Business and Management Review Vol. 2(9) pp. 01 – 08 November, 2012
Available online at http://www.businessjournalz.org/bmr
ISSN: 2047 - 0398
CONSUMER MOTIVATIONS FOR PARTICIPATION IN BOYCOTTS
Oghojafor Ben Akpoyomare
Department of Business Administration
University of Lagos, Lagos.
E-mail: [email protected]
Ladipo Patrick Kunle Adeosun
Department of Business Administration
University of Lagos, Lagos.
E-mail: [email protected]
Rahim Ajao Ganiyu (Corresponding author)
Department of Business Administration
University of Lagos, Lagos.
E-mail: [email protected]
ABSTRACT
Boycott has been occurring for decades as a forced anti-consumption behavior. But, because boycotts are
diverse, there is no completely reliable means of ascertaining its effects. The consumer behavior literature
however, acknowledges many influences of boycott on corporate behavior. This study being descriptive and
explanatory utilized secondary data to describe and clarify why and how there is a relationship between boycott
and consumer motivation to participate in a social-economic boycott. The study concludes that consumers’
likelihood of participating in both economic and social-issue boycotts is jointly determined by their perceptions
of the boycott’s likelihood of success, the nature of the consumption and availability of substitute, the credibility
of boycott leader and their susceptibility to normative social influences, and the costs they incur in boycotting.
Keywords: Corporate behavior, Consumer behavior, Consumer boycott, Consumer participation, Egregious,
and Motivations
1. INTRODUCTION
The word boycott attains prominence during the Irish “Land War” and it was coined by James Redpath in late
19th century to describe the ostracism of an English land agent, Captain Charles Boycott. Although the term
may be relatively recent, boycotts have been used for centuries. The practice of boycott dates back to 1830,
when the National Negro Convention encouraged a boycott of slave-produced goods. Boycotting is a form of
intriguing and anti-consumption form of consumer behavior, unwelcome to organizations yet consistent with the
doctrine of the marketing concept (Kohli and Jaworski, 1990).
A boycott is usually a one-time measure design to correct wrong activities or actions. It is thus, a form of
consumer activism. Boycott represent collective social actions that use the marketplace to apply social,
economic, and political pressures against a person, a firm, an industry, or even a nation to remedy a personal or
social injustice. Boycotts have become a pervasive and potent instrument of consumer discontent in today’s
marketplace. According to (Smith, 2001) consumers are willing to withhold patronage to control perceived
market abuses and/or increase corporate sensitivity to their economic, political, and social concerns.
Consumer boycotts is an attempt by one or more parties to achieve certain objectives by urging individual
consumers to abstain from making selected purchases in the marketplace (Friedman, 1999). Laidler (1968, p.
27) defines boycotting as “an organized effort to withdraw and encourage others to withdraw from social or
business relations with another.”
The internet and other modern means of communication provide consumers with new medium that is quick,
cheap, and effective in informing millions of consumers about boycotts and by extension influence the ethical
1
Business and Management Review Vol. 2(9) pp. 01 – 08 November, 2012
Available online at http://www.businessjournalz.org/bmr
ISSN: 2047 - 0398
behavior of producers (Andersen, 1999). Example includes the gay and lesbian boycott of advertisers of the “Dr.
Laura” talk show which was facilitated with the use of internet.
Organizations that deviate from acceptable social and moral norm like environmental degradation, poor
employee welfare policy, or poor human rights record etc may risk sanctions/punishment by consumers in form
of boycott. Instances of boycott include: the series of academic boycotts embarked by Nigeria lecturers to
compel Government to reverse unpopular policy and decisions; international boycott of Nestle in 1984 over its
marketing of baby milk to the Third World; the boycott of Barclays Bank, which ended with the company’s
withdrawal from South Africa in 1986 etc. All these examples suggest that consumer boycott is a tool that may
be used to empower the disadvantaged, and can also be used to pursue conflicting ethical aims.
The calls for boycott typically come from a pressure group or non-governmental organization (NGO). Boycotts
therefore, represent a subset of a broader category of consumer behavior where social and ethical issues exert
considerable influence on purchase decisions (e.g., environmental issues). Because boycotts are often organized
by NGOs to pursue a cause or broader socio-political agenda, they can represent a form of social control of
business activities. Boycotts are generally legal in developed countries. However, some restrictions may apply
occasionally.
