Journal of Consumer Behaviour, J. Consumer Behav.

12: 214–222 (2013)

Published online 26 February 2013 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/cb.1418

Are boycott motives rationalizations?

STEFAN HOFFMANN*
Christian-Albrechts-University of Kiel, Faculty of Business, Economics and Social Sciences, Department of Marketing, Germany

ABSTRACT

Previous models of boycott motivation are incomplete because they only consider beliefs and attitudes. This article argues that consumers’
proximity to the consequences of the critical actions of a company is the primary trigger of the desire to boycott. As consumers need to
justify this desire, they search for supportive arguments. Thus, the arguments consumers give to explain why they are boycotting or not
are pre-decisional rationalizations rather than independent rational considerations. Consequently, the paper suggests that scholars need to
respecify the antecedents identified in prior studies. These constructs are mediator variables of the indirect influence of proximity on boycott
participation. The paper tests the assumptions on the basis of survey data gathered from 544 consumers using the example of a real boycott
that was called in response to factory relocation. The model proposed was tested by means of partial least squares regression analysis. The
mediation hypotheses were examined using simple and multiple mediation tests. The empirical study confirms that boycott motives are
mainly rationalizations of a pre-existing desire to boycott, which is contingent on proximity. Managerial implications and avenues
for further research are proposed.
Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

INTRODUCTION workers at the former location. Both person A and person

B think that this decision is socially irresponsible and that
Almost every large company’s history includes at least one consumers should try to urge the company to revoke its deci-
boycott call by a non-governmental organization (John and sion. Person A personally knows some workers who will be
Klein, 2003). Managers have to take these calls seriously be- dismissed. Thus, he wants to take action to help his friends.
cause they downgrade the company’s reputation and stock To support his intention to boycott, he develops the attitude
prices (Pruitt and Friedman, 1986; Davidson et al., 1995; that a boycott is an effective means of changing the com-
Chavis and Leslie, 2009). Calls that effectively prompt con- pany’s decision. Person B also disapproves of the company’s
sumers to join a boycott negatively affect sales figures. decision. In contrast to person A, he knows no affected work-
Although consumers are in general increasingly willing to use ers personally. Joining a boycott will mean him abstaining
their purchase decisions as a means of political participation from consuming his favoured products. Although he thinks
(Shaw et al., 2006), not every boycott call leads to an actual that the boycott is necessary, he prefers not to participate
boycott with a significant number of supporters. Therefore, himself. To avoid the feeling of being selfish, he develops
the question arises as to why consumers join boycotts. Some a negative attitude towards the effectiveness of consumer
scholars have tackled this issue and identified factors in- boycotts. In this way, he can justify why he is not boycotting
fluencing consumer boycott participation (Kozinets and and still claim that he feels solidarity with the workers.
Handelman, 1998; Sen et al., 2001; Klein et al., 2004; Taken together, the contextual relationship between the con-
Farah and Newman, 2009; Hoffmann and Müller, 2009; sumer and the company may greatly influence consumers’
Yuksel and Mryteza, 2009; Neilson, 2010). These studies, beliefs and attitudes towards boycotting.
however, examine beliefs and attitudes towards participating This article suggests the construct of proximity as an opera-
in boycotts (e.g., perceived efficacy) without considering the tionalization of the relevant context that determines boycott
contextual variables that define how relevant the incidents beliefs and attitudes. Generally expressed, proximity describes
causing the boycott are to the consumer. Foxall (2002) points how close a single consumer is to a company or another
out that marketing scholars cannot sufficiently predict institution whose actions are the cause of the boycott call.
consumer behaviour on the basis of beliefs and attitudes In the present study, we narrow this broad definition by
without taking contextual variables into account. Nonethe- focusing on three facets that define proximity: (i) ‘being
less, most studies still disregard the context (Foxall and personally affected’, (ii) ‘being socially affected’ (via other
Yani-de-Soriano, 2005). people that are personally affected), or (iii) ‘being spatially
As the following example illustrates, investigation into affected’ (by living close to other people that are personally
how contextual variables influence beliefs and attitudes is affected). Based on the cognitive–emotive literature (e.g.,
particularly necessary with regard to boycott participation Lazarus, 1991), we expect that close consumers will feel a
(James, 2009). Imagine that a company announces that it stronger desire to boycott than distant consumers. Most
intends to relocate a plant and to dismiss thousands of importantly and as exemplified above, we hypothesize that
this desire affects all other arguments consumers consider
in making their decision regarding participation in a boycott.
*Correspondence to: Stefan Hoffmann, Christian-Albrechts-University of This assumption is based on the theory of cognitive disso-
Kiel, Faculty of Business, Economics and Social Sciences, Department of
Marketing, 24098 Kiel. nance (e.g., Festinger, 1957), which predicts that individuals
E-mail: [email protected] strive for a balance between their thoughts and actions.

Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

 Are boycott motives rationalizations? 215

Therefore, individuals often rationalize their decisions by (beneficiaries) of the evil (beneficial) act in question’. Jones
overstressing supportive arguments or downplaying counter- (1991) developed this definition in relation to ethical decision
acting arguments. Rationalizations can already come into play making within organizations. We adapt the construct to the
in the pre-decisional phase (Brownstein et al., 2004). field of boycotts and define proximity as the closeness of the
Accordingly, we expect that consumers need to find ratio- relationship between a single consumer and those who suffer
nally smooth explanations and justifications for their desire from the action of a certain company or another institution that
to boycott evoked by proximity. Those with a high degree stimulates the boycott call. Therefore, we have to narrow
of proximity to the negative impacts of a corporate behaviour down Jones’ (1991) very broad definition to a more specific
wish to boycott and thus need supportive arguments for the view that is relevant to our investigation. More specifically,
decision to join the boycott. In contrast, those with a low and as explained below, we consider three facets of proxim-
degree of proximity search for counterarguments that justify ity: ‘being personally affected’, ‘being socially affected’,
their unwillingness to boycott. Put differently, external circum- and ‘being spatially affected’. We postulate that each facet
stances often induce the wish to boycott. Individuals, in contributes to the overall level of proximity. We expect that
contrast, strive to convince themselves and others that they this overall level of proximity will indicate the degree to
have arrived at the boycott decision autonomously. They need which the actions of company are relevant to the individual.
arguments that make the decision appear self-governed before There are different subtypes of proximity that constitute
they actually decide to boycott. As a result, factors that have the indicators of a formatively specified construct of the
been considered to be influential by previous research are basi- overall degree of proximity. We focus on the subtypes that
cally rationalizations of the wish to (or not to) boycott (Markin, are relevant to the present study. Our narrower definition
1979; Eckhardt et al., 2010). It should be noted that, as a builds on the idea that being personally affected and/or being
consequence, the traditional antecedent modelling, which close to other people personally affected strongly motivates
considers solely beliefs and attitudes towards boycotting, individuals to act. Based on that fundamental assumption,
draws a distorted picture of individual boycott motivation. we distinguish the three facets introduced above: (i) ‘being
Without taking the individual’s degree of proximity into personally affected’ describes situations in which the actions
account, the predictive validity of these antecedents is low of the company (e.g., loss of jobs) are relevant to the person
because they are contingent on the specific situation. himself (e.g., the individual loses his job); (ii) ‘being socially
Consequently, this article suggests a mediation model of affected’ describes situations in which a person knows some-
boycott participation that explains how the influence of prox- one to whom the actions of the company are relevant (e.g.,
imity is transferred via rationalizing argumentation to boycott the person is a family member of someone who loses his
participation. This model is tested empirically in the context job); (iii) finally, ‘being spatially affected’ describes situa-
of a real boycott. In this way, the article highlights that the role tions in which a person lives close to people to whom the
of beliefs and attitudes towards boycotting is fundamentally actions of the company are relevant (e.g., the person lives
different from that assumed in previous research. Against the in the town where the factory that sheds jobs is located). It
conventional assumption, this research provides evidence that should be noted that these three facets are not exclusive
they are at least partly adjusted to support the desired boycott and that other types may be relevant in different settings.
decision. The findings of this article are relevant from both a For example, closeness may also be defined in terms of
scientific and a managerial point of view. From the academic closeness to the product category. However, this research fo-
perspective, we learn how beliefs and attitudes towards boy- cuses on human-mediated relationships because humans
cotting develop and previous misinterpretations are corrected. were those who suffered from the company’s action in the
From the practitioner standpoint, this study shows how and case analysed in this study. Future research might consider
why consumers differ in their willingness to boycott on the different types of proximity.
basis of contextual variables. This knowledge can enable Following Lazarus’ (1991) appraisal theory, we expect
managers to react to boycott calls more efficiently. that ‘being personally affected’ will increase the likelihood
The remainder of the article is organized as follows. First, of boycott participation. The individual will experience frustra-
we introduce the construct of proximity and develop our tion, which evokes the desire to attack the source of frustration.
hypothesis that the previously known antecedents are mainly This might be done by boycotting the products of the company
rationalizations of the proximity-induced wish to boycott. whose actions caused the frustration (Nerb and Spada, 2001).
Next, we describe the design of the empirical study and report Furthermore, Jones (1991, p. 376) claims that ‘people care
the findings. Finally, the article concludes with a discussion of more about other people who are close to them (socially,
the findings, avenues for further research and managerial culturally, psychologically, or physically) than they do
implications. for people who are distant’. Accordingly, a person feels
the desire to boycott if they are socially or spatially close
to those affected by the company’s actions. This assump-
BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESIS DEVELOPMENT tion is based on the social identity theory of Tajfel and
Turner (1986). Individuals who are close to one another
The construct of proximity form an in-group and support each other if they are in
Jones (1991, p. 376) defines the individual’s proximity to need. Research on pro-social behaviour confirms that help-
moral issues as ‘the feeling of nearness (social, cultural, ing behaviour is more likely if the individual is close to a
psychological, or physical) that the moral agent has for victims person in need (Levine et al., 2005). Closeness might stem

Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Consumer Behav. 12: 214–222 (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/cb
216 S. Hoffmann

