Influence of consumer ethical beliefs on customer attitude and

purchase intention during product-harm crisis

DISSERTATION REPORT

Submitted to
RAJAGIRI BUSINESS SCHOOL

In partial fulfilment of the requirements for the award of

POST GRADUATE DIPLOMA IN MANAGEMENT
(2014-2016)

By

MANU MOHAN
P14134

RAJAGIRI BUSINESS SCHOOL

RAJAGIRI VALLEY
KAKKANAD, KOCHI
682039

1
 DECLARATION

I hereby declare that the Dissertation work entitled “Influence of consumer ethical beliefs on
customer attitude and purchase intention during product-harm crisis” submitted to Rajagiri
Business School as a part of the PGDM curriculum, is a record of an original work done by me
under the guidance of Prof Harish B, Rajagiri Business School. The results embodied in this
project are true to the best of my knowledge.

Place: Kochi MANU MOHAN

Date:

2
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The report will be incomplete without giving my sincere gratitude to each person who has helped me
in the completion of this research. First of all I would like to thank God Almighty for showering all his
blessings upon me. I would like to thank my faculty guide, Prof Harish B., for all his encouragement
and support for the fulfillment of this report. Last but not the least, I am thankful to my parents and
friends for helping me complete my study successfully.

MANU MOHAN

3
 ABSTRACT

The aim of this study is to understand the relationship between consumer’s ethical beliefs,
attribution of blame, anger, customer attitude and purchase intention during product harm
crisis. Since, product harm crisis affect the customers of the particular firm, it is necessary to
understand the change in behaviour, attitude and the stance of the customers towards such a
crisis situation.

The data to be collected for this study is a combination of both primary sources consisting of
questionnaire which was filled by the respondents; secondary sources consisting of the
theoretical background from various related articles and books to build upon this study. The
study is confined to the users of Nestle Maggi users in Kochi who are aware of the recent
Maggi product harm crisis. Sampling size of the study is 220.

The result of the study shows that there is a significant relationship between the factors ethical
beliefs and anger, attribution of blame and anger, anger and purchase intention; and also
between customer attitude and purchase intention. However, all the other relations remain
insignificant. The main limitation of the study is that, there are other factors which influence
the customer’s attitude and purchase intention during a product harm crisis apart from the
variables considered in the following study.

4
 Table of contents

Chapter 1: Introduction………………………………………………………………………1
1.1 Relevance………………………………………………………………………...3
1.2 Background………………………………………………………………………3
1.3 Statement of Problem…………………………………………………………….3
1.4 Research Objectives……………………………………………………………...3
1.5 Research Questions………………………………………………………………4
Chapter 2: Literature Review………………………………………………………………...5
2.1 Theory……………………………………………………………………………7
2.2 Research Model…………………………………………………………….……10
2.3 Hypotheses…………………………………………………………………..…...11
Chapter 3: Research Methodology……………………………………………………….…..12
3.1 Title of study……………………………………………………………….…….13
3.2 Research Design…………………………………………………………….……13
3.3 Scope of the study…………………………………………………….………….13
3.4 Sampling Design…………………………………………………………………13
3.5 Variables of the study and their measurement…………………………………...13
3.6 Reliability………………………………………………………………………...16
Chapter 4: Presentation and Analysis of Data………………………………………………..17
4.1 Sample Profiling………………………………………………………………….18
4.2 Descriptive Statistics…………………………………………………………..…19
4.3 Results……………………………………………………………………………20
Chapter 5: Discussion and Conclusion………………………………………………………36
5.1 Findings of the study……………………………………………………………..37
5.2 Limitations and Future research………………………………………………….44
5.3 Conclusion………………………………………………………………………..45
5.4 Managerial Implication…………………………………………………………..46
5.5 Suggestion and Recommendations……………………………………………….47
BIBLIOGRAPHY……………………………………………………………………………48
APPENDIX…………………………………………………………………………………..50

5
 List of Tables

Table 1: Reliability coefficients………………………………………………………………16

Table 2: Age wise sample profiling…………………………………………………………..18

Table 3: Gender wise sample profiling……………………………………………………….18

Table 4: Descriptive Statistics………………………………………………………………..19

Table 5. Path coefficients……………………………………………………………….….…20

Table 6. P values………………………………………………………………………….…..21

Table 7. Model fit indices……………………………………………………………….……21

Table 8: Path coefficient for ethical beliefs and attribution of blame……………….……….22

Table 9: P values for ethical beliefs and attribution of blame………………………..………22

Table 10: Path coefficient for attribution of blame and anger…………………….….………23

Table 11: P values for attribution of blame and anger………………………………..………23

Table 12: Path coefficient for ethical beliefs and anger………………………………………24

Table 13: P values for ethical beliefs and anger………………………………………………24

Table 14: Path coefficient for anger and purchase intention…………………………………25

Table 15: P values for anger and purchase intention…………………………………………25

Table 16: Path coefficient for attribtuion of blame and purchase intention…………………..26

Table 17: P values for attribtuion of blame and purchase intention………………………….26

Table 18: Path coefficient for attribution of blame and customer attitude…………………….27

Table 19: P values for attribution of blame and customer attitude…………………………...27

Table 20: Path coefficient for anger and customer attitude…………………………………..28

Table 21: P values for anger and customer attitude………………………………………..…28

Table 22: Path coefficient for customer attitude and purchase intention…………………..…29

Table 23: P values for customer attitude and purchase intention…………………………….29

Table 24: Path coefficient for relationship between ethical beliefs and customer attitude in the
presence of attribution of blame………………………………………………………………30

6
Table 25: P values for relationship between ethical beliefs and customer attitude in the presence
of attribution of blame………………………………………………………………………...30

Table 26: Path coefficient for relationship between ethical beliefs and purchase intention in the
presence of attribution of blame………………………………………………………..……..31

Table 27: P values for relationship between ethical beliefs and purchase intention in the
presence of attribution of blame……………………………………………………….……..32

Table 28: Path coefficient for relationship between ethical beliefs and customer attitude in the
presence of anger……………………………………………………………………………..33

Table 29: P values for relationship between ethical beliefs and customer attitude in the presence
of anger…………………………………………………………………………………..…...33

Table 30: Path coefficient for relationship between ethical beliefs and purchase intention in the
presence of anger……………………………………………………………………………..34

Table 31: P values for relationship between ethical beliefs and purchase intention in the
presence of anger……………………………………………………………………………..34

Table 32: Hypothesis Supported (Yes/No)…………………………………………………...38

Table 33. Path coefficients and P values for the reworked model…………………………...41
Table 34: Model fit for the reworked model……………………………………………….…42

7
 List of Figures
Figure 1. Research Model…………………………………………………………………….10

Figure 2. Structural Model Path Analysis…………………………………………………….20

Figure 3. Direct relationship between ethical beliefs and attribution of blame………………22

Figure 4. Direct relationship between attribution of blame and anger………………………..23

Figure 5. Direct relationship between ethical beliefs and anger……………………………...24
Figure 6. Direct relationship between anger and purchase intention………………………….25
Figure 7. Direct relationship between attribtuion of blame and purchase intention…………..26
Figure 8. Direct relationhsip between attribution of blame and customer attitude……………27
Figure 9. Direct relationship between anger and customer attitude…………………………..28

