Author Information
Malika Malika, IIM Bangalore, IndiaDurairaj Maheswaran, New York University, United States
Abstract
This research examines how individual differences in orientation moderate consumer responses to brand-harm crises caused by human versus algorithmic error. Building on prior work demonstrating that algorithm-driven failures often provoke less negative brand evaluations than human-caused mistakes, we propose that such effects depend on an individual’s tendency toward Person–Thing Orientation (PTO). Drawing from a between-subjects experiment (N = 470), participants were randomly assigned to read a defective-car recall press release attributing the defect either to a human engineer or to a computer algorithm at the firm. We measured PTO (Person- vs. Thing-oriented), brand evaluation (good–bad, quality, favorability, positivity), and manipulation check for attribution source. Results revealed a pattern consistent with our hypotheses: Person-oriented individuals rated the brand more negatively when a human was responsible; Thing-oriented individuals exhibited greater negativity when the algorithm was blamed. The study contributes to psychological research by integrating PTO into the understanding of technology-mediated brand crises. This has practical implications for firms navigating recalls and transparency in an increasingly automated production environment.
Comments
Powered by WP LinkPress