤害非法性越高, 集体犯罪感越强烈. 假设1b: 责任越大, 集体犯罪感也肯定越强烈. 第二个和第三个假设关于集体犯罪感对倾向日本产品的影响. Klein (2002)发现对日本的敌意越强, 相比较韩国产品对日本产品的倾向越小, 但相比较美国产品对日本产品的倾向并未变小. 这些结果说明集体犯罪感存在时, 消费者在购买日本产品和韩国产品时会更倾向于前者, 但在购买日本产品和美国产品时并未受影响. 假设2: 集体犯罪感与购买日本产品的倾向大于韩国产品有关, 但与购买日本产品的倾向大于美国产品无关. 假设3: 集体犯罪感与购买日本产品的倾向大于韩国产品有关, 并且对产品的判断和敌意保持不变. 有过一个实验测试这个假设. 使被调查者面临发生在二战中的敌对事件, 从而产生非法伤害和责任. 该实验由一家美国的消费者调查小组收集数据, 将调查对象随机分配到低等级责任和违法情况(n=259)或高等级责任和违法情况(n=268). 测试假设关系时, 运用到潜在变量结构方程模式(LVSEM). 第一个假设得到了支持, 美国人因二战中对日本人的伤害而产生的伤害非法性和责任都对集体犯罪感有积极影响. 第二个假设也得到了支持, 集体犯罪感与购买日本产品的倾向大于韩国产品有关, 但与购买日本产品的倾向大于美国产品无关. 最后, 第三个假设也得到了支持, 集体犯罪感与购买日本产品的倾向大于韩国产品有关, 同时还影响人们对日本产品的判断和敌意. 由这些研究的结果可得出结论. 第一, 伤害的非法性和责任是集体犯罪感的前提. 第二, 当消费者面临来自敌对行为目标国家的产品和其他外国产品之间的选择时, 会受到集体犯罪感的影响. 但当他们面临来自敌对行为目标国家的产品和本国产品时, 不受集体犯罪感的影响. 这一结果意味着当竞争对手来自国外时, 利用集体犯罪感对那些受到敌对行为的国家的公司是可行的, 但当竞争对手来自国内时则不可行.