Figure 10. Direct relationship between customer attitude and purchase intention……………29

Figure 11. Relationship between ethical beliefs and customer attitude in the presence of
attribution of blame…………………………………………………………………………...30

Figure 12. Relationship between ethical beliefs and purchase intention in the presence of
attribution of blame…………………………………………………………………………...31

Figure 13. Relationship between ethical beliefs and customer attitude in the presence of
anger………………………………………………………………………………………….32

Figure 14. Relationship between ethical beliefs and purchase intention in the presence of
anger………………………………………………………………………………………….34

Figure 15. Reworked Model………………………………………………………………….41

8
 CHAPTER 1:

INTRODUCTION

9
Nestle Maggi is one of the biggest names in the Food processing industry. However, Nestle
Maggi had been in the midst of controversy over the usage of high levels of monosodium
glutamate, as well as up to 17 times the permissible limit of lead. Following this incident, the
company’s noodle brand “Nestle Maggi” have been undergoing a product harm crisis
throughout the nation. During a product harm crisis, companies usually run awareness
campaigns, circulate and promote social media activities and also create new advertisements
that entirely focus on ensuring and informing their customers that their products are harmless
and it had always remained that way in the past too. For instance, when Cadbury’s flagship
product “Diary Milk” was found to have worms in it, they recovered from that controversy by
airing new advertisements using one of the most prominent and influential celebrity such as
the Amitabh Bachchan so that the company were able to regain the trust and goodwill that was
lost as a result of the product harm. So, as a matter of fact, when there is a product harm crisis,
several factors play an important role in the customer’s willingness or unwillingness to be a
part of the product in the future. The factors that we have considered in studying the impact of
product harm crisis on the customers are consumer’s ethical beliefs, attribution of blame, anger,
customer attitude and purchase intention. The following study is conducted to analyse the
influence of the ethical belief on the consumer’s attitude and purchase intention in the product
harm crisis of Nestle Maggi in Kochi area. The study consisted of measuring the independent
variable such as ethical beliefs, mediating variables such as attribution of blame/responsibility
and anger and finally the dependent variables such as customer attitude and purchase intention.
For this, a questionnaire consisting of standardised questions were provided to the respondents
and were asked to fill in their choices. Once, the data collection was completed, the initial
analysis which included the testing of reliability was done using SPSS 21 (Statistical
Programme for Social Science). After it was done, then the data analysis was done using
WarpPLS 3.0 to check the relationship between the independent variable ‘ethical belief’ and
dependent variables ‘customer attitude’ and purchase intention and also the role of mediating
variables such as ‘attribution of blame/ responsibility’ and ‘anger’ that is included in the study.
The main limitation of the study is that, there are other factors such as fear, sadness, disgust or
surprise, all of which are considered as feelings that may or may not influence the customer
attitude and purchase intention during a product harm crisis apart from the variables considered
in the following study.

10
1.1 Relevance

The research will help us in understanding the reaction of general public towards Nestle Maggi,
which is undergoing product harm crises. The role of ethical beliefs on the customer attitude
and purchase intention in the product harm crisis of Nestle Maggi on the current customers as
well as the potential customers can also be evaluated. Finally, the research will help us in
understanding the consumer behaviour of products that are in the midst of controversies.

1.2 Background
Nestle Maggi had been in the midst of controversy over the usage of high levels of monosodium
glutamate, as well as up to 17 times the permissible limit of lead. Following this incident, the
company’s noodle brand “Nestle Maggi” have been undergoing a product harm crisis
throughout the nation. The following study is conducted to analyse the influence of the ethical
belief on the consumer’s attitude and purchase intention in the product harm crisis of Nestle
Maggi in Kochi area.

1.3 Statement of Problem

Nestle Maggi had been in the midst of controversy over the usage of high levels of monosodium
glutamate, as well as up to 17 times the permissible limit of lead. This have led to the product-
harm crisis of Nestle Maggi all over India. This study aims to evaluate the consumer reaction
to the product-harm crisis of Nestle Maggi in Kochi by examining the interdependencies that
exist among their ethical beliefs as consumers, their attributions of blame(responsibility), their
feelings of anger, their attitude and finally their purchase intentions towards the product

1.4 Research Objectives

The objectives of the research are as follows:

To identify the response of consumers having different ethical beliefs on their attitude and their
purchase intention during product harm crisis.

To study the influence of attribution of blame and anger on consumer attitude and purchase
intention in the crisis.

To analyse the statistical relationship between ethical beliefs, attribution of blame, anger,
customer attitude and purchase intention in the product-harm crisis of Nestle Maggi in Kochi.

11
1.5 Research Questions

To what extend does the ethical beliefs of consumers in Kochi have an influence on the various
human emotions during the product harm crisis?

How has the attitude and purchase intention of consumers towards Nestle Maggi, being
affected during the product harm crisis?

12
 CHAPTER 2:

LITERATURE REVIEW

13
The study adapts the model of Attribution-Affect-Action. The research model is shown below.
Weiner (1986) suggests that when a company has led to the formation of a negative incident
as a result of a controllable cause, then people evaluate the company and its products based on
their personal ethical beliefs. So basically, after the event of such a negative event or crisis, the
people tend to attribute blame ie they put the blame on the company and its leadership (Janoff-
Bulman, 2004). Research done by Shaver (1996) proves that consumers judges an action as
dangerous according to their moral beliefs and based on these beliefs, they assign the
responsibility on these companies. The apprasisal theory by (Scherer, 1999) suggests that the
beliefs held by people determines the emotions that are elicited (Frijda et al.,2000). When
people attribute blame, they also experience intense anger. Accodring to Charland and Zachar
(2008), anger is considered as a important emotional outcome especially during a product harm
crisis.

Various literatures suggest the role of customer attitude during a product harm crisis. Studies
by Smith et al. (1999) highlight that food safety issues play a critical role in food consumption,
as food safety is highly correlated with positive consumer attitudes (Rozin et al.,1999). Folkes
et al., 1987; Jorgensen, 1994), Frijda et al. (2000) suggest that whenever there is a product harm
crisis, people will assign the responsibility of the crisis to the company ie they assign the blame
on the company. In addition, the people will also experience intense anger thereby affecting
the intentions to purchase the product in the future.
The study has integrated various model constructs from attribution, affect and consumer’s
theories of ethics so that the reactions of consumers to a product-harm crisis have been
investigated with utmost accuracy.
Furthermore, studies have also tried to explain the factors that affect the consumer’s
behavioural intentions toward the company’s other products (Siomkos and Kurzbard,1994;
Siomkos, 1999) during a product harm crisis. It was found that the amount of a risk associated
with the product recall or product harm crisis is small when (i) the company has a high
reputation; (ii) the external effects by the media and various regulatory bodies are positive to
the company’s reaction and response during the crisis and (iii) the company responds to the
crisis by a controlled/volutary product recall or by being socially accountable and indicating
concern for the welfare of their customers.