Boycott, as a source of consumer power and a mechanism for the social control of business, has a significant
public policy implication. Consumers’ likelihood of participating in both economic and social-issue boycotts is
jointly determined by their perceptions of the boycott’s likelihood of success, their susceptibility to normative
social influences, and the costs incurred in boycotting. Consumers’ success perceptions are, in turn, determined
by their expectations of overall participation and efficacy, as well as the message frame inherent in proboycott
communications.
The theoretical literature on boycotts, most notably Baron (2001), Innes (2006), and Baron and Diermeier
(2007), focuses on how interest groups interact with firms. These literatures see boycotts as a form of threat:
interest groups can employ when negotiating with firms. While this approach certainly has its merits, it leaves
several questions unanswered. The growing significance of boycotts to consumers, marketers, and public policy
makers has also spurred theoretical and empirical research into their historical evolution (Smith, 1990), financial
consequence (Miller and Sturdivant, 1977), and key determinants, such as action orientation (media-oriented vs.
marketplace oriented; Friedman, 1996) and form of influence (economic pressure vs. image pressure; Garrett,
1987).
However, there has been little research toward a theoretical understanding of the individual consumer decision
to participate in a particular boycott (Belch et al., 1987; Friedman, 1999). And very little academic research
effort has been directed into those factors that influence an individual’s motivation to participate in a boycott.
The current study seeks to address some of these gaps and offers further theoretical insight into the
understanding of those factors that motivate individual to participate in economic-social boycotts.
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Historical Origins of Boycott
Consumer boycotts have a controversial and diverse origin. The term originated in 1880 with the ostracisation of
Captain Charles Boycott, an Irish land agent, over the treatment of his tenants, but the practice dates back at
least as far as the 14th century (Smith, 2001). Historically, boycotts have contributed to some spectacular
successes and permitted relatively powerless groups to assert their rights and induce ethical behavior on the part
of the firm (Sharp, 1973).
The colonialists’ boycott of British goods led to the repeal of the Stamp Act by the British government in 1766
(Friedman, 1999), while boycotts were the key determinant to unionization in the United States at the turn of the
century (Wolman, 1916). Other instances of boycotts are: Gandhi boycotts of British salt and cloth as part of a
strategy of nonviolent action that ultimately results to Indian independence in 1947 (Bondurant, 1965); the
2
Business and Management Review Vol. 2(9) pp. 01 – 08 November, 2012
Available online at http://www.businessjournalz.org/bmr
ISSN: 2047 - 0398
boycott of Japanese products in China after the Max Fourth Movement; the United States of America led
boycott of the 1980 Summer Olympic in Moscow etc.
Recent prominent consumer boycotts include the European boycott of Shell over its decision to dump the Brent
Spar oil platform at sea; the United States (US) boycotts of Texaco over alleged racial remarks by senior
management and of Mitsubishi over alleged sexual harassment in the workplace; the multi-country boycott of
Nike over alleged sweatshop conditions with Asian suppliers; and the recent row about Danish cartoons of
prophet Muhammed that some Muslims found offensive, the Danish products were boycotted in several Islamic
countries.
2.1.1 Consumer Boycott
Consumer boycott is represent on the part of one or more parties to achieve certain objectives by urging
individual consumers to withdraw from making selected purchases (from one or more target organizations) in
the marketplace (Friedman, 1996). Boycotts are of two types: economic or marketing policy boycotts which aim
to change the marketing practices of the boycott target’s, such as lowering price (i.e. the protest by Nigerian
over the fuel subsidy removal in January 2012).
According to Smith (1990) the political or social/ethical form of boycotts strive to coerce their targets toward
specific ethical or socially responsible actions, ranging from responsible employment and manufacturing
practices to the support of specific causes (e.g., Nigeria Labour Congress struggle for Job picketing in banks, oil
companies and manufacturing sectors in 2005).
Notably, boycotts are qualitatively different from an individual’s personal decision to withhold consumption of
a good in that the former constitute an organized, collective, but non-mandatory refusal to purchase or consume
a particular good. In this sense, the dynamics underlying an individual’s decision to participate in a boycott are
similar to those underlying people’s participation in labor movements such as strikes (Gallagher and Gramm,
1997), which are organized and collective but cannot be made compulsory.
