Resumo:
OBJETIVO – O objetivo desta pesquisa é examinar a influência do mindset na reação dos consumidores a um evento negativo envolvendo uma marca corporativa. METODOLOGIA – Realizamos dois estudos, um qualitativo e um quantitativo. No primeiro, mostrou-se aos participantes uma foto do incidente com uma legenda e realizaram-se entrevistas pessoais com os consumidores da categoria envolvida no evento, ou seja, pimentas verdes. No segundo, mostrou-se aos participantes a mesma imagem do primeiro estudo e eles responderam a uma série de questionários que avaliam o mindset, a confiança da marca e a intenção de compra. RESULTADOS – O primeiro estudo mostrou a presença de um tema envolvendo estabilidade x maleabilidade das marcas, usado para explicar a decisão de confiar na marca ou comprá-la novamente ou não. O segundo estudo mostrou uma relação positiva entre um mindset de crescimento e confiança da marca. Da mesma forma, a confiança da marca foi relacionada positivamente à intenção de compra. O modelo de classe latente mostrou que as duas classes com níveis mais altos de mindset de crescimento tinham maior probabilidade de confiar na marca e comprá-la após o evento negativo. CONTRIBUIÇÕES – Até onde sabemos, apenas uma pesquisa examinou o papel do mindset na reação dos consumidores após um incidente negativo envolvendo uma marca corporativa. Assim, esta pesquisa tentou responder a um pedido recente de vários estudiosos do comportamento do consumidor para mais pesquisas sobre mindset.
Citação ABNT:
PUENTE-DÍAZ, R.; CAVAZOS-ARROYO, J. Que Nojo! Devo Confiar em Você? O Papel do Mindset na Confiança da Marca Após um Incidente Negativo. Revista Brasileira de Gestão de Negócios, v. 21, n. 2, p. 254-273, 2019.
Referências:
Aaker, D. A. (1991). Managing brand equity: Capitalizing on the value of a brand name. New York, NY: The Free Press.
Aaker, J. L.; Fournier, S.; Brasel, S. A. (2004). When good brands do bad. Journal of Consumer research, 31(1), 1-16.
Alvarez, C.; Fournier, S. (2016). Consumers’ relationships with brands. Current Opinion in Psychology, 10, 129-135.
Asparouhov, T.; Muthén, B. (2014). Auxiliary variables in mixture modeling: 3-step approaches using Mplus. Webnote 15, pp. 1-51. https://www.statmodel.com/download/webnotes/webnote15.pdf
Bergman, L. R.; Andersson, H. (2010). The person and the variable in developmental psychology. Journal of Psychology, n. 218, p. 155-165.
Braun, V.; Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology, 3(2), 77-101.
Brexendorf, T. O.; Keller, K. L. (2017). Leveraging the corporate brand: The importance of corporate brand innovativeness and brand architecture. European Journal of Marketing, 51(9/10), 1530-1551.
Brown, T. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Calvo Porral, C.; Levy-Mangin, J. P. (2016). Food private label brands: the role of consumer trust on loyalty and purchase intention. British Food Journal, 118(3), 679-696.
Chaudhuri, A.; Holbrook, M. B. (2001). The chain of effects from brand trust and brand affect to brand performance: the role of brand loyalty. Journal of marketing, 65(2), 81-93.
Cleeren, K.; Dekimpe, M. G.; van Heerde, H. J. Marketing research on product-harm crises: a review, managerial implications, and an agenda for future research. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 45 (5), 593-615. doi.org/10.1007/s1174
Dawar, N.; Pillutla, M. M. (2000). Impact of product-harm crises on brand equity: The moderating role of consumer expectations. Journal of marketing research, 37(2), 215-226.
De Jonge, J.; Van Trijp, H.; Renes, R. J.; Frewer, L. J. (2010). Consumer confidence in the safety of food and newspaper coverage of food safety issues: A longitudinal perspective. Risk analysis, 30(1), 125-142.