14
2.1 Theory

Consumers who are tolerant of unethical situations will set certain standards for the company
as they believe that such companies will repeatedly engage in unprofessional and unethical
conduct. Such consumers will not show any affinity towards the company and by the same
token will not make any negative statements against the company. Consumers who are tolerant
of unethical activiries expect organizations to disobey – thus, they will not ascribe high levels
of blame when a product-harm crisis hits. The more they blame the companies for their
unethical misconduct; thus the more likely they are to punish them (Al-Khatib et al., 1997).

As a result, the first research hypothesis could be expressed as follows:

H1: There is a positive link between consumers’ intolerance of ethically questionable practices
and attribution of responsibility/blame.

When an action is perceived by an individual as non-accidental, then his reaction to the event
is negative and the degree of blame increases (Bies and Tripp, 1996). After a negative and
catastrophic event that results in the harm of a third party, individuals experience intense anger
(Vidmar, 2000). When there is high level of blame, people generally will tend to create a
negative word of mouth against the company. This could potentially tarnish the With respect
to product harm crisis, the goodwill of the company, threre by resulting in the loss of customer
trust to a very large extent. higher the consumers ascribe blame on the company, the more the
anger experienced by the consumers.

As a result, the second research hypothesis could be expressed as follows:

H2: The attribution of responsibility and blame positively affect consumers’ feelings of anger
during product-harm crises.

Consumers who seem tolerant of low levels of consumer ethical beliefs have themselves set
very poor standards for the company, as they expect that businesses will involve in
inappropriate actions. When a product crisis hits, the negative performance of the company
matches the low standard that was applied by consumers based on their tolerance of unethical
consumer practices, and a neutral feeling is produced (Cadotte et al., 1987); thus low levels of
anger. On the other hand people who are intolerent of unethical behaviour face a situation such
as a product harm crisis, they will definitely experience intense anger towards the company.

As a result, the third research hypothesis could be expressed as follows:

15
H3: High levels of consumer ethical beliefs (intolerance of questionable consumers’ practices)
have a positive impact on consumers’ degree of anger during product harm crises.

With respect to product harm crisis circumstances, besides anger that has a direct effect on
purchase intentions, attributions of responsibility (blame) also leads to the decreases in
consumers purchase intentions (Folkes et al., 1987; Jorgensen, 1994). When a person having
high ethical beliefs is facing a product harm crisis, the person will ascribe the blame on the
company. As a result the person will have negative judgements towards the company and
hence, will have very less or no intention to purchase the company’s products or services in
the future. Blame mediates the relationship between ethical beliefs and purchase intentions.
Therefore, both anger and attribution of blame (responsibility) negatively affect the purchase
intention.

As a result, two research hypotheses could be developed as follows:

H4: Anger is negatively connected to purchase intentions during product-harm crises.

H5: The attribution of responsibility is negatively connected to purchase intentions during

product-harm crises.

Attribution includes assigning a reason to an incident and then drawing implications about
causal things (Puccinelli et al., 2009). The attribution of causes to actions impacts attitudes and,
according to Coombs (2007), influences behaviour that will be positive if an entity is supposed
not to be accountable for the harmful occasion, and vice versa. The attribution that occurs is
important given that perceptions of who is to blame for a crisis are known to exert powerful
influences on attitudes (Grunwald and Hempelmann, 2010); and a sector’s image will suffer if
the sector is deemed responsible for a crisis (Payne,2006;Hatzakis,2009). Therefore, we form
the hypothesis as follows:

H6: The attribution of blame/responsibility is negatively connected to customer attitude during

product-harm crises.

Anger compels people both to create bad stereotypes of whoever is causing their anger and to
process information through a stereotyped lens (Bodenhausen et al., 1994; De Cremer and Van
Hiel, 2010). The higher the anger, the more negative a person’s judgement (Bower, 1991).
Basically people who get angry as a result of a situation such as product harm crisis will
definitely have a negative mentality towards the company or organization. Such customers will
spread negative word of mouth about the company to their friends, colleagues and would even
take the ultimate step of addressing the product harm crisis issue in various social media sites,

16
which could multiply the effect of product harm crisis on the company. As a company could
lose its exisiting as well as potential customers if the issues of product harm crisis are not taken
care of properly. Therefore, an individual who suffered as a result of the crisis will be more
angry than people who were not personally affected, and hence will hold more negative
attitudes (cf. Bodenhausen et al., 1994).

As a result we can for the hypotheses as follows:

H7: Anger is negatively connected to customer attitude during product-harm crises.

When a product harm crisis occurs, people will generally have a tendancy to avoid using those
products anymore. This is primarly because of the fact that people will develop a negative
attitude towards the product. As a result they will not have any intention to purchase the product
anymore. During a product-harm crisis, consumers often obtain undesirable info about the
product and the business. As a result, after a crisis consumer attitudes will change negatively
(Siomkos and Kurzbard, 1994). Inorder for the business to be able to bring the customers back
to buying its products, instant activities are essential. Intrinsic factors, external factors and
consumer attitudes toward the product are factors affecting consumer's purchase intention
(Jaafar et al., 2012).

As a result, we form the hypotheses as follows:

H8: The customer attitude is positively connected to purchase intention during product harm
crisis.

17
 2.2 Research Model

Attribution of blame
(responsibility)
Customer Attitude
H1
H6

H2
Ethical Beliefs

H7 H5 H8

H3
H4

Anger Purchase Intention

Figure 1. Research Model

In the above proposed research model, ethical beliefs is the independent variable, attribution
of blame and anger are the mediating variables and the variables customer attitude and purchase
intention are the dependent variables. This research model modifies the original research model
by adopting the variable customer attitude. The research model is based on the product harm
crisis involving Nestle Maggi and we are trying to understand the impact of ethical beliefs of
consumers on their attitude and their purchase intention during a product harm crisis. In this
study, we test the direct influence of ethical beliefs on customer attitude and the purchase
intention and also the indirect effect of ethical beliefs, ie in the presence of the mediator
variables “attribution of blame” and “anger”, on customer attitude and purchase intention.

During a product harm crisis, consumers who are having high ethical beliefs are highly
intolerant of unethical events. As a matter of fact, they tend to put the blame on the company.
When the consumers realise that the crisis was formed as a result of a non-accidental activity,
the degree of blame increases. People will also experience high levels of anger when they see
that others are also harmed by the company’s actions. So when degree of blame increases,
people will also experience intense anger. Now, when a company is under product harm crisis,
some customers will have a perception that the company is used to doing such practices and

18
thus will not feel any intense anger towards the company. On the other hand, people generally
will have negative attitude toward the company. Likewise their intention to purchase the
product in the future also decreases. Based on our investigations, we can establish the research
hypotheses as follows:

2.3 Hypotheses

H1: There is a positive link between consumers’ intolerance of ethically questionable practices
and attribution of responsibility/blame.

H2: The attribution of responsibility and blame positively affect consumers’ feelings of anger
during product-harm crises.

H3: High levels of consumer ethical beliefs (intolerance of questionable consumers’ practices)
have a positive impact on consumers’ degree of anger during product harm crises.
H4 Anger is negatively connected to purchase intentions during product-harm crises.
H5: The attribution of responsibility is negatively connected to purchase intentions during
product-harm crises.
H6: The attribution of blame/responsibility is negatively connected to customer attitude during
product-harm crises.
H7: Anger is negatively connected to customer attitude during product-harm crises.
H8: The customer attitude is positively connected to purchase intention during product-harm
crisis.