2.2 Cooperation in Boycotts
According to social dilemma theory (VanLange et al., 1992), consumers’ expectations regarding the likelihood
of boycott success (i.e., likelihood that the social problem will be solved) is likely to be a principal input into
their estimate of the expected utility of participation. This suggests that aside from consumers’ susceptibility to
normative influence, their decision to cooperate is likely to depend on certain key factors in the boycott context
(e.g., expectations of overall participation, perceived efficacy, and proboycott communication) and the costs of
withholding consumption (e.g., product substitutability and product preference).
Social dilemmas are situations in which members of a group face a conflict decision between maximizing their
personal interests and supporting that of the group (Hardin, 1968; Dawes, 1980). A key factor affecting
consumers’ consideration of collective interests in their boycott decision is the social pressure they are likely to
experience, both internally and from external sources, to act in boycotting group’s interests. Clearly, such
influence is going to be strong when the group is primary, formal, and/or perhaps aspirational (e.g., in the case
of the “true religion believers” or “formal ethnics group”). The following factors seek to influence the
perceived likelihood of boycott success:
i.
Expectation of Overall Participation.
There is a strong positive link between people’s expectation of overall cooperation and their own personal
cooperation (Klandermans, 1992; Fisher and Ackerman, 1998). In social dilemmas, people are more likely to
cooperate when widespread cooperation by others will provide a solution to social problem. The reference group
theory posits that, conditional cooperation may also arise because of reference group influence on individual to
comply with social norms, which are inferred from overall cooperative behavior or expectations thereof.
ii Perceived Efficacy.
Social dilemma research suggests that cooperation varies directly with consumers’ perceived efficacy, or the
extent to which one believes that each participant, including oneself, can contribute significantly to the
achievement of collective interests (Van Lange et al., 1992).
3
Business and Management Review Vol. 2(9) pp. 01 – 08 November, 2012
Available online at http://www.businessjournalz.org/bmr
ISSN: 2047 - 0398
iii. Proboycott Communications.
Consumers’ perceptions of boycott success are likely to depend on the proboycott communications they are
exposed to. Social dilemma research undermines the importance of persuasive communication in inducing
cooperation (Wiener and Doescher, 1991; Klandermans 1992), but the precise characteristics of effective
communication remain largely unarticulated. Given that consumers’ reactions to persuasive communication are
often susceptible to the frame of the communicated message, boycott success is likely to depend on Proboycott
Communications (Rothman and Salovey, 1997).
2.3 Emotions and Boycott Intention
Considerable research has accumulated since Hirschman's and Holbrook (1982) examined the central role
emotion plays in consumption, recent emphasis on cognitive appraisal theory is looking at the role emotion
plays in consumer decisions in a more detailed and process-driven perspective. Emotions and the actions they
elicit are linked as consumer coping approaches and responses (Duhachek, 2005).
In consumer research, emotions are considered to influence information processing, motivate or inhibit action,
and contribute to experience or satisfaction (Bagozzi, et al., 1999; Hirschman and Holbrook, 1982). The
cognitive appraisal theory of emotions provides a framework that link perceptions of moral violations, emotions,
and boycott intention. The process of cognitive appraisal encompasses three stages (Lazarus, 1991; Johnson and
Stewart, 2004): (a) situational awareness stage, (b) appraisals and emotions stage, and (c) coping process stage.
When confronted with a situation or event that necessitates the need to boycott, a consumer appraises the event
subjectively based on personal knowledge and experience, goals, and idiosyncrasies. The consequences of these
appraisals are discrete emotions (Lazarus, 2001; Roseman and Smith, 2001).
Finally, behavioral tendencies linked with specific emotions help a person to adapt to the situation or event.
These tendencies may result in overt behaviors, given sufficient opportunity and capability. This last stage is
known as the coping process. Boycott behaviors are proposed to be a mechanism for coping with emotions
involved in the boycott situation.
2.4 Consumer Boycott Models
Three are divergent views in research on consumers' decision to participate in boycotts. First, consumers use
purchase votes to favor firms with a preferred societal impact (Dickinson and Hollander, 1991; Sen et aI., 2001;
Klein et aI., 2004). Second, boycotts are collective social actions based on consumers' comparison of cost and
benefit analysis (Sen, et aI., 2001; John and Klein, 2003; Klein, et aI., 2004; Innes, 2006). Third, boycotts are a
form of individual emotive expression (Kozinet and Handelman, 1998).
