Abstract
This research investigates the novel link between consumers’ support for underdog brands and their ethical expectations of such brands and finds that the underdog brand positioning may not always be beneficial. Rather, we argue that the identification-based supporting motivation for underdog brands may backfire when the accompanying specific moral expectation is not satisfied. Study 1 demonstrates that the underdog brand falls into an ethical trap in which consumers judge the brand more harshly when ethical transgressions are committed. In Study 2, the psychological underlying mechanism for this ethical underdog trap effect is proved to be perceived betrayal. In Study 3, a boundary condition, community-related (vs. autonomy-related) transgressions, is explored. In Study 4, the three types of transgressions (autonomy, community, and functional) and the mediating effects of perceived betrayal are tested in integrated research design. Finally, theoretical and managerial implications are discussed, followed by conclusions.
Highlights
Underdog brand positioning and its positive effects have been investigated in many studies that have confirmed consumers’ support motivations for underdog brands (McGinnis and Gentry, 2009; Paharia et al, 2011; Kao, 2015; McGinnis et al, 2017; Goldschmied et al, 2018)
We argue that the asymmetrically higher moral standards for the underdog brand is pronounced for autonomy-related ethical transgressions, as these are more closely related to the supporting motivation behind the underdog orientation (Shweder et al, 1997; Rozin et al, 1999; Grappi et al, 2013)
Planned contrast indicated that attitude changed more negatively for the underdog brand in terms of autonomy-related transgressions [Mautonomy = 3.32 vs. Mcommunity = 2.12; t(97) = 3.74, p < 0.001]
Summary
Underdog brand positioning and its positive effects have been investigated in many studies that have confirmed consumers’ support motivations for underdog brands (McGinnis and Gentry, 2009; Paharia et al, 2011; Kao, 2015; McGinnis et al, 2017; Goldschmied et al, 2018). None of the previous studies have mentioned potential risks involved with the underdog positioning, in the moral domains. Kim et al (2019) first announced and demonstrated the existence of the underdog trap by warning about the side effects of underdog positioning, but their focus was not on ethical transgressions. The current research contributes to the literature by suggesting a novel linkage between the consumers’ supporting motivations toward the underdog brand and the ramifications of ethical expectations and the effect of committing transgressions. We argue that the identification-based supporting motivation behind the underdog orientation can positively affect the underdog brand but may work as a trap when the accompanying moral expectations are not satisfied
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