19
 CHAPTER 3:

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

20
3.1 Title of Study
Influence of consumer ethical beliefs on customer attitude and purchase intention during
product-harm crisis

3.2 Research Design

The type of research adopted is Descriptive Research.

3.3 Scope of the study

The scope of the study is limited to the city of Kochi. Questionnaires will be provided to people
who are both users and are aware of Nestle maggi and the product harm crisis surrounding the
brand.

3.4 Sampling Design

Sampling method: Convenience sampling

Sampling population: The population for the research are people, aged 18 and above, who
either reside or are present in Kochi. The respondents selected are users of Nestle Maggi and
are aware of the recent Nestle Maggi product harm crisis.

Sampling size: 220 respondents

Sampling unit: Individual respondents who have used Maggi before and have the intention to
purchase in the future.

3.5 Variables of the study and their measurement

Ethical beliefs
Theoretical definition:-
Ethical beliefs are those beliefs that you accept to be are ethically right. Regardless of what the
circumstances are, you tend to act as indicated by your ethical beliefs that you clutch in your
lives.
(Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics_of_belief)

Operational definition
Ethical beliefs are seen as imperative inclinations in the moral judgment process. They are seen
as the courses in which an individual has a tendency to act in the assessment of willful activity
by others people or gathering of people. A shopper having low ethical beliefs will have low
desires from a gathering or association since they trust that the last will participate in shameful

21
deceptive practices for their advantages. (Source: Aikaterini Vassilikopoulou,Kalliopi
Chatzipanagiotou,George Siomkos and Amalia TRiantafillidou (2011).” The role of consumer
ethical beliefs in product-harm crises”. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, J. Consumer Behav.
10: 279–289.)

Attribution of blame
Theoretical definition:
Attribution of blame results when individuals reprimand others for an action which has
prompted a terrible occasion. Crediting blame to others improperly is an endeavour at
abstaining from being pointed the finger at oneself.
(Source: Molnos, A. (1998): A psychotherapist's harvest,
http://www.trialsynergy.com/index.cfm/feature/28_18/attributing-blame----the-psychology-
of-blame-and-its-use-in-trial-strategy.cfm)

Operational definition:-
At the point when a non-unplanned activity prompts a negative occasion, then it results in
attribution of blame. Individuals put fault on the premise of the purposefulness of the individual
or gathering that delivered an activity which brought about a negative occasion. (Source:
Aikaterini Vassilikopoulou,Kalliopi Chatzipanagiotou,George Siomkos and Amalia
TRiantafillidou (2011).” The role of consumer ethical beliefs in product-harm crises”. Journal
of Consumer Behaviour, J. Consumer Behav. 10: 279–289.)

Anger
Theoretical definition:-
Anger is a bona fide vivacious reaction. It is a standard feeling that fuses a solid uncomfortable
and energetic reaction to an apparent prompting. (Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anger)

Operational definition:-
When an event leads to harmful experiences for an individual or a group of individuals, people
will experience high intense anger. A company under crisis is one which is responsible for a
negative event. Such companies will experience intense anger from its customers.
(Source: Aikaterini Vassilikopoulou,Kalliopi Chatzipanagiotou,George Siomkos and Amalia
TRiantafillidou (2011).” The role of consumer ethical beliefs in product-harm crises”. Journal
of Consumer Behaviour, J. Consumer Behav. 10: 279–289.)

22
Customer Attitude
Theoretical definition:-
Consumer attitudes are evaluative statements or judgments concerning objects, people, or
events. They are a blend of a consumer’s cognitive( belief) segment, affective (emotional or
feeling) segment and behavioural segment. In short, attitude consists of thoughts or beliefs,
feelings, and behaviors or intentions towards a particular product or service.
(Source: Robbins and Judge Organizational Behavior, 14th edition)

Operational defintion:-
Consumer attitude deals with the consumer’s beliefs, thoughts and perception of a particular
product. Consumers attitude towards a particular product or service will vary with levels of
involvement he or she has, ie if the consumers has a motivation, arousal or interest towards a
particular product or service , then they engage in repeat purchases of the same.
(Source: Robert D. Evans, Jr (2015).”Consumer, Investor, and Combined Reactions Following
Product-Harm Crises”. Journal of Management Research, ISSN 1941-899X, Vol. 7, No. 5.

Purchase Intention
Theoretical definition:-
Purchase intention of a customer is the customer’s plan and desire to purchase a particular
product(good) or service in the future.
(Source:http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/purchase-intention.html)

Operational definition:-
Purchase intention of a person towards a company undergoing product harm crisis are driven
by strong ethical beliefs of the person. The relationship between ethical beliefs of the person
and his or her purchase intention can be explained through the mediation of both Attribution
of blame and Anger.
(Source: Aikaterini Vassilikopoulou,Kalliopi Chatzipanagiotou,George Siomkos and Amalia
TRiantafillidou (2011).” The role of consumer ethical beliefs in product-harm crises”. Journal
of Consumer Behaviour, J. Consumer Behav. 10: 279–289.)

23
3.6 Reliability

Table 1. Reliablity coefficients

The reliability of the scales was obtained from the WarpPLS analysis. It gave a value of 0.863
for ethical beliefs, .825 for attribution of blame, .864 for anger, .872 for customer attitude, and
.827 for purchase intention . The reliability coefficient is a measure of the internal consistency
of the data which recommends a value greater than 0.7. Now, all the variables used in our study
are reliable since they all have a reliability of above 0.7.

24
 CHAPTER 4:

PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA

25
4.1 Sample Profiling
Survey was done on 220 respondents using questionnaires that consisted of standardised
questiones. The demographic variables considered for this study includes the Gender and Age
group. From the statistics performed the following results were obtained.

Demographics of the Respondent

Variable Category Frequency %

age

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative

Percent

18-25 83 37.7 37.7 37.7

26-35 76 34.5 34.5 72.3

Valid 36-45 45 20.5 20.5 92.7

46 and above 16 7.3 7.3 100.0

Total 220 100.0 100.0

Table 2. Age wise sample profiling

gender

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

male 115 52.3 52.3 52.3

Valid female 105 47.7 47.7 100.0

Total 220 100.0 100.0

Table 3. Gender wise sample profiling

The analysis was done using SPSS software (IBM Statistics.21) a descriptive statistics tool.
From the analysis of demographic variable we could infer that the majority of the respondents
were between the age group of 18-25 which accounted for 37.7% of the total sample size, age
group of 26-35 accounted for 34.5% of the total sample size, age group of 36-45 accounted for
20.5% of the total sample size and the remaining 7.3% belongs to the age group of 46 and
above. The respondents consisted of 115 males and 105 females.