from kinship (Cunningham, 1986), friendship (Clark et al., mediator variables that transfer the influence of proximity to
1989), or perceived similarity, such as a common place of boycott participation.
residence (Park and Schaller, 2005; Stürmer et al., 2006).
H1: Beliefs and attitudes towards boycotting mediate the
Taken together, proximity (as a summary construct of be-
influence of proximity on boycott participation.
ing personally, socially, and spatially affected) increases
the desire to boycott. Note that this hypothesis contradicts the (implicit) as-
sumption of previous research, namely, that beliefs and
attitudes are independent from the context. Our approach
Boycott motives as rationalizations is a fundamental reinterpretation of the way the decision
Previous research predominantly identifies beliefs and atti- to boycott evolves. We raise and answer the question of
tudes as influencing factors in boycott participation. This whether beliefs and attitudes are independent influencing
article proposes that these influencing factors are not the factors on the boycott decision, as stated in previous studies
very cause of the boycott decision: in contrast, proximity (indicated by an insignificant correlation with proximity),
determines the desire to boycott. Beliefs and attitudes to- or whether proximity is the crucial driving force that
wards boycotting (which are considered the antecedents induces an adjustment of beliefs and attitudes for the sake
in previous studies) are then adjusted to the desire to join of cognitive consistency (indicated by a significant corre-
the boycott. Thus, the degree of proximity influences the lation with proximity).
intensity with which an individual searches for arguments To test H1 empirically and to demonstrate how our ap-
supporting or detracting from boycott participation. proach extends previous knowledge, we reanalyse the influ-
This rationale is based on cognitive consistency theories, ence of boycott drivers that previous studies have identified.
which assert that consumers wish to balance their beliefs, Based on social cognition theories, researchers propose that
attitudes, feelings, and behaviours (e.g., Meyers-Levy and consumers tend to participate if their moral attitude and their
Tybout, 1989). In particular, cognitive dissonance theory subjective norm support boycotting (Farah and Newman,
(e.g., Festinger, 1957; Harmon-Jones and Harmon-Jones, 2009), if they wish to act morally, and if they are striving
2007) suggests that individuals can reduce dissonance by for self-enhancement (Kozinets and Handelman, 1998; Klein
means of rationalizations. Rationalizations are self-justification et al., 2002, 2004). Additionally, consumers are more likely
processes ‘wherein ego-alien thoughts, behaviour, feelings, to join a boycott if they believe that this action is effective
and motivations are justified or rationally interpreted in an and that their individual participation will contribute to its
ego-syntonic way’ (Markin, 1979, p. 323). The objective of success (Sen et al., 2001; Klein et al., 2002, 2004). Further-
this psychological process is to convince oneself or others that more, previous studies examine reasons why consumers do
one’s behaviour is due to a rational decision-making process, not participate. In this stream of research, scholars build their
which is connected, logical, and continuous (Fay, 1978). Ac- arguments mainly on the theory of collective action, propos-
cordingly, consumers enhance positive arguments that support ing that consumers, despite approving a boycott, try to free
their behaviour and downplay counterarguments that put their ride, rather than withdrawing their own consumption. In partic-
behaviour in question. For example, scholars demonstrate that ular, consumers are less likely to join a boycott if they usually
consumers highlight the positive aspects of the product they buy the products of the company in question (e.g., Klein et al.,
choose (Mazursky et al., 1987). Recently, Eckhardt et al. 2004), if they like these products, and if no adequate substitutes
(2010) demonstrated that consumers who claim that they try are available (Sen et al., 2001).
to avoid unethical offerings apply different rationalizations The present study uses the example of a boycott that a
(economic, institutional dependency, and developmental real- pending factory closure triggered because this type of boy-
ism) to justify why they are not actually consuming ethically. cott is currently of high practical relevance and it has already
Most of the work on rationalizations has been carried out on been examined in empirical studies by Hoffmann and Müller
post-decision rationalizations. Brownstein et al. (2004) have (2009) and Klein et al. (2004). We will re-examine their
demonstrated that individuals also adjust the arguments they main findings to test our hypothesis that the drivers found
consider in the pre-decisional phase. are not independent but are rather rationalizations that are ad-
Transferring the theoretical background and empirical justed to the boycott desire evoked by consumers’ proximity
findings to the boycott decision, we conclude that consumers to the company’s actions. We consider two promoters and
affected by a company’s actions are motivated to find argu- two inhibitors of boycott participation. Klein et al. (2004)
ments that confirm their intention to boycott and to downplay find that (i) the consumer’s striving for self-enhancement
counterarguments. On the other hand, those who have a low and (ii) the perceived efficacy of boycotting (labelled as mak-
degree of proximity may not wish to boycott (i.e., because ing a difference) increase boycott motivation. In addition,
boycotting implies restricting one’s consumption patterns). they demonstrate that (iii) counterarguments (such as the
Thus, these people might stress the counterarguments and wish to free ride) inhibit consumers’ willingness to join a
downplay those of the boycott promoters. Given that proximity boycott. Hoffmann and Müller (2009) show that consumers
is the very cause of boycott motivation, proximity determines who (iv) trust in the management are less likely to boycott.
the intensity with which consumers search for rationalizations, Thus, trust is another inhibitor of the boycott participation
and thus, proximity has an impact on the intensity of the other next to counterarguments. Based on the rationale developed
drivers of the boycott decision. Hence, beliefs and attitudes to- in H1, we suggest a restatement of these antecedents as med-
wards boycotting are dependent on the context. They are iators. A consumer who is close to the company’s actions is

Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Consumer Behav. 12: 214–222 (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/cb
 Are boycott motives rationalizations? 217

