Summary of findings for the effects of online defensive response strategies on select outcomes
| Publication | Strategies tested | DVs examined | Mediators | Moderators | Main findings | Recommended strategy | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Accommodative | Defensive | Passive | ||||||
| Lee and Song, 2010 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | Firm blame and evaluation | None | None | Defensive (vs accommodative) responses, vividness and high review consensus increase firm blame. Accommodative outperforms defensive and no response | Accommodative |
| Xia, 2013 | ✓ | ✓ | Satisfaction, PI and PWOM | Sincerity, respect and appropriateness | Relationship strength and brand personality | Accommodative (i.e., vulnerable) responses boost satisfaction, PWOM and purchase intentions, especially for sophisticated brands. Perceived appropriateness mediates these effects | Accommodative | |
| Einwiller and Steilen, 2015 | ✓ | ✓ | Satisfaction | None | None | Defensive responses increase dissatisfaction | Accommodative | |
| Chang et al., 2015 | ✓ | ✓ | PWOM | None | None | Defensive (vs accommodative) responses increase firm blame and decrease reputation and PWOM | Accommodative | |
| Weitzl and Hutzinger, 2017 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | Attitude, trust, NWOM, PI, purchase risk and blame | None | Firm credibility | Accommodative responses enhance credibility leading to more favorable brand-related outcomes compared to defensive responses | Accommodative |
| Li et al., 2018 | ✓ | ✓ | Revenue and PI | Attribution | Negative review type | Defensive (accommodative) responses are better for ordinary (product failure) negative review | Accommodative and defensive | |
| Johnen and Schnittka, 2019 | ✓ | ✓ | PI | Perceived benefit | Contextual benefit, complaint reasoning and communication style | Defensive responses are more suitable for hedonic brands and accommodative responses are more suitable for utilitarian brands. For well-reasoned complainants in utilitarian contexts, accommodative responses are less effective. Defensive responses are better for formal (vs informal) communication | Accommodative and defensive | |
| Weitzl, 2019 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | Satisfaction, brand image, loyalty, PWOM and NWOM | None | Complaining goals and complainant type | Defensive (vs accommodative) responses trigger negative emotions and NWOM for constructive complainants | Accommodative |
| Casado-Díaz et al., 2020 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | Brand attitude and booking intentions | None | None | Accommodative responses are most effective in mitigating the effects of negative reviews. Defensive responses are effective on Twitter. No response is worse than both defensive and accommodative responses | Accommodative and defensive |
| Zhao et al., 2020 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | Distrust and PI | Failure stability | Negative review type (competence vs integrity-based) | Accommodative (vs defensive) responses with a remedial plan are best, regardless of review type | Accommodative |
| Lopes et al., 2024 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | Hotel bookings | None | None | Responding to a complaint is better than ignoring it. Defensive responses increase hotel bookings. Accommodative responses are mixed | Accommodative and defensive |
| Present research | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | Monetary allocation, PI | Blame, reviewer credibility, service firm credibility | None | Defensive responses increase purchase intentions. Aggression has an inverse effect on purchase. Effects are mediated by blame and credibility | Defensive |
| Publication | Strategies tested | DVs examined | Mediators | Moderators | Main findings | Recommended strategy | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Accommodative | Defensive | Passive | ||||||
| ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | Firm blame and evaluation | None | None | Defensive (vs accommodative) responses, vividness and high review consensus increase firm blame. Accommodative outperforms defensive and no response | Accommodative | |
| ✓ | ✓ | Satisfaction, | Sincerity, respect and appropriateness | Relationship strength and brand personality | Accommodative (i.e., vulnerable) responses boost satisfaction, | Accommodative | ||
| ✓ | ✓ | Satisfaction | None | None | Defensive responses increase dissatisfaction | Accommodative | ||
| ✓ | ✓ | None | None | Defensive (vs accommodative) responses increase firm blame and decrease reputation and | Accommodative | |||
| ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | Attitude, trust, NWOM, PI, purchase risk and blame | None | Firm credibility | Accommodative responses enhance credibility leading to more favorable brand-related outcomes compared to defensive responses | Accommodative | |
| ✓ | ✓ | Revenue and | Attribution | Negative review type | Defensive (accommodative) responses are better for ordinary (product failure) negative review | Accommodative and defensive | ||
| ✓ | ✓ | Perceived benefit | Contextual benefit, complaint reasoning and communication style | Defensive responses are more suitable for hedonic brands and accommodative responses are more suitable for utilitarian brands. For well-reasoned complainants in utilitarian contexts, accommodative responses are less effective. Defensive responses are better for formal (vs informal) communication | Accommodative and defensive | |||
| ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | Satisfaction, brand image, loyalty, | None | Complaining goals and complainant type | Defensive (vs accommodative) responses trigger negative emotions and | Accommodative | |
| ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | Brand attitude and booking intentions | None | None | Accommodative responses are most effective in mitigating the effects of negative reviews. Defensive responses are effective on Twitter. No response is worse than both defensive and accommodative responses | Accommodative and defensive | |
| ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | Distrust and | Failure stability | Negative review type (competence vs integrity-based) | Accommodative (vs defensive) responses with a remedial plan are best, regardless of review type | Accommodative | |
| ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | Hotel bookings | None | None | Responding to a complaint is better than ignoring it. Defensive responses increase hotel bookings. Accommodative responses are mixed | Accommodative and defensive | |
PI = Purchase intentions; PWOM = positive word-of-mouth; NWOM = negative word-of-mouth
Sharing content requires targeting cookies to be enabled. Please update your cookie preferences to use this feature.