26
4.2 Descriptive Statistics

Descriptive Statistics

N Mean

ETHICAL BELIEFS 220 3.4242

ATTRIBUTION OF BLAME 220 2.8119
ANGER 220 2.8898
CUSTOMER ATTITUDE 220 2.7644
PURCHASE INTENTION 220 2.9742
Valid N (listwise) 220

Table 4. Descriptive Statistics

All the variables are measured on a five point scale. For Ethical Beliefs, the value 1 refers to
highly ethical and value 5 refers to highly unethical. Since the mean value is 3.42, we can
conclude that the respondents generally have an above neutral response which indicate that it
lies between neutral and highly unethical. For the variable customer attitude, the mean value is
2.76. For the variables Attribution of blame, Anger and Purchase intention, the value 1 refers
to Agree and the value 5 refers to Disagree. The mean values for Attribution of blame, Anger
and Purchase intention are 2.81, 2.88 and 2.97. Therefore we can conclude that the respondents
generally have a below neutral response which indicate that it lies between neutral and Agree.

27
4.3 Results
Structural Model Path Analysis

Figure 2. Structural Model Path Analysis

Table 5. Path coefficients

28
 Table 6. P values

This study focuses on the relationship between a consumer’s ethical beliefs and their attitude
and purchase intention during a product harm crisis. As show in the figure for the proposed
model following path coefficient and significance value were obtained. From the results of the
above model we could infer that the R square is .08 for the dependent variable customer attitude
which means that the 8% of the dependent variable purchase intention can be explained using
the independent variable or the predictors. Also the R square is 0.30 for the dependent variable
Purchase intention which means 30% of the dependent variable purchase intention can be
explained using the independent variable or the predictors.

Model Fit

Table 7. Model fit indices

Now, APC and ARS are significant and AVIF is less than 5. As a result, it indicates that it is a
good model fit measurement.

29
 Direct relationships

Relationship between ethical beliefs and attribution of blame

Figure 3. Direct relationship between ethical beliefs and attribution of blame

Table 8: Path coefficient for ethical beliefs and attribution of blame

Table 9: P values for ethical beliefs and attribution of blame

The R squared value obtained is 0.07 which means that only 7% of the variation in the variable
Attribution of blame (attrblam) in the sample can be explained by the independent variable
Ethical beliefs(ethbel).

The regression coefficient is positive but the significance value is 0.080 which is not less than
0.05.

Thus we arrive at the conclusion that there is no significant relationship between the variables
ethical beliefs and attribution of blame.

30
 Relationship between attribution of blame and anger

Figure 4. Direct relationship between attribution of blame and anger

Table 10: Path coefficient for attribution of blame and anger

Table 11: P values for attribution of blame and anger

The R squared value obtained is 0.12 which means that only 12% of the variation in the variable
Anger (anger) in the sample can be explained by the variable Attribution of blame(attrblam).

The regression coefficient is positive and the significance value less than 0.01.

Thus we arrive at the conclusion that there is a positive significant relationship between the
variables attribution of blame and anger.

31
 Relationship between ethical beliefs and anger

Figure 5. Direct relationship between ethical beliefs and anger

Table 12: Path coefficient for ethical beliefs and anger

Table 13: P values for ethical beliefs and anger

The R squared value obtained is 0.08 which means that only 8% of the variation in the variable
Anger (anger) in the sample can be explained by the independent variable Ethical beliefs
(ethbel)

The regression coefficient is positive and the significance value is less than 0.01.

Thus we arrive at the conclusion that there is a positive significant relationship between the
variables ethical beliefs and anger.

32
 Relationship between anger and purchase intention

Figure 6. Direct relationship between anger and purchase intention

Table 14: Path coefficient for anger and purchase intention

Table 15: P values for anger and purchase intention

The R squared value obtained is 0.06 which means that only 6% of the variation in the variable
Purchase intention (purchint) in the sample can be explained by the variable Anger (anger).

The regression coefficient is negative and the significance value is less than 0.01.

Thus we arrive at the conclusion that there is a negative significant relationship between the
variables anger and purchase intention.

33
 Relationship between attribution of blame and purchase intention

Figure 7. Direct relationship between attribtuion of blame and purchase intention

Table 16: Path coefficient for attribtuion of blame and purchase intention

Table 17: P values for attribtuion of blame and purchase intention

The R squared value obtained is 0.04 which means that only 1% of the variation in the variable
Purchase intention (purchint) in the sample can be explained by the variable Attribution of
blame(attrblam)

The regression coefficient is negative but the significance value is less than 0.01.

Thus we arrive at the conclusion that there is significant negative relationship between the
variables attribution of blame and purchase intention.

34
 Relationship between attribution of blame and customer attitude

Figure 8. Direct relationhsip between attribution of blame and customer attitude

Table 18: Path coefficient for attribution of blame and customer attitude

Table 19: P values for attribution of blame and customer attitude

The R squared value obtained is 0.03 which means that only 3% of the variation in the variable
Customer attitude (custatt) in the sample can be explained by the variable Attribution of
blame(attrblam).

The regression coefficient is negative but the significance value is 0.071 which is not less than
0.05.

Thus we arrive at the conclusion that there is no significant negative relationship between the
variables attribution of blame and customer attitude.

35
 Relationship between anger and customer attitude

Figure 9. Direct relationship between anger and customer attitude

Table 20: Path coefficient for anger and customer attitude

Table 21: P values for anger and customer attitude

The R squared value obtained is 0.01 which means that only 1% of the variation in the variable
Customer attitude (custatt) in the sample can be explained by the variable Anger (anger).

The regression coefficient is positive and the significance value is 0.262 which is not less than
0.05.

Thus we arrive at the conclusion that there is no negative significant relationship between the
variables anger and customer attitude.

36
 Relationship between customer attitude and purchase intention

Figure 10. Direct relationship between customer attitude and purchase intention

Table 22: Path coefficient for customer attitude and purchase intention

Table 23: P values for customer attitude and purchase intention

The R squared value obtained is 0.22 which means that only 22% of the variation in the variable
Purchase intention (purchint) in the sample can be explained by the variable Customer attitude
(custatt).

The regression coefficient is positive and the significance value is less than 0.01.

Thus we arrive at the conclusion that there is a positive significant relationship between the
variables customer attitude and purchase intention.

37
 Indirect relationships

a. Relationship between ethical beliefs and customer attitude in the presence of the
mediating variable attribution of blame

Figure 11. Relationship between ethical beliefs and customer attitude in the presence of
attribution of blame

Table 24: Path coefficient for relationship between ethical beliefs and customer attitude in the
presence of attribution of blame

Table 25: P values for relationship between ethical beliefs and customer attitude in the
presence of attribution of blame

38
When we examine the indirect relationship between the variables ethical beliefs and customer
attitude, we could observe that there exist an insignificant path (p=0.08) in the relation between
ethical beliefs and attribution of blame and also an insignificant path (p=0.07) between
attribution of blame and customer attitude which eliminates the scope of mediation of
attribution of blame for the relation between ethical beliefs and customer attitude.

b. Relationship between ethical beliefs and purchase intention in the presence of the
mediating variable attribution of blame

Figure 12. Relationship between ethical beliefs and purchase intention in the presence of
attribution of blame

Table 26: Path coefficient for relationship between ethical beliefs and purchase intention in
the presence of attribution of blame

39
 Table 27: P values for relationship between ethical beliefs and purchase intention in the
presence of attribution of blame

When we examine the indirect relationship between the independent variable ethical beliefs
and the dependent variable purchase intention we could observe that there exist an insignificant
path (p=0.08) in the relation between ethical beliefs and attribution of blame which eliminates
the scope of mediation of attribution of blame for the relation between ethical beliefs and
purchase intention.

c. Relationship ethical beliefs and customer attitude in the presence of the mediating
variable anger

Figure 13. Relationship between ethical beliefs and customer attitude in the presence
of anger

40
Table 28: Path coefficient for relationship between ethical beliefs and customer attitude in the
presence of anger

Table 29: P values for relationship between ethical beliefs and customer attitude in the
presence of anger

When we examine the indirect relationship between the independent variable ethical beliefs
and the dependent variable customer attitude we could observe that there exist an insignificant
path (p=0.26) in the relation between anger and customer attitude which eliminates the scope
of mediation of anger for the relation between ethical beliefs and customer attitude.