motivated to find arguments that confirm his desire to boycott therefore advised the interviewers to gather a set of
the company. Therefore, the greater the level of proximity, the respondents distributed almost equally in terms of age
more intensively the consumer emphasizes that boycotting is a groups and gender each day. They additionally approached
way to enhance one’s self and the more he perceives boycot- passers-by who seemed from their visual appearance to
ting to be an effective way to urge a company to change its belong to different social groups (in terms of education
decisions. By the same token, a high degree of proximity ham- and occupation). Because this is a rather vague approach, we
pers the search for inhibitors. Consumers who are close to the steadily controlled during the sampling process whether the
action in question are less susceptible to counterarguments, sample was equally distributed with regard to these variables.
and they do not trust the management. It should be noted that If necessary, we asked the interviewers to focus on the groups
a consumer’s wish to have supportive arguments for the de- that were underrepresented. Because we did not record the
sired proximity-induced boycott decision is the fundamental exact numbers of pedestrians, we had to estimate response
theoretical explanation of the influence of proximity on the rates. According to the interviewers’ subjective ratings, more
four mediators. There is no specific theoretical explanation of than half of the passers-by who were aware of the planned
the mediation effect for each of the mediator variables sepa- relocation were willing to fill in the questionnaire. In sum,
rately. The four mediators are examples of a larger set of we recruited 544 subjects. The sample size is almost equal
promoting and inhibiting mediators that a consumer might among the four cities. The mean age of the respondents
consider to justify his proximity-induced wish to (or not is 39.5 years (ranging from 16 to 81 years, SD = 15.3).
to) boycott. 53.6 per cent of the respondents are male. The sample consists
of respondents with different levels of education (general-
H1a: Self-enhancement is a mediator of the influence of
education secondary school: 13.0%; secondary modern school:
proximity on boycott participation.
17.6%; grammar school: 28.4%; vocational school: 21.5%;
H1b: Perceived efficacy is a mediator of the influence of higher education: 19.5%) and with different occupations
proximity on boycott participation. (white-collar workers, public servants, and managers: 36.7%;
blue-collar workers: 10.3%; self-employed: 9.3%; apprentices
H1c: “Counterarguments” are mediators of the influence
and students: 19.0%; unemployed: 6.7%; homemaker: 4.2%;
of proximity on boycott participation.
miscellaneous: 13.7%).
H1d: Trust in the management is a mediator of the influ-
ence of proximity on boycott participation. Measures
The measure of boycott participation was adopted from
Klein et al. (2004), who categorized the respondents into
three groups: ‘I am boycotting the products of XY’, ‘I am
DESIGN tempted to boycott, but I don’t know if I will’, and ‘I am
not boycotting the products of XY’. As recommended by
Objective of the investigation Hoffmann and Müller (2009), a fourth category was added
The investigation examines a real consumer boycott in a (‘If many people boycott the products of XY, I will also join
high-wage country. The boycott was triggered by the reloca- the boycott’). To reduce social desirability bias, the four
tion of a factory. A local non-governmental organization questions were posed sequentially. First, respondents were
called the boycott after the management of an appliance man- asked whether they were boycotting and, if negative, then
ufacturer had announced the move of one subsidiary to a whether they would do so if many people joined, and so
low-wage country. Almost 2000 workers expected to lose on: 16.9 per cent of the respondents were participating in
their jobs. the boycott of the target company; 13.2 per cent stated that
they would join if enough others boycotted; 24.3 per cent
Sample of the subjects were tempted; 45.6 per cent had no intention
Data were collected during a period when the media were to boycott.
intensively covering the relocation of the factory. In order In order to express their degree of proximity, respondents
to ensure regional diversity, we gathered data in four cities stated whether they were an employee of the boycotted com-
located in different regions. To rule out confounding pany and thus personally lost their jobs in the course of the
effects, cities of comparable size were chosen. We trained relocation (‘being personally affected’). They further speci-
two interviewers to recruit respondents in each of the city fied whether any of their friends and/or their family lost their
centres. We decided to include only respondents who were jobs (‘being socially affected’). The indicator of ‘being spa-
aware of the fact that the management of the holding com- tially affected’ was derived from the information on whether
pany intended to relocate a factory because problem respondents lived near the city in which the factory was about
awareness is a precondition of the decision to join a boy- to be closed. Note that proximity is specified formatively
cott. Hence, we instructed the interviewers to firstly ask (Jarvis et al., 2003) because it is a summary construct of the
passers-by whether they had already heard about the indicators of being personally, socially, or spatially affected.
planned relocation. If affirmed, they asked whether the re- The measurement of the four mediator variables were
spondent would be willing to answer a short questionnaire taken from previous work. We adopted the scales of striving
(two pages). In order to control for the influence of socio- for self-enhancement (four indicators), perceived efficacy
demographic variables, we applied quota sampling. We (three indicators), and counterarguments (four indicators)

Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Consumer Behav. 12: 214–222 (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/cb
218 S. Hoffmann

