This paper aims to examine how strong (vs weak) brand purpose influences consumer forgiveness during public brand criticism and how managerial response strategies moderate this effect.
A pilot study of social-media sentiment and four between-subjects experiments (n = 1,139) test a parallel dual-route mediation model; moderated-mediation analysis tests the moderating role of managerial response.
A strong brand purpose reduces blame via moral capital, but only when the brand’s response preserves attributional ambiguity; accepting blame neutralizes this benefit. In parallel, strong purpose heightens moral expectations whose violation triggers betrayal and amplifies blame. The net effect on attitudinal and behavioral outcomes remains positive, with strong-purpose brands retaining higher forgiveness, brand defense and brand choice.
Firms should invest in a genuine purpose to accumulate moral capital. Managers must monitor the gap between moral expectations and perceived conduct, preserve attributional ambiguity in public responses rather than accepting blame and demonstrate business competence alongside ethical commitments.
This study is the first to examine brand purpose under public criticism and to empirically decompose its effect into a parallel dual-route mechanism: moral capital reduces blame (benefit route), while a violation gap triggers both betrayal (affective cost) and amplified blame (cognitive cost). Attributional ambiguity in the brand’s response is identified as a boundary condition on the benefit route.