41
d. Relationship ethical beliefs and purchase intention in the presence of the mediating
variable anger

Figure 14. Relationship between ethical beliefs and purchase intention in the presence of
anger

Table 30: Path coefficient for relationship between ethical beliefs and purchase intention in
the presence of anger

Table 31: P values for relationship between ethical beliefs and purchase intention in the
presence of anger

42
When we examine the indirect relationship between the independent variable ethical beliefs
and the dependent variable purchase intention we could observe that there exist significant path
(p<0.01) in the relation between ethical beliefs and anger and another significant path (p<0.01)
between anger and purchase intention which supports the scope of mediation of anger for the
relation between ethical beliefs and purchase intention.

43
 CHAPTER 5:
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

44
5.1 Findings of the study

Significant relationships

 There is a significant positive relationship between attribution of responsibility/blame and

anger (p<0.01).So we can accept the hypothesis H2.
 There is a significant positive relationship between ethical beliefs and anger
(p=0.02<0.05).So we can accept the hypothesis H3.
 There is a negative significant relationship between anger and purchase intention (p<.01).
So, we can accept the hypothesis H4.
 There is a significant positive relationship between customer attitude and purchase
intention (p<0.01). So we accept the hypothesis H8.

Mediation effect/ Indirect effect

 Since H3 and H4 are accepted, we can say that there is a significant relationship between
ethical beliefs and purchase intention in the presence of the mediating variable anger.
Thus we can conclude that a mediation effect exists in this case.

Insignificant relationships
 There is no significant relationship between ethical beliefs and attribution of
blame/responsibility (p=0.08>0.05). Therefore we reject H1.
 There is no significant relationship between attribution of responsibility/blame and
purchase intention (p=0.17>0.05). Therefore we reject H5.
 There is no significant relationship between attribution of responsibility/blame and
customer attitude (p not less than 0.05). Therefore we reject H6.
 There is no significant relationship between anger and customer attitude (p=0.28>0.05).
Therefore we reject H7.

Implications

 Findings suggest that here exists a positive significant relationship between ethical beliefs
and anger. Also, there is a negative significant relationship between anger and purchase
intention. Therefore we can say that there is a significant relationship between ethical
beliefs and purchase intention in the presence of the mediating variable anger. This
indicated that whenever a product harm crisis occur, people who are intolerant of unethical

45
 practices will experience intense anger and as a result will have less intentions to purchase
the product in the future.
 Likewise, people who are tolerant of unethical practices will set very low standards for the
company. So, even though a product harm crisis occur, people will think that the company
and its products are used to doing such unethical practices and therefore will show low
levels of anger towards the company.
 However, we can see that when people start to ascribe blame on a company in the midst of
a crisis, people will also experience intense levels of anger towards the company.
 Finally, product harm crisis can also lead to negative mind sets among the customers. As a
result they will have negative attitude towards the company which also affects their
intention to purchase the product in the future.
SUPPORTED
HYPOTHESIS (YES/NO)
H1: There is a positive link between consumers’ intolerance of NO
ethically questionable practices and attribution of
responsibility/blame.
H2: The attribution of responsibility and blame positively affect YES
consumers’ feelings of anger during product-harm crises.
H3: High levels of consumer ethical beliefs (intolerance of YES
questionable consumers’ practices) have a positive impact on
consumers’ degree of anger during product harm crises.
H4 Anger is negatively connected to purchase intentions during YES
product-harm crises.
H5: The attribution of responsibility is negatively connected to NO
purchase intentions during product-harm crises.
H6: The attribution of blame/responsibility is negatively connected NO
to customer attitude during product-harm crises.
H7: Anger is negatively connected to customer attitude during NO
product-harm crises.
H8: The customer attitude is positively connected to purchase YES
intention during product-harm crisis.
Table 32: Hypothesis Supported (Yes/No)

46
Findings from direct and indirect relationships between the variables

Direct relationships
 There is a significant positive relationship between attribution of blame and anger.
 There is a significant positive relationship between ethical beliefs and anger.
 Again there is a significant negative relationship between attribution of blame and purchase
intention.
 Also, we can see that there exists a positive significant relationship between customer
attitude and purchase intention
 All other relations are insignificant.

Indirect relationships

 From the data analysis, we see that there is a positive significant relationship between
ethical beliefs and anger (p=0.02<0.05) and a negative significant relationship between
anger and purchase intention (p<0.01). Therefore it is clear that in the presence of a
mediator variable such as anger, there is a significant relationship between ethical beliefs
and purchase intention.
 However, there is no relationship between ethical beliefs and customer attitude in the
presence of the mediating variables anger or attribution of blame and also between ethical
beliefs and customer attitude in the presence of mediating variable attribution of blame.

The reasons for insignificant relationships could be any of the following reasons:

 Low sample size.

High sample size would give accurate results for the study. Representing a population
with a very small sample size would mostly produce inaccurate results.

 The responses were biased.

Nestle Maggi is a product that have been in the market for too long. The product as
such have created an emotional bond with its customers. As a result, eventhough the
customers think that Maggi was responsible for the product harm crisis, they will still
show support for the product irrespective of the unfortunate incidents. Thus, it could
highly affect the outcomes of the study.

47
 The respondents were not able to understand some of the questions in the
questionnaire.
The respondents could have found some of the questions very confusing. They might
not have interpreted some of the questions in the right way. Another possibility is that
they might have assumed a single meaning for some of the questions.

 Change in perception.
The perception of people in Kochi about product harm crisis might be different from
the place in which the original study was done.

 Omission of other basic human emotions

Incorporating other emotions, such as fear, sadness, disgust or surprise, all of which are
categorised as basic emotions, might bring better results in future research regarding
product harm crisis.

48
 Reworked Model

Figure 15. Reworked Model

Table 33. Path coefficients and P values for the reworked model

49
 Model fit

Table 34. Model fit for the reworked model

APC and ARS are both significant and AVIF is less than 5. Therefore it is a good model fit.

Based on the previous findings, the model has been reworked using only the paths that are
significant.