from Klein et al. (2004), as well as trust in the management factor (VIF = 1.46) is far below the critical threshold of
(three indicators) from Hoffmann and Müller (2009). We 10 (Hair et al., 2006).
used a seven-point rating scale ranging from ‘strongly We conducted the following ex-post tests to check for
disagree’ to ‘strongly agree’ to measure the indicators of common method variance (e.g., Lindell and Withney, 2001;
the mediator variables. It should be noted that different rating Podsakoff et al., 2003; Malhotra et al., 2006). First, an
scales were used for measuring boycott participation and exploratory factor analysis including all items in the ques-
proximity as an ex-ante means to prevent common method tionnaire revealed many factors explaining 60.6 per cent of
variance (Podsakoff et al., 2003). the variance. Instead, one general factor would explain only
22.6 per cent of the variance. However, due to possible
misinterpretations of this single-factor test, we additionally
Method included an item theoretically uncorrelated with the indicators
We applied the variance-based approach of structural equa- of our constructs but measured with the same scaling format
tion modelling to confirm the proposed model1 because it is (external locus of control: “Whether or not one achieves his
superior to the covariance-based approach when formatively goals depends on the influence of others”). We correlated this
specified constructs are included (e.g., Henseler et al., 2009). item with our indicators as well as with the sum-indices of
We used the software application SmartPLS 2.0 (Ringle et al., our constructs. No significant correlation was found. In sum,
2005). Further, we ran simple and multiple mediations tests these tests indicate that there is no common method bias.
applying an SPSS macro provided by Preacher and Hayes
(2008).
RESULTS
Validity and reliability of measures
To evaluate the operationalizations of the reflectively specified Partial least squares regression analysis confirms the proposed
constructs, we considered indicator reliability (IR), coefficient model.2 According to the determination coefficient, the model
alpha (a), construct reliability (CR), and the average variance explains 52 per cent of the variance of boycott participation,
extracted (AVE). Additionally, we applied Fornell and which indicates a good model fit (Chin, 1998). A blindfolding
Larcker’s (1981) test of discriminant validity by checking whether procedure revealed that the Stone/Geisser criterion is positive
the AVE of each construct exceeded the maximum of squared (Q2 = 0.52), indicating that the predictors have prognostic rele-
correlation with the other constructs (r2max). According to these vance for boycott participation.
criteria, the internal consistency is high and discriminant A bootstrapping procedure estimates the standard errors and
validity is given: striving for self-enhancement (M = 3.09; t-values of the parameters of the measurement and structural
SD = 1.40; IRmin = 0.73; a = 0.80; CR = 0.87; AVE = 0.62; models (with 500 cases and 1000 samples). The analysis con-
r2max = 0.48), perceived efficacy (M = 3.96; SD = 1.52; IRmin = firms all structural paths (Figure 1). It should be noted that
0.77; a = 0.77; CR = 0.86; AVE = 0.68; r2max = 0.48), counter- proximity has a statistically significant and quite strong impact
arguments (M = 4.18; SD = 1.38; IRmin = 0.73; a = 0.75; on all mediator variables (striving for self-enhancement:
CR = 0.84; AVE = 0.57; r2max = 0.27), and trust in the b = 0.56; perceived efficacy: b = 0.45; counterarguments:
management (M = 3.27; SD = 1.40; IRmin = 0.74; a = 0.68; b =
0.47; trust in the management: b =
0.34). Hence, beliefs
CR = 0.82; AVE = 0.61; r2max = 0.21). and attitudes are contingent on contextual variables. This find-
Next, we considered the construct of proximity (M = 0.15; ing is a first indication of the suggested rationalization effect.
SD = 0.31). However, only a few criteria are available for Moreover, the direct effect of proximity on boycott participa-
evaluating formatively specified constructs. SmartPLS analysis tion is relatively weak within the complete model (b = 0.16).
confirms the explanatory power of each indicator of proximity In contrast, the total effect, which describes the sum of the
for the dependent variable ‘boycott participation’. Accordingly, direct and all indirect influences of proximity on boycott partic-
an individual is more likely to participate if he is personally ipation, is markedly stronger (btotal = 0.52). This finding
affected (b = 0.35, p ≤ 0.001), socially affected (b = 0.21, additionally indicates that downstream constructs mediate the
p ≤ 0.001), and spatially affected (b = 0.47, p ≤ 0.001). influence of proximity.
Multicollinearity does not distort the operationalization of We conducted four simple mediation analyses: each in-
the formative construct. The maximum variance inflation cluded one mediator. Baron and Kenny’s (1986) procedure
and the Sobel (1982) test show that each indirect relationship
1
Although the dependent variable ‘boycott participation’ is ordinally scaled,
2
the article applies regression models that require metric scales. This is in line We applied partial least squares (PLS) rather than covariance-based structural
with Klein et al.’s (2004) contribution to the Journal of Marketing and equation modelling (CB-SEM), because the model includes a formatively spec-
Hoffmann and Müller’s (2009) contribution to the Journal of Business ified construct. However, since CB-SEM additionally provides global fit indi-
Research. In order to ensure that the results were not distorted due to the ces, we reran the model with AMOS 19.0. In doing so, we calculated a
measurement scales, we controlled the results by applying ordinal-logistic weighted-single-item-sum index of the formatively specified construct of prox-
regression analysis. This analysis also confirms the findings, and it provides imity using the outer weights from the PLS modelling. CB-SEM confirms
evidence that the scale of boycott participation is quasi-metric because the that the model fit is satisfactory (CFI = 0.93; NFI = 0.91; GFI = 0.93;
thresholds of the intervals are almost equally distributed. The difference RMSEA = 0.07). All structural paths are similar to those found with the
between the threshold ‘non-boycotter/tempted’ and ‘tempted/follower’ is 1.62, PLS model (same sign, maximum difference Δb = 0.06). Their magni-
whereas the threshold ‘tempted/follower’ and ‘social/boycotters’ is 1.37. Thus, tudes tended to be even higher, and thus, the explanation of boycott par-
the participants perceive very similar differences between the categories, and ticipation is even stronger (R2 = 0.56). In sum, CB-SEM provides a check
thus, the application of the analysis based on metric scales is justified. of how robust our model is across different methods.

Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Consumer Behav. 12: 214–222 (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/cb
 Are boycott motives rationalizations? 219
0.31
Striving for
0.56 *** self enhancement 0.22 ***
0.20
0.45 *** Perceived 0.23 ***
efficacy 0.52
0.16 *** Boycott
Proximitiy
participation
-0.47 *** 0.22 -0.21 ***
Counter
arguments
-0.11 ***
-0.34 ***
0.12
Trust in the
management

Notes. Partial Least Squares (PLS). *** p ≤ 0.001. The determination coefficient (R²) is displayed bold.

Figure 1. Structural model.

is statistically significant (Table 1). Because none of the me- participation more than any other driver. Nonetheless, within
diating effects constitutes a full mediation, there is no single the mediation model, the incremental direct impact of proxim-
mediator variable that can separately completely account for ity on boycott participation is rather weak. Thus, proximity
the influence of proximity on boycott participation. Hence, clearly influences boycott participation, predominantly indi-
consumers do not rationalize their boycott decision by using rectly via several mediator variables. In simple terms, a con-
one argument but by using a set of arguments. We will inter- sumer who is affected by a corporate act emphasizes promoters
pret this finding in the Discussion section. In order to describe of boycott participation (here: striving for self-enhancement
the degree of the partial mediation effect, the proportion of and perceived efficacy) and downplays inhibitors (here: coun-
mediation index (POM) was calculated (Iacobucci et al., terarguments and trust in the management). These findings
2007). This index is a continuous indicator of the proportion support our hypotheses. Those consumers who wish to join a
of the variance in boycott participation that the indirect medi- boycott because they are close to the causes of the boycott
ated paths explain. As all mediators are influenced by proxim- search for arguments that support the pro-boycott decision.
ity, their influence on boycott participation might overlap. The arguments on which they base their decision are rationali-
Thus, we ran a multiple mediator analysis on the basis of zations rather than rational considerations. Those who are close
Preacher and Hayes’ (2008) recommendations. This analysis and willing to boycott overemphasize the impact of their own
revealed that the set of mediators explains 68.7 per cent of contribution in order to justify the participation to themselves
the influence of proximity on boycott participation. Although and important others. In a similar vein, they downplay argu-
the absolute POM of each mediator in the multiple mediation ments that put their participation into question.
test is lower when contrasted with the simple mediation analy- Remarkably, each mediator alone accounts only for a
sis, the pattern remains stable. Striving for self-enhancement is small portion of the common variance of proximity and boy-
the most important mediator, followed by perceived efficacy, cott participation, whereas the set of mediators explains a
counterarguments, and trust in the management. very large share. This pattern demonstrates that each media-
tor accounts for a different aspect of the boycott decision.
Most importantly, however, the pattern indicates that there
DISCUSSION is no single valid argument and that consumers are strongly
striving to rationalize their boycott decision. Because proximity
This study provides evidence that boycott participation is the real cause of their boycott decision, none of the mediators
cannot be explained comprehensively without considering has the power to fully justify this decision. We assume that
how close consumers are to the company’s action in question. consumers attempt to compensate for lack of quality by quan-
In terms of the total effects, proximity influences boycott tity. Instead of stressing one strongly convincing argument