All the three views enumerated above support the notion that morality plays a central role in a person's desire to
participate in a boycott. The collective action and individual expression views also imply that there is an
affective link between the perceived moral violation arising from the egregious act committed by a company
and subsequent boycott intention.
2.4.1 Cost-Benefit Models
From the perspective of the collective action research, boycott, participation is a consequence of deliberative
and rational assessments of personal costs and benefits. So long as benefits outweigh costs, it is beneficial for
consumers to act collectively toward boycott goals. Consumers will therefore choose between maximizing either
selfish or collective interests.
In this model, three factors determine a consumer's decision to participate in a boycott: (a) the perceived
likelihood that a boycott will be successful; (b) the perceived level of compliance and participation of others;
and (c) the associated boycott cost to the individual consumer weighed against the benefit to a group Sen et al.,
(2001). They further assert that people's uncertainty about boycott success is a key barrier to participation. The
authors proposed four cost-benefit factors that predict boycott participation: (a) making a difference, (b) selfenhancement, (c) counterarguments, and (d) constrained consumption.
4
Business and Management Review Vol. 2(9) pp. 01 – 08 November, 2012
Available online at http://www.businessjournalz.org/bmr
ISSN: 2047 - 0398
2.5 Motivations for Boycott Participation
While there are many social issues that might prompt a call for a boycott, boycott organizers typically have
either an instrumental intention (to secure change within the target firm or, through the firm, to exert pressure on
government) or an expressive motivation (to discuss frustration or punish the target). This distinction between
instrumental and expressive boycotts is well established and extensively discussed in the boycott literature
(Smith 1999; Friedman 1999). Less understood are the motivations of the individuals who take part in a boycott.
Participation of individual consumer in a social/ economic boycott is driven by the individual’s perception of
egregious conduct by the target firm, which consists of four variables.
i. Perceived egregiousness
At its core, participation in a social/economic boycott is driven by the individual’s perception of bad conduct by
the target firm. Thus, boycotting is a response to a company action viewed as strikingly wrong and perceived as
having negative and possibly harmful consequences for one or more parties (e.g., workers, consumers, society at
large, and the environment), but not necessarily the boycotter. Boycotting has intrinsically moral features,
reflecting an evaluation by the boycotter that the boycott target has violated a moral code (Smith, 1999).
Perceived egregiousness conduct of a firm consists of four variables.
ii. The desire to promote change
The first variable reflects the boycotter’s desire to bring about some kind of change and to communicate a
message to the target firm. These variables are generally linked with the issue prompting the boycott and may be
instrumental and expressive. They include the desire to change the practices or decisions of the target firm as
well as express anger at the target’s conduct.
iii. Self-enhancement.
The second variable serves to moderate the relationship between perceived egregiousness of a firm’s actions and
a consumer’s boycott decision, is less directly related to the boycott. The psychosocial variable is largely
associated with self-enhancement. The more the opportunity for self-enhancement, the greater will be the
relationship between perceived egregiousness and boycotting. Consumers who become aware of and identify
with a call for boycott as a result of apparently bad behavior by the target firm are likely to feel guilty at
continued purchase of the firm’s products and may prefer to disassociate themselves from the target firm (Smith,
1990).
iv. Rationalizations.
The third factor serves to moderate the relationship between perceived egregiousness of a firm’s actions and
consumer’s decision to boycott and is comprised of rationalization that might affect consumer participation in
boycott. These rationalizations are of particular concern to boycott targets who seek to reduce possible support
for the boycott. They can also include counterarguments against the boycott that are specifically created by the
management of the target firm.
v. Costs.
Fairly obvious is the direct cost of boycotting to the individual participating in a boycott. The cost of
participating in a boycott will be factor into the individual’s boycott decision, because boycott participation
involves some individual sacrifice.
3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AND METHODS
3.1 Descriptive/Explanatory Research Method
This study being descriptive and explanatory utilized secondary data to describe and clarify why and how there
is a relationship between boycott and consumer motivation to participate in a social-economic boycott.
Secondary data are data collected by individual other than the investigator and as a reliable data source it can
strengthened research ethics, particularly where the subject-matter (as in this study) is sensitive and
incriminating (Harris, 2001).
Furthermore, secondary data generally have a pre-established degree of validity and reliability which need not
be re-examined by the researcher who is re-using such data (Bishop, 2007).