Findings:
 There is a significant positive relationship between ethical beliefs and anger
(p=0.02<0.05). R square value obtained is 0.15 which means that only 15% of the
variation in the variable Anger (anger) in the sample can be explained by the variable
ethical beliefs (ethbel).
 There is a significant positive relationship between attribution of blame and anger
(p<0.01). R square value is 0.15 which means that only 15% of the variation in the
variable Anger (anger) in the sample can be explained by the variable attribution of blame
(attrblam).
 There is a significant negative relationship between anger and purchase intention
(p<0.01). R square value is 0.27 which means that only 27% of the variation in the
variable purchase intention (purchint) in the sample can be explained by the variable
anger (anger).
 There is a significant positive relationship between customer attitude (custatt) and
purchase intention (p<0.01). R square value is 0.27 which means that only 27% of the
variation in the variable purchase intention (purchint) in the sample can be explained by
the variable customer attitude (custatt).

50
 Implications from reworked model
 In the reworked model, we could observe that there exists a positive significant relationship
between ethical beliefs and anger. Also, there is a negative significant relationship between
anger and purchase intention. Therefore we can say that there is a significant relationship
between ethical beliefs and purchase intention in the presence of the mediating variable
anger. This indicated that whenever a product harm crisis occur, people who are intolerant
of unethical practices will experience intense anger and as a result will have less intentions
to purchase the product in the future.
 The variable attribution of blame has a positive significant relationship with anger which
means that in a product harm crisis situation, people who are intolerant of unethical
practices could ascribe blame on the company which also leads to high levels of anger
among the customers. However, the new model indicates that attribution of blame has no
significance in causing variations in the customer attitude and purchase intention of the
customers.
 Findings also suggest that there exist no relationship between ethical beliefs and customer
attitude and also between ethical beliefs and purchase intention in the presence of the
mediating variable attribution of blame. Therefore, attribution of blame has no relevance
in the new model.
 The other variable that causes significant variation in purchase intention is customer
attitude. So, we can conclude that under any circumstances, the attitude of the people would
significantly influence their intention to purchase. Thus people having different attitude
will have different buying behaviour.

51
5.2 Limitations and Future Research

• The scope of the research is limited to the city of Kochi. People from other regions may

have different perception about the issue.

• Future studies could also investigate more emotions, such as fear, sadness, disgust or

surprise, all of which are categorised as basic emotions.

Future studies could also investigate more emotions, such as fear, sadness, disgust or surprise,
all of which are categorised as basic emotions. Moreover, other important variables could be
added in the investigated model, such as consumer’s loyalty, consumer’s involvement,
company’s perceived reputation, company’s response, etc.

Since attributing blame was not directly connected to purchase intentions in this study, it could
presumably generate negative WOM. Thus, future research could measure the impact of
attributing blame and anger on negative WOM during corporate crises and how ethical beliefs
influence these constructs.

Finally, it would be interesting to conduct a longitudinal study in order to investigate the effect
of time on anger and blame.

52
5.3 Conclusion

A product harm crisis affects the entire company or organizations, its products and services. It
results in high financial losses, affects the goodwill of the company. If a company that is in the
midst of such a crisis fails to properly address or respond to the crisis, then the company will
have to face a lot of criticism from the public and the media which eventually acts as a threat
for the survival of the company. Based on our findings from the study conducted in relation to
the Nestle Maggi product harm crisis, we can infer that organisations should treat the crisis as
an ethical issue and should respect the ethical beliefs of consumers in order to manage the crisis
without failure. The study have also shown that during a product harm crisis, consumers who
have high ethical beliefs are more likely to experience intense anger towards the company.
During a crisis, we can also see that people who put the blame on the company will also
experience intense anger on the company. Also we can see that people who experience intense
anger will have low levels of intention to purchase the company’s product in the future.
Therefore we can say that anger mediates between ethical beliefs and purchase intentions
during a crisis event. In short there is a significant relationship between ethical beliefs of people
and purchase intention in the presence of the mediating variable anger. So, we can conclude
that people having high ethical beliefs will experience high level of anger and therefore will
have low level of intention to purchase the product in the future. In addition, our findings also
say that during a product harm crisis, there is a positive significant relationship between
customer attitude and purchase intention. This means that when a product harm crisis occur,
people who are intolerant of highly unethical practices could also portray negative attitude
towards the company which eventually would lead to the decrease in intention to purchase.

53
5.4 Managerial Implication

Organisations could manage product harm crisis situations to avoid negative consequences.
Consumer decisions often include adjustments when deciding to purchase a product from a
company involved in a crisis. The purpose of this study was to investigate the factors that
influence the consumer’s attitude and their intention to purchase product, in this case Nestle
Maggi, after the product-harm crisis. Consumers tend to forget the consequences as time
progress. This is a relief for companies who believe that crisis outcomes are lasting and non-
reversible. However, companies should try to quicken their retrieval periods. The struggle
required in building a good and socially responsible image is essential for the companies. Then
again, companies should prepare themselves weak sales and market shares for a brief period
after the crisis.

When a crisis that involve great damages are more likely to occur, companies should practice
social responsibility. As a result, future consumer purchases are less likely to be negatively
affected by the crisis. Companies should also pay attention to media and the press. Dealing
with the media and the press is important as the negative effects of a crisis may be reduced by
the press. During a crisis, company spokespersons deliver statements and provide answers to
various queries regarding the crisis. A responsible spokesperson should be adequately trained
and prepared to cope any situation as the spokesperson should convince the media, press and
the public that the company had no role in the product harm crisis.

A product harm crises can result in declining sales or market share. Therefore companies
should be well-prepared to resist with crises. Companies need to ensure that they have a backup
plan that can be used after the crisis. For example. A lot of companies have used well known
celebrities to regain the brand image and trust of their customers after a crisis. Based on the
results of the current research, the managers should focus on making precise suggestions across
the different levels of crisis.

54
5.5 Suggestions and Recommendations
 Nestle Maggi must be able to regain prominence in the food industry once again by
bringing more transparent leadership.

 The customers are highly affected by the product harm crisis and are angry about the
situation, which has resulted in the declining purchase intention of the product.
As a result, the leadership at Nestle Maggi must reposition their brand as a safe brand by
creating new advertisements which feature a prominent Indian celebrity so as to regain
the lost trust of the customers. This will help the company regain the old as well as new
customers.

 The leadership at Nestle must address the questions put forward by its customers, media
etc in a more serious manner. They should be able to provide reasonable answers to their
questions with the aid of facts and figures rather than providing informal responses to
their customers.

 The Nestle leadership must be very careful so as to avoid further controversy regarding
any of its products, as if such a situation arises, people have the tendency to blame the
Nestle leadership which could result in further financial losses for the company.

55
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

 Aikaterini Vassilikopoulou, Kalliopi Chatzipanagiotou, George Siomkos and Amalia

Triantafillidou (2011).” The role of consumer ethical beliefs in product-harm crises”.
Journal of Consumer Behaviour, J. Consumer Behav. 10: 279–289.

 Aikaterini Vassilikopoulou, George Siomkos, Kalliopi Chatzipanagiotou, Angelos

Pantouvakis (2008). “Product-harm crisis management: Time heals all wounds?”,
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 16 (2009) 174–180 Journal of Retailing and
Consumer Services 16 (2009) 174–180.