Table 1. Analysis of mediating effects from proximity to boycott participation

Simple mediation Multiple mediation

Mediator a b c c0 a*b Z POM b a*b Z POM

Self-enhancement 0.56*** 0.48*** 0.52*** 0.25*** 0.26*** 9.45 51.0 0.22*** 0.12*** 4.69 23.9
Perceived efficacy 0.44*** 0.45*** 0.52*** 0.32*** 0.20*** 8.42 38.5 0.23*** 0.10*** 4.77 19.0
Counterarguments –0.46*** –0.41*** –0.52*** 0.33*** 0.19*** 8.85 36.0 –0.21*** 0.10*** 5.04 18.7
Trust in the management –0.35*** –0.29*** 0.52*** 0.42*** 0.10*** 5.72 19.1 –0.11*** 0.04** 2.92 7.1
Total effect 0.36*** 11.54 68.7

Notes: a: regression of the mediator on proximity in a single linear regression analysis; b: regression of boycott participation on the mediator in a multiple re-
gression analysis; c: regression of boycott participation on proximity in a single linear regression analyses; c0 : regression of boycott participation on proximity in
a multiple regression analysis; a * b: indirect effect; Z: Sobel’s Z-statistic for a * b; POM: proportion of mediation (in %).
**p ≤ 0.01
***p ≤ 0.001.

Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Consumer Behav. 12: 214–222 (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/cb
220 S. Hoffmann

for or against boycotting, they adduce many supportive aspects McCarthy and Zald, 1977). Beneficial boycotts provide fewer
until the number of arguments suggests that they cannot be possibilities to use expressive motives as rationalizations. Fur-
mistaken. This in turn indicates that the role of each media- ther, the level to which consumers use instrumental rationaliza-
tor per se might be somewhat arbitrary. Of course, this is a tions presumably depends on how plausible it seems that the
post-hoc interpretation that needs further elaboration in target company will actually react. For example, instrumental
future studies. arguments are useful rationalizations if they can prevent the
Taken together, the present study extends our knowledge company engaging in an on-going negative action (e.g., reduce
of the drivers of boycott participation by demonstrating that environmental pollution or exploitation of labour). After a spe-
the role they play is different from that suggested by previous cific incident that has caused a scandal, however, changes in
studies. Although our study gives additional support that striv- the company’s action are too late (e.g., if there has already been
ing for self-enhancement, perceived efficacy, counterarguments, environmental pollution due to damage to an oil platform).
and trust are relevant antecedents of boycott participation, it Then, instrumental arguments are less convincing. Still, in
contradicts the conventional assumption that they are some of these cases, consumers who have a high level of prox-
exogenous drivers. In contrast, this study provides empirical imity and need to rationalize their boycott participation might
evidence that these factors are adjusted to the desire to (or use prospective instrumental arguments: although they are
not to) boycott evoked by proximity. Hence, these factors aware that the boycott cannot change the action criticized, they
are, at least partly, rationalizations. As expected, this study boycott to avoid similar actions by the same company or other
confirms that analysing only the influence of beliefs and atti- companies in the future. Moreover, we expect that consumers
tudes on boycott participation provides an incomplete picture will use instrumental arguments (in terms of boycott inefficacy)
of the boycott decision process. To draw valid conclusions, if they have to rationalize why they do not participate. We call
scholars must take into account the relationship between the for further research to test these assumptions.
respondents and the target company’s actions that stimulate This study used an overall formative index that integrates
the boycott call. different types of proximity. In this way, we could test our
underlying assumptions that proximity defines the level of
boycott participation and that other promoters and inhibitors
LIMITATIONS AND FURTHER RESEARCH are, at least partly, rationalizations. Further studies could
build on these findings and develop a more detailed view
This article claims that proximity is indispensable in under- of the effects of proximity. The mediation model could apply
standing consumer boycott participation. To test this one type of proximity (e.g., ‘being socially affected’) as a
hypothesis, we used the example of how consumers react predictor while the data are split in relation to another type
to a multinational company’s announcement to relocate a of proximity (e.g., ‘being spatially affected’). In this way,
plant from a high-wage country to a low-wage country. researchers could test interactions between different types
Further research should examine the external validity of of proximity and their influence on the way rationalizations
the findings by analysing various types of boycott: direct are used.
or indirect, expressive or instrumental, politically, economi- Due to its cross-sectional design, the present study does not
cally, or religiously motivated boycotts (e.g. Friedman, yield conclusions on the long-term behaviour of participants.
1999; Sen et al., 2001). Presumably, the suggested basic Although Chavis and Leslie (2009) provide some evidence
structure of the model is stable: proximity triggers the wish of the boycott life cycle on the basis of micro-sales scanner
to boycott, which calls for pre-decisional rationalizations. data, the literature still lacks insights into individual motives
However, the nature of the arguments taken as rationaliza- of boycott persistency. Further research should entail panel
tions depends on the characteristics of the incidents that studies to analyse under which circumstances consumers join
cause the boycott. In some cases, expressive rationalizations a boycott only briefly in order to vent their frustration. Scholars
(such as the striving for self-enhancement) are more need to investigate the causes that make boycotting a long-
relevant. In other cases, instrumental rationalizations (e.g., lasting phenomenon, which is a precondition for influencing
perceived boycott efficacy) are more important. We propose the target’s behaviour. Presumably, persistence also depends
that the degree to which boycotters use expressive rationaliza- on consumers’ proximity. The longer a boycott lasts, the more
tions depends on the moral character of the boycott. In partic- only those who are close to the negative impacts of the com-
ular, those boycotts that Friedman (1999) called conscientious pany’s actions continue to boycott, whereas others who are
provide the opportunity to use expressive motives. In conscien- more distant are not willing to bear the burden of self-imposed
tious boycotts, participation is not egoistically motivated. constrained consumption patterns.
Boycotters do not personally benefit if the action succeeds,
whereas there are benefits for other people (e.g., campaigns
in favour of fair-trade suppliers), for the society or the human IMPLICATIONS
race (e.g., boycotts for environmental protection), or for any
other group (e.g., animal protection; Braunsberger and Since boycotts are an action in which many players are in-
Buckler, 2011). By contrast, boycotts are called beneficial if volved (political activists, consumers, society, the media),
boycotters take advantage of a boycott’s success (e.g., eco- managers should respect the concerns of the various stake-
nomic boycotts that force the target company to lower the holders. Not every corporate decision, however, can satisfy
prices of food products the boycotters usually consume; the needs of all stakeholders. Even if the relocation of a plant,

Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Consumer Behav. 12: 214–222 (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/cb
 Are boycott motives rationalizations? 221

for instance, is indispensable in maintaining international Farah MF, Newman AJ. 2009. Exploring consumer boycott Intelli-
competitiveness, those who are individually close will regard gence using a socio-cognitive approach. Journal of Business
Research 63(4): 347–355.
the relocation as socially irresponsible. Thus, negative reac- Fay B. 1978. Practical reasoning, rationality and the explanation
tions from some stakeholders cannot always be prevented. of intentional action. Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior
Above and beyond general implications, such as gaining trust 8(1): 77–101.
and improving corporate social responsibility, the present find- Festinger L. 1957. A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford Uni-
ings yield some specific advice on how companies should react versity Press: Stanford.
Fornell C, Larcker DF. 1981. Evaluating structural equation models
to boycott calls. Most importantly, our model indicates that with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of
before and during corporate crises, marketers should try to Marketing Research 18(1): 39–50.
ensure that only few consumers perceive themselves as close Foxall GR. 2002. Marketing’s attitude problem – and how to solve
to the critical action. For example, when relocating a plant, it. Journal of Customer Behaviour 1(1): 19–48.
marketers and PR managers should demonstrate that the partic- Foxall GR. Yani-de-Soriano MM. 2005. Situational influences on
consumers’ attitudes and behaviors. Journal of Business
ular characteristics of affected individuals differ from the situ- Research 58(4): 518–525.
ation of most other people in order to reduce the feeling of Friedman M. 1999. Consumer Boycotts: Effecting Change Through
being socially and spatially affected. In the case of pending fac- the Marketplace and the Media. Taylor & Frances: Routledge.
tory relocation, the company could stress the specific character- Hair JF, Jr, Black WC, Babin BJ, Anderson RE, Tatham RL. 2006.
istics of the plant to be closed (branch, products, qualifications Multivariate Data Analysis (6th edn). Pearson: New Jersey.
Harmon-Jones E. Harmon-Jones C. 2007. Cognitive dissonance
of the employees, marketing strategies, channels, etc.) and the theory after 50 years of development. Social Psychology 38(1):
unique reasons for closing it. Increasing the awareness of 7–16.
differences between the individual and those affected reduces Henseler J, Ringle CM, Sinkovics RR. 2009. The use of partial least
the perceived level of proximity and thus the likelihood of squares path modeling in international marketing. In New Chal-
participation in a boycott. lenges to International Marketing. Advances in International
Marketing, Vol. 20, Sinkovics RR, Ghauri PN (eds.). Emerald:
Bingley; 277–319.
Hoffmann S, Müller S. 2009. Consumer boycotts due to factory
BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES relocation. Journal of Business Research 62(2): 239–247.
Iacobucci D, Saldanha N, Deng X. 2007. A meditation on
Dr. Stefan Hoffmann is professor for marketing at the Christian- mediation: Evidence that structural equations models perform
Albrechts-University of Kiel, Germany. He received a Diploma in better than regressions. Journal of Consumer Psychology 17(2):
Psychology at the University of Mannheim and a PhD and a 139–153.
second PhD (habilitation) in Business Administration at the Technical James VK. 2009. A socio-cultural approach to exploring consumer
University of Dresden. His research interests are transformative con- boycott intelligence: A commentary essay. Journal of Business
sumption behaviour, cross-cultural marketing and advertising efficacy. Research 63(4): 363–365.
Jarvis CB, MacKenzie SB, Podsakoff PM. 2003. A critical review
of construct indicators and measurement model misspecification
REFERENCES in marketing and consumer research. Journal of Consumer
Research 30(2): 199–218.
John A, Klein JG. 2003. The boycott puzzle: Consumer motivations
Baron RM, Kenny DA. 1986. The moderator-mediator variable for purchase sacrifice. Management Science 49(9): 1196–1209.
distinction in social psychology research: Conceptual, strategic, Jones TM. 1991. Ethical decision-making by individuals in organi-
and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social zations: An issue-contingent model. Academy of Management
Psychology 51(6): 1173–1182. Review 16(2): 366–395.
Braunsberger K, Buckler B. 2011. What motivates consumers to Klein JG, Smith NC, John A. 2002. Exploring the motivation for
participate in boycotts: Lessons from the ongoing Canadian participation in a consumer boycott. In Advances in Consumer
seafood boycott. Journal of Business Research 64: 96–102. Research, Vol. 29, Broniarczyk S, Nakamoto K (eds.). Associa-
Brownstein AL, Read SJ, Simon D. 2004. Bias at the racetrack: tion for Consumer Research: Provo, UT; 363–369.
Effects of individual expertise and task importance on predecision Klein JG, Smith NC, John A. 2004. Why we boycott: Consumer
reevaluation of alternatives. Personality and Social Psychology motivations for boycott participation. Journal of Marketing
Bulletin 30(7): 891–904. 68(3): 92–109.
Chavis L, Leslie P. 2009. Consumer boycotts: The impact of the Kozinets RV, Handelman J. 1998. Ensouling consumption: A
Iraq war on French wine sales in the U.S. Quantitative Marketing netnographic exploration of the meaning of boycotting
and Economics 7(1): 37–67. behavior. In Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 25, Alba J,
Chin WW. 1998. The partial least squares approach to structural Hutchinson W (eds). Association for Consumer Research: Provo,
equation modeling. In Modern Methods for Business Research, UT; 475–480.
Marcoulides GA (ed.). Erlbaum: Mahwah; 295–336. Lazarus RS. 1991. Emotion and Adaptation. Oxford University
Clark MS, Mills JR, Corcoran DM. 1989. Corcoran keeping track of Press: New York.
needs and inputs of friends and strangers. Personality and Social Levine M, Prosser A, Evans D, Reicher S. 2005. Identity and emergency
Psychology Bulletin 15(4): 533–542. intervention: How social group membership and inclusiveness of
Cunningham MR. 1986. Levites and brother’s keepers: Sociobio- group boundaries shapes helping behavior. Personality and Social
logical perspective on prosocial behavior. Humboldt Journal of Psychology Bulletin 31(4): 443–453.
Social Relations 13: 35–67. Lindell MK, Withney D. 2001. Accounting for common method
Davidson, III WN, Worrell DL, El-Jelly A. 1995. Influencing man- variance in cross-sectional research designs. Journal of Applied
agers to change unpopular corporate behavior through boycotts Psychology 86(1): 114–121.
and divestitures. Business & Society 34(2): 171–196. Malhotra NK, Kim SS, Patil A. 2006. Common method vari-
Eckhardt GM, Belk R, Devinney T. 2010. Why don’t consumers ance in IS research: A comparison of alternative approaches
consume ethically? Journal of Consumer Behaviour 9(6): and a reanalysis of past research. Marketing Science 52(12):
426–436. 1865–1883.

Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Consumer Behav. 12: 214–222 (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/cb
222 S. Hoffmann

Markin RJ. 1979. The role of rationalization in consumer decision multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods 40(3):
processes: A revisionist approach to consumer behavior. Journal 879–891.
of the Academy of Marketing Science 7(4): 316–334. Pruitt SW, Friedman M. 1986. Determining the effectiveness of
Mazursky D, LaBarbera P, Aiello A. 1987. When consumers switch consumer boycotts: A stock price analysis of their impact on
brands. Psychology and Marketing 4(1): 17–30. corporate targets. Journal of Consumer Policy 9(4): 375–387.
McCarthy, JD, Zald, MN. 1977. Resource mobilization and Ringle CM, Wende S, Will A. 2005. SmartPLS 2.0 (beta). University
social movements: A partial theory. The American Journal of of Hamburg: Hamburg.
Sociology 82: 1212–1241. Sen S, Gurhan-Canli Z, Morwitz V. 2001. Withholding consump-
Meyers-Levy J, Tybout A. 1989. Schema congruity as a basis tion: A social dilemma perspective on consumer boycotts.
for product evaluation. Journal of Consumer Research 16(2): Journal of Consumer Research 28(3): 399–417.
39–54. Shaw D, Newholm T, Dickinson R. 2006. Consumption as voting:
Neilson LA. 2010. Boycott or buycott? Understanding political con- An exploration of consumer empowerment. European Journal
sumerism. Journal of Consumer Behaviour 9(3): 214–227. of Marketing 41(9/10): 999–1015.
Nerb J, Spada H. 2001. Evaluation of environmental problems: A Sobel ME. (1982). Asymptotic intervals for indirect effects in struc-
coherence model of cognition and emotion. Cognition & tural equations models. In Sociological Methodology, Leinhart S
Emotion 15(4): 521–551. (ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 290–312.
Park JH, Schaller M. 2005. Does attitude similarity serve as a heuristic Stürmer S, Snyder M, Kropp A, Siem B. 2006. Empathy-motivated
cue for kinship? Evidence of an implicit cognitive association. helping: The moderating role of group membership. Personality
Evolution and Human Behavior 26(2): 158–170. and Social Psychology Bulletin 32(7): 943–956.
Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Lee J-Y, Podsakoff NP. 2003. Tajfel H, Turner JC. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup
Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review behaviour. In Psychology of Intergroup Behaviour, Worchel S,
of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Austin WG (eds). Nelson-Hall: Chicago; 7–24.
Psychology 88(5): 879–903. Yuksel U, Mryteza V. (2009). An evaluation of strategic
Preacher KJ, Hayes AF. 2008. Asymptotic and resampling responses to consumer boycotts. Journal of Business Research
strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in 62(2): 248–259.

Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Consumer Behav. 12: 214–222 (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/cb