5
Business and Management Review Vol. 2(9) pp. 01 – 08 November, 2012
Available online at http://www.businessjournalz.org/bmr
ISSN: 2047 - 0398
4. DISCUSSIONS
Consumer participation in a boycott relating to economic or social-issue is driven by the individual’s perception
of bad or immoral conduct by the target firm and having negative and possibly harmful consequences for one or
more parties (e.g. consumers, employees, environment or society at large).
Individual’s personal decision to withhold consumption of a particular good is different from consumer boycott,
in the sense that the later constitute an organized, collective, but non-mandatory refusal to consume a good.
From this perspective, the rationale behind an individual’s decision to participate in a boycott are similar to
those underlying employees or people’s participation in labor movements such as strikes (Gallagher and
Gramm, 1997), which are organized and collective but cannot enforce individual participation.
Previous research links the individual decision to participate in boycott to a range of disparate factors, such as
boycott awareness, personal values system, boycott’s likelihood of success, social pressure, the credibility of the
boycott leader(s), boycotting costs, and the congruence between boycott goals and participant attitudes/value
system (Garrett, 1987).
Consumers’ perceptions of the likelihood success of boycott are, in turn, influenced by their expectations of
overall participation and efficacy, as well as the content of the message inherent in proboycott communications.
Most consumers, however, are likely to refuse participating in boycotts, because of the costs he/she might incur
from withholding consumption and the uncertainty of the possibility of whether the utility will outweigh the
costs of boycotting.
According to the social dilemma theory (Van-Lange et al., 1992), consumers’ expectations regarding the
likelihood of boycott addressing a social or economic problem is likely to be a major input into their estimate of
the expected utility and decision to participate in boycott. On a final note, two factors that influence the costs
consumers incur in boycotting are inherent in the nature of consumption in question. The first cost relates to
consumers’ intrinsic preference for the boycotted product: consumers with higher (vs. lower) preference for the
boycotted product will be less likely to participate in the boycott because it will be more difficult for them to
withhold consumption. An interesting and familiar cost relates to unavailability of a perfect substitute for the
boycotted product or service in the market –place. When a satisfactory substitute exists, consumers can
minimize the costs of not consuming the boycotted product by simply switching to the substitute. In the absence
of substitutes, however, consumers have little option, in terms of consumption, to alleviate this cost. Therefore,
it is expected that the availability of suitable substitutes for the boycotted product will increase consumers’
likelihood of participation.
5. CONCLUSION
Boycott is the way the consumer takes his/her cause to the public. Boycott also serves as a measure of the ability
of public agency such as consumer protection agency, law court, and the parliament to effectively justify their
existence and relevance in protecting the individual or group. Some consumers care not only about the products
they buy or consume but also that the firm behaves responsibly. Consequently, to affect a firm's ethical
behavior, moral consumers refuse to buy from an unethical firm. Although, consumers who do not care about
ethical behavior often time join the boycott to falsely indicate that they are ethical.
Consumer power apparently has been increasing and will continue to increase particularly with the advent of
information technology and mobile telephony. Although they are mostly not documented but indirect evidence
do exist, particularly in the developed nations. Consequently, with increasing concern about environmental
issues like the greenhouse effect, one can expect to see an increased motivation for individuals to organize
boycotts in the future. Modern communication media, including the internet, objective media reporting will
enhance the opportunities to positively influence the ethical behavior of firms and by extension seriously
influence and induce more companies to devote substantial effort to behave ethically and build a favorable
image among consumers and the society at large.
6
Business and Management Review Vol. 2(9) pp. 01 – 08 November, 2012
Available online at http://www.businessjournalz.org/bmr
ISSN: 2047 - 0398
With greater public attention to corporate social responsibility and increased vulnerability of brands and
corporate reputations, social-economic issue boycotts have become increasingly relevant for management
decision-making and as a source of consumer power and a mechanism for the social control of business; they
also have significant public policy implications. Boycotts may have serious adverse implications on firms,
extending beyond direct loss of sales to include longer-term impacts on corporate reputation and brand image.
Strategies adopted by companies to respond and control consumer boycotts include: ignore, fight, fudge/
explain, and comply.
The role of perceived egregiousness in boycott participation means that there is less likelihood of being targeted
by a boycott if a firm does not engage in activities that might be viewed as deplorable and unacceptable. Hence,
to avoid social-economic issue boycotts, at least, firms are well advised to conduct social audits and engage in
frequent dialogues with stakeholders (including NGOs) to identify potential issues that might prompt a boycott.