 Celso Augusto de Matos, Carlos Alberto Vargas Rossi(2006),”Consumer reaction to

product recalls: factors influencing product judgements and behavioural intentions”.
International Journal of Consumer studies,31,109-116.

 Folkes VS (1984). “Consumer reactions to product failure: an attributional

Approach”. Journal of Consumer Research 10: 398–409.

 Hojatollah Vahdati, Najmedin Mousavi, Zohre Mokhtari Tajik (2015). “The study of
consumer perception on corporate social responsibility towards consumers attitude and
purchase behaviour”. Asian Economic and Financial Review, 2015, 5(5):831-845.

 Ingram RS, Skinner SJ, Taylor NA.( 2005). “Consumers’ evaluation of unethical marketing
behaviors: the role of customer commitment”.Journal of Business Ethics 62: 237–252.

 Jorgensen BK. (1996) “Components of consumer reaction to company- related mishaps: a

structural equation model approach.”Advances in Consumer Research 23: 346–351.

 Nancy Spears,Surendra N. Singh.“Measuring Attitude toward the brand and purchase

intention”.Journal of Current issues and Research in Advertising,Vol 26,No 2,53-66.

56
 Robert D. Evans, Jr (2015).”Consumer, Investor, and Combined Reactions following
Product-Harm Crises”.Journal of Management Research ISSN 1941-899X, 2015, Vol. 7,
No. 5.

 Roger Bennett Rita Kottasz, (2012),"Public attitudes towards the UK banking industry
following the global financial crisis", International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 30
Iss 2 pp. 128 – 147.

 Siti Nurafifah Jaafar, Pan EinLalp.” Consumers’ Perceptions, Attitudes and Purchase
Intention towards Private Label Food Products in Malaysia”. Asian Journal of Business
and Management Sciences, Vol. 2 No. 8, 73-90.

57
 APPENDIX
Questionnaire
Hello. I am Manu Mohan pursuing my final year PGDM at Rajagiri Centre for Business
Studies. As part of my curriculum, I am conducting a survey to understand the influence
of the product harm crisis of Nestle Maggi among the users in Kochi. I assure that the
information provided will be kept confidential and used only for academic purposes
Please choose only one option for the following questions

Sex: Male Female

Age: i) 18-25 ii)26-35 iii)36-45 iv) 46 and above

a) Have you ever used Maggi before? Yes No

b) Are you aware of the Nestle Maggi product harm crisis? Yes No
......................................................................................................................................................
Ethical beliefs
Please read the following statements and choose an option that matches the decisions that
you take for the below mentioned situations. If you see that the following statements are
highly ethical, tick against the number 1 and if you think they are highly unethical, tick
against the number 5. If your feelings are not strong, tick against a number in the middle

i. Actively benefiting from illegal activity

Sl Statements
5= Highly
1=Highly

unethical
ethical

No
2
3

1. Changing price tags on merchandise in a retail store

2. Drinking a can of soft drink in a supermarket without

paying for it
3. Reporting a lost item as ‘stolen’ to an insurance
company inorder to collect the money
4. Giving misleading price information to a clerk for an
unpriced item

58
 5. Returning damaged merchandise when the damage is
your own fault

ii. Passively benefiting at the expense of others

Sl Statements

5= Highly
1=Highly

unethical
ethical
No

2
3
4
6. Getting too much change and not saying anything

7. Lying about a child’s age in order to get a lower price

8. Not saying anything when the server miscalculates the
bill in your favour

iii. Actively benefiting from questionable behaviour

Sl Statements

5= Highly
1=Highly

unethical
ethical

No
2
3

4
9. Breaking a bottle of salad dressing in a supermarket
and doing nothing about it
10. Stretching the truth on an income tax return
11 Using an expired coupon for merchandise
12. Using a coupon for merchandise that you did not buy
13. Not telling the truth when negotiating the price of a
new automobile

iv. Harm/no foul

Sl Statements
1=Highly

5=Highly
unethical
ethical

No
2

3
4

14. Tasting grapes in a supermarket and not buying any

59
15. Using computer software or games that you did not
buy
16. Recording an album instead of buying it
17. Over an hour trying on different dresses and not
purchasing any
18. Taping a movie off the television
19. Returning merchandise after trying it and not liking it

Please evaluate the following questions in a five point scale(1= Agree, 2= Somewhat agree, 3= Neutral, 4=
Somewhat disagree, 5= Disagree)
Attribution of blame
Sl Statements

Somewhat

Somewhat
No

Disagree
disagree
Neutral
Agree

agree
20. I hold ‘Nestle Maggi’ responsible for the product harm.

21. I perceive ‘Nestle Maggi’ as instrumental in producing

the effects.
22. I hold ‘Nestle Maggi’’ responsible, because it could
have foreseen the effects, no matter whether it had or
did not have any intentions to produce them.
23. ‘Nestle Maggi’ is responsible for the foreseen and
intended results.
24. ‘Nestle Maggi’ is responsible only to the extent that it
cannot justify its behaviour
25. ‘Nestle Maggi’’ was simply associated with the event
26. ‘Nestle Maggi’ committed the event.
27. ‘Nestle Maggi’ intended the event.

60
Anger
Sl Statements

Somewhat

Somewhat
No

Disagree
disagree
Neutral
Agree

agree
28. I feel irritated about the event.
29. I feel tense about the event
30. I feel like shouting about the event
31. I feel angry about the event.

Customer Attitude
Please evaluate the following questions in a five point scale
32. Prior to the recent “Nestle Maggi” product harm crisis, what were your general views
regarding the management/leadership at Nestle?
Impressive Very good Neutral Below average Not impressive

33. In your opinion, how is Nestle leadership handling the Nestle Maggi crisis?
Very well Satisfactorily Neutral Somewhat disappointing Very
poorly

34. Most of what the Nestle leadership says about the Maggi crisis is true.
Agree Somewhat agree Neutral Somewhat disagree Disagree

35. Do you think that the Nestle Maggi brand will regain its former prominence in the food
industry?
Definitely Probably Perhabs Probably not No

36. In terms of public trust, how ethical do you feel that Nestle leadership’s action and response
to the Maggi crisis have been?
Very ethical Somewhat ethical Neutral Somewhat unethical Very
unethical

37. Has the leadership at Nestle been transparent during the recent Maggi crisis?
Very much Moderately Neutral Somewhat Not at all

61
Please evaluate the following questions in a five point scale(1= Agree, 2= Somewhat agree, 3= Neutral, 4=
Somewhat disagree, 5= Disagree)

Purchase intention
Sl Statements

Somewhat

Somewhat
No

Disagree
disagree
Neutral
Agree

agree
38. I would reject the possibility of buying ‘Nestle Maggi’’
after the event.
39. A probability exists of buying ‘Nestle Maggi’’ after the
event.
40. I would accept the idea of buying ‘Nestle Maggi’’ after
the event.
41. I would be willing to buy ‘Nestle Maggi’’ after the
event.
42. I would avoid buying ‘Nestle Maggi’’ after the event.
43. I would consider buying ‘Nestle Maggi’’ after the event.

..........................................................................................................................................

Thank you for your response!!!!

62