Doney, P. M.; Cannon, J. P. (1997). An examination of the nature of trust in buyer-seller relationships. Journal of Marketing, 61, 35-51.
Dweck, C. S. (2000). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development. New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Dweck, C. S. (2008). Can personality be changed?The role of beliefs in personality and change. Current directions in psychological science, 17(6), 391-394.
Han, S. H.; Nguyen, B.; Lee, T. J. (2015). Consumer-based chain restaurant brand equity, brand reputation, and brand trust. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 50, 84-93.
Johnson, R. B.; Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational researcher, 33(7), 14-26.
Karwowski, M. (2014). Creative mindsets: Measurement, correlates, consequences. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity and the Arts, 8(1), 62-70.
Lassoued, R.; Hobbs, J. E. (2015). Consumer confidence in credence attributes: The role of brand trust. Food Policy, 52, 99-107.
Levy, S. R.; Stroessner, S. J.; Dweck, C. S. (1998). Stereotype formation and endorsement: The role of implicit theories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(6), 1421-1436
Masyn, K. (2013). Latent class analysis and finite mixture modeling. In L.D. Little. (Ed.) The Oxford handbook of quantitative methods in psychology. p. 551-611. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Morgan, R. M.; Hunt, S. D. (1994). The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing. The journal of marketing, 58, 20-38.
Murphy, M. C.; Dweck, C. S. (2010). A culture of genius: How an organization’s lay theory shapes people’s cognition, affect, and behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(3), 283-296.
Murphy, M. C.; Dweck, C. S. (2016). Mindsets shape consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 26(1), 127-136.
Neel, R.; Lassetter, B. (2015). Growing fixed with age: Lay theories of malleability are target-age specific. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41 (11), 1505-1522. doi.org/10.1177/0146167215600529
Onwuegbuzie, A. J.; Teddlie, C. (2003). A framework for analyzing data in mixed methods research. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.). Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research. pp. 351-383. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Plaks, J. E. (2017). Implicit theories: Assumptions that shape social and moral cognition. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 56, 259-310.
Puzakova, M.; Kwak, H.; Rocereto, J. F. (2013). When humanizing brands goes wrong: The detrimental effect of brand anthropomorphization amid product wrongdoings. Journal of Marketing, 77 (3), 81-100. doi.org/10.1509/jm.11.0510
Schumann, K.; Zaki, J.; Dweck, C. (2014). Addressing empathy deficit: Beliefs about the malleability of empathy predict effortful responses when empathy is challenging. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107(3), 474-493.
Tullett, A.; Plaks, J. E. (2016). Testing the link between empathy and lay theories of happiness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 42(11), 1505-1521.
Tybout, A. M.; Calkins, T. (2005). (Eds.). Kellogg on branding. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
West, S. G.; Taylor, A. B.; Wu, W. (2012). Model fit and model selection in structural equation modeling. In R.H. Hoyle. (Ed.). Handbook of structural equation modeling. p. 209-231. New York, NY.: Guilford Press.
Wheeler, S. C.; Omair, A. (2016). Potential growth areas for implicit theories research. Journal of consumer psychology, 26(1), 137-141.
Xie, Y.; Batra, R.; Peng, S. (2015). An extended model of preference formation between global and local brands: The roles of identity expressiveness, trust, and affect. Journal of International Marketing, 23(1), 50-71.
Yannopoulou, N.; Koronis, E.; Elliott, R. (2011). Media amplification of a brand crisis and its affect on brand trust. Journal of Marketing Management, 27(5-6), 530-546.
Yin, C. Y.; Yu, H. Y.; Poon, P. (2016). Consumers’ attributions and brand evaluations in product‐harm crises: The role of implicit theories of personality. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 15(1), 87-95.
Yorkston, E. A.; Nunes, J. C.; Matta, S. (2010). The malleable brand: The role of implicit theories in evaluating brand extensions. Journal of Marketing, 74(1), 80-93.