Because there are different and sometimes conflicting views of what constitute a socially responsible corporate
conduct, the concerns and efforts of management can never entirely eliminate the possibility of a call for a
boycott.
While consumer boycotts today are more prevalent than ever, boycott organizers are rarely successful in
encouraging widespread participation, regardless of the boycott’s final outcome (Ferguson, 1997). This may be
due to lack of knowledge about the characteristics of effective proboycott communication, which is perhaps the
most important and often only an instrument of persuasion at the disposal of the organizers. Available evidence
also suggests that boycotts are increasingly successful and focused to a greater extent on corporate practices.
However, the frequency and incidence of boycotts and their success are inherently hard to quantify because of
difficulties in identifying calls for boycotts by NGOs and the understandable reluctance of firms to report the
adverse effects of boycott on their bottom line.
REFERENCES
Andersen,
T.
(1999).
Consumer
Power
via
the
Internet.
Available
at
http://www.…rstmonday.org/issues/issue4_1/andresen/index.html
Baron, D.P., (2002) Private Politics and Private Policy: A Theory of Boycotts. Stanford Graduate School of
Business.
Belch, George, E. and Michael, A.B. (1987). The Application of an Expectancy Value Operationalization of
Function Theory to Examine Attitudes of Boycotters and Nonboycotters of a Consumer Product, in
Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 14, ed. MelanieWallendorf and Paul F. Anderson, Provo, UT:
Association for Consumer Research, 232–236.
Bishop, L. (2007). A reflexive account of reusing qualitative data: beyond primary/secondary dualism,
Sociological Research Online [Online], Special Section on Reusing Qualitative Data, 12(3)
http://www.socresonline.org.uk/12/3/2.html
Bondurant, J.V. (1965). The Conquest of Violence: The Gandhian Philosophy of Conflict, Berkeley: University
of California Press.
Baron, D. (2001). Private Politics, Corporate Social Responsibility, and Integrated Strategy, Journal of
Economics and Management Strategy, 10, 7(45).
Baron, D., and Diermeier D. (2007). Strategic Activism and Non-market Strategy, Journal of Economics and
Management Strategy, 16, 599(634).
Bagozzi, R P., Gopinath, M., and Nyer, P. U. (1999). The Role of Emotions in Marketing. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 27(2), 184-206.
Duhachek, A. (2005). Coping: A Multidimensional, Hierarchical Framework of Responses to Stressful
Consumption
Episodes.
The
Journal
of
Consumer
Research.,
32(1),41.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/426612
Dickinson, R. and Hollander S.C. (1991). Consumer Votes, Journal of Business Research, 22, 335-346.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0148-2963(91)90040-5
Dawes, R. M. (1980). Social Dilemmas, Annual Review of Psychology, 31, 169–193.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.31020180.001125.
Friedman, M.(1996). A positive Approach to Organized Consumer Action: The “Boycott” as an Alternative to
the Boycott, Journal of Consumer Policy, 19, 439-451. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00411502
Friedman, M. (1999). Consumer Boycotts, New York: Routledge.
7
Business and Management Review Vol. 2(9) pp. 01 – 08 November, 2012
Available online at http://www.businessjournalz.org/bmr
ISSN: 2047 - 0398
Fisher, R.J. and Ackerman .D (1998), The Effects of Recognition and Group Need on Volunteerism: A Social
Norm
Perspective,
Journal
of
Consumer
Research,
25
(December),
262–275.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/209538
Ferguson, S. (1997). “Boycotts ‘R’ Us,” Village Voice (July 8), 44–46.
Garrett, D. (1987). The Effectiveness of Marketing Policy Boycotts: Environmental Opposition to Marketing,
Journal of Marketing, 51 (April), 46–57. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1251128
Gallagher, D.G. and Gramm, C.L. (1997). Collective Bargaining and Strike Activity, in The Human Resource
Management Handbook, ed. David Lewin, Daniel J. B. Mitchell, and Mahmood A. Zaidi, Greenwich,
CT: Jai Press, 65–93.
Harris, H. (2001). Content Analysis of Secondary Data: A Study of Courage in Managerial Decision Making.
Journal of Business Ethics, 34(3/4), pp. 191-208.
Hardin, G. (1968). The Tragedy of the Commons, Science, 162 (December), 1243–1248.
Hirschman, E. C., and Holbrook, M. B. (1982). Hedonic Consumption: Emerging Concepts, Methods and
Propositions. Journal of Marketing, 46(3),92-101.
