Have you ever bought a product because it is advertised by your favourite celebrity? According to a 1984 publication by JB FREIDEN, celebrity endorsement has positive effects on the trustworthiness, believability, likeability and persuasiveness of advertised products. However, when the celebrity engaged by a brand is involved in scandals, how would consumers respond? In the article Consumer Response to Negative Celebrity Publicity: the Effects of Moral Reasoning Strategies and Fan Identification, Dr KIM Ki-joon, Assistant Professor, and WANG Sai, PhD Candidate, at CityU’s Department of Media and Communication, reveal how the severity of transgressions and degree of people’s attachments with the celebrity influence the ways consumers adopt different moral reasoning strategies.
Drawing on numerous past studies, the researchers first explain that individuals rely on negative information, those of celebrities included, more heavily than positive information when forming evaluative judgments. Negative perceptions of a celebrity can be transferred to associated products and brands, according to Grant MCCRACKEN’s meaning transfer theory. Yet, the extent of transfer depends on the severity of the transgressions.
The psychological process through which consumers evaluate celebrity transgressions and the negative publicity about the endorser is complex. Transgressions often pose a dilemma in people’s reasoning process, especially for those who strongly identify with that celebrity. Three different moral reasoning strategies may be adopted:
• justifying the transgressions and making them acceptable (rationalisation);
• differentiating moral judgements from the celebrity’s accomplishment (decoupling); and
• considering the negative information when evaluating the celebrity’s job performance (coupling).
The researchers assumed that the moral coupling strategy might lead individuals to view a transgressed celebrity unfavourably, and such perceptions may be transferred to the associated brands and products. In contrast, the moral disengagement strategies (ie moral rationalisation or decoupling) would positively influence consumer response.
But what are the factors affecting individuals’ choice among these strategies? The researchers hypothesised that people would more likely adopt moral coupling when they are exposed to high severity transgressions and have a low level of fan identification, and moral rationalisation or decoupling when they deal with low-severity transgressions and have a high level of fan identification.
An experiment with two conditions representing high-severity and low-severity celebrity transgressions was conducted to test the hypotheses. The sample consisted of 144 participants. For a sense of realism, the researchers created fictional transgression cases of an actual celebrity, Tom Cruise. The participants were randomly assigned to one of the two celebrity transgression conditions. They first read a press release announcing that Tom Cruise had been chosen as the official endorser of a fictional brand and rated their levels of fan identification with Tom Cruise. Then, the two groups were given the fictitious newspaper article reporting Tom Cruise was either making a racist remark (high-severity transgression) or committing physical assault (low-severity transgression). Participants were asked their opinions about the transgression, and completed a questionnaire assessing their demographic information, attitude toward the celebrity and endorsed brand, purchase intention for the endorsed product, and the degrees to which they adopted the three types of moral reasoning strategies.
The experiment found that high-severity transgressions, compared to low-severity ones, not only generate more negative attitudes toward the celebrity but also elicit more unfavourable reactions from consumers in terms of brand attitude and purchase intention. Although the endorsed brand may not be responsible for the endorser’s transgressive behaviours, negative perceptions of the endorser can be easily transferred onto the endorsed brand and consequently jeopardise the brand’s image.
It also confirmed that the way consumers adopt moral reasoning strategies depends on the severity of the transgressions. People tend to adopt moral disengagement (ie rationalisation or decoupling) when exposed to low-severity transgressions, which elicit more positive attitudes toward the celebrity and brand and higher purchase intention. On the contrary, consumers are reluctant to violate their own moral standards to justify or excuse the highly immoral behaviour, and they tend to use moral coupling when exposed to high-severity transgressions. This leads to unfavourable attitudes toward the celebrity and endorsed brand, and reduced purchase intention.
Another intriguing finding is that fan identification motivates consumers to activate the moral rationalisation strategy for justifying the transgressive behaviours, or the moral decoupling strategy for justifying their continued support for the wrongdoer. Consumers with a low level of fan identification, on the other hand, are more likely to adopt the moral coupling strategy and condemn the wrongdoer’s behaviours.
This study provides practical implications for advertisers and marketers. It suggests that they should carefully evaluate a celebrity’s past reputation and weigh the severity of any scandals, before making a final decision on celebrity endorsement. They may also consider tailoring information in a way that encourages consumers to engage in moral disengagement, like highlighting the celebrity’s accomplishments. Using social media for maintaining and strengthening fan-celebrity relationships may also be helpful.
Achievements and publication
Wang, S., & Kim, K. J. (2020). Consumer response to negative celebrity publicity: The effects of moral reasoning strategies and fan identification. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 29(1), 114-123. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPBM-10-2018-2064
