A Cross-Category Study: Should Moral Reasoning Strategies be Used to Mitigate Negative Effects from Athlete Transgressions on Brand Evaluation?

Abstract

This study emphasizes the extent to which moral reasoning strategies can be used to mitigate negative effects on brand evaluation in the aftermath of an athlete transgression. The current study used conjoint analysis to investigate potential differences between consumers on three attributes (transgression category, liking, brand response). The research contributes to the domains of moral reasoning and crisis communication by introducing new findings for how brands should act in the wake of athlete transgressions. Findings indicate managerial implications for different decision makers in the specific sectors. The main implication from the study was that moral reasoning responses were more effective in a low severity category, compared to a high severity category. The results also indicated that the termination of contract response was favoured across the studied categories. Despite some limitations, the study provides interesting indications that individual differences exist and that cognitive and affective elements impact consumers' moral decisions.