Innes, R. A. (2006). A Theory of Consumer Boycotts under Symmetric Information and Imperfect Competition.
Economic Journal, 116: 355-381.
John, A., and Klein, J. (2003). The Boycott Puzzle: Consumer Motivations for Purchase Sacrifice. Management
Science, 49(9), 1196-1209.
Johnson, A. R, and Stewart, D. W. (2004). A Reappraisal of the Role of Emotion in Consumer Behavior:
Traditional and Contemporary Approaches. In N. K. Malhotra (Ed.), Review of Marketing Research
(Vol. 1, pp. 3-33). Armonk, N.Y.: M.E. Sharpe.
Klandermans, B. (1992). Persuasive Communication: Measures to Overcome Real-Life Social Dilemmas, in A
Social Psychological Approach to Social Dilemmas, ed. Wim B. G.
Kohli, A.K. and Jaworski B.J. (1990). Market Orientation: The Construct, Research Propositions, and
Managerial Implications, Journal of Marketing, 54 (April), 1-18. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1251866
Klein, J., Smith, C. and John, A. (2004). Why we boycott: consumer motivations for boycott participation,
Journal of Marketing, 68(3), 921-109. http://dx.doi.org/10.1509/ijmkg.68.3.92.34770
Kozinets R.V, Handelman J.(1998). Ensouling consumption: a netnographic exploration of the meaning of
boycotting behavior. In: Alba J, Hutchinson W, editors. Advances in Consumer Research, vol. 25.
Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research; 1998. p. 475–80.
Laidler, H.W. (1968). Boycotts and the Labor Struggle: Economic and Legal Aspects. New York: Russell and
Russell.
Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Progress on a Cognitive-Motivational-Relational Theory of Emotion. American
Psychologist, 46(8), 819-834. http://dx.doi.org/10.103710003-066X.46.8.819
Lazarus, R. S. (2001). Relational meaning and discrete emotions. In K. R. Scherer, A. Schorr & T. Johnstone
(Eds.), Appraisal Processes in Emotion (pp. 37-67). New York: Oxford University Press.
Miller, K.E. and Sturdivant F.D. (1977). Consumer Responses to Socially Questionable Corporate Behavior: An
Empirical Test, Journal of Consumer Research, 4 (June), 1–7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/208673
Rothman, A.J. and Salovey P. (1997). Shaping Perceptions to Motivate Healthy Behavior: The Role of Message
Framing, Psychological Bulletin, 121 (January) 3–19. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.121.1.3
Roseman, 1. J., and Smith, C. A. (2001). Appraisal Theory: Overview, Assumptions, Varieties, Controversies.
In K. R. Scherer, A. Schorr & T. Johnstone (Eds.), Appraisal Processes in Emotion (pp. 3-19). New
York: Oxford.
Sharp, G. (1973). The Politics of Non-Violent Action, Borton:Porter Sargent, 1973.
Smith, N.C.(1990). Morality and the Market, London and New York
Smith, N.C. (1999). Ethics and Typology of Consumer Value, in Consumer Value: A framework for Analysis
and Research, Morris , B.H. ed. New York: Routledge, 147-158.
Smith, N.C. (2001). Changes in Corporate Practices in Response to Public Interest Advocacy and Actions: The
Role of Consumer Boycotts and Socially Responsible Consumption in Promoting Corporate Social
Responsibility. In Handbook of Marketing and Society, Paul N.B. and Gregory, T.G (ed), Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage. http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780203010679.ch7
Sen, S., Zeynep, G.C. and Vicki M. (2001). Withholding Consumption: A Social Dilemma Perspective on
Consumer
Boycotts,
Journal
of
Consumer
Research,
28
(December),
399-417.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/323729
VanLange, Paul A. M., Wim B. G., David M.M, and Henk A. M. W. (1992). Social Dilemmas: The State of the
Art, in A Social Psychological Approach to Social Dilemmas, ed. Wim B. G. Liebrand, David M.
Messick, and Henk A. M. Wilke, New York: Pergamon, 3–28.
Wiener, L. J. and Doescher T. A. (1991). A Framework for Promoting Cooperation, Journal of Marketing, 55
(April), 38–47. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1252236
Wolman, L, (1916). The Boycott in American Trade Unions, Baltimore: The John Hopkin Press, 1916.
8