The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/1746-8809.htm

Do consumer boycotts really Do consumer

boycotts really
matter with global companies? matter?

The moderating effect of

gender differences 5707
Changju Kim Received 2 March 2021
Revised 28 November 2021
College of Business Administration, Ritsumeikan University, Ibaraki, Japan 24 February 2022
Xiuyan Yan Accepted 13 March 2022

Postgraduate School of Business Administration, Ritsumeikan University,

Ibaraki, Japan, and
Soohyun Park
Faculty of Management, Otemon Gakuin University, Ibaraki, Japan

Abstract
Purpose – Drawing on the theory of planned behavior, this study aims to conduct an empirical investigation
on whether and how psychological and motivational factors (i.e. attitudes, subjective norms and perceived
behavioral control) affect actual purchase behavior. It does so through the lens of boycott intention and gender
differences in the context of boycott campaigns.
Design/methodology/approach – Focusing on the South Korean boycott campaign against Japanese
companies, this study employs a structural equation model using survey data from 571 South Korean
consumers to test the hypotheses.
Findings – While the three psychological and motivational factors inhibit all three dimensions of actual
purchase behavior (i.e. purchase frequency, number of items purchased and purchase amount) through
increased boycott intention, perceived behavioral control of boycotts directly curb South Korean consumers
from purchasing Japanese products. Additionally, the effect of boycott intention on overall actual purchase
behavior is stronger for men than for women, suggesting a moderating role of gender.
Practical implications – To mitigate the devastating impact of unexpected consumers’ boycott campaigns,
this study advises that global brand management and attractive online channels are essential while
considering the differential impact of gender.
Originality/value – By conceptualizing three dimensions of actual purchase behavior capturing behavioral
changes before and after a boycott, this study highlights the linkages between psychological and motivational
factors, intentions and behaviors. Additionally, this study attempts to clarify the previously conflicting
evidence on gender’s role in boycott campaigns while taking a culture-inclusive psychologies approach to
gender.
Keywords Boycott campaign, Theory of planned behavior, Gender difference, Culture-inclusive psychologies,
South Korea–Japan relationship
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
Adequate responses to current or potential consumer boycotts, defined as punishing the target for
unfavorable behaviors (Neilson, 2010), become an important issue for global companies. For
example, the current South Korean boycott campaign, which started in July 2019, has caused
significant damage to Japanese companies (Hankook Research, 2020). When comparing the
amounts of major products imported into South Korea from Japan in the second half of 2018, with
International Journal of Emerging
those in the same period in 2019 (Hankook Research, 2020), imports of tobacco, alcoholic beverages, Markets
groceries, electronic goods and cosmetics decreased by 91, 79, 36, 35 and 29%, respectively. Vol. 18 No. 12, 2023
pp. 5707-5726
Many South Koreans believe that Japan’s stringent export restrictions on semiconductors © Emerald Publishing Limited
1746-8809
and display materials toward South Korea (i.e. Japan’s economic sanctions) are a retaliatory DOI 10.1108/IJOEM-03-2021-0312
IJOEM measure to the South Korean Supreme Court’s 2018 decision. The South Korean Supreme
18,12 Court ruled that Nippon Steel Corp. must pay 100 million won (US$ 87,758 at the time of the
court’s judgment) as compensation to each victim of forced conscription during the Japanese
colonial period. Consequently, South Koreans have responded to Japan’s economic sanctions
through a boycott campaign.
With the evolution of the Internet and social media (Krishna and Kim, 2019), boycott
campaigns have evolved in more diverse patterns online and off-line, significantly disrupting
5708 companies’ daily marketing activities (Abosag and Farah, 2014; Dekhil et al., 2017; Hawkins,
2019; Lee et al., 2017). Previous investigations have helped us gain insight into how and why
consumers engage in boycott campaigns around the world against certain brands (Klein et al.,
2004; Muhamad et al., 2019), companies (Krishna and Kim, 2019; Lindenmeier et al., 2012),
localities (Coss
ıo-Silva et al., 2019) or countries (Ettenson and Klein, 2005; Song, 2020).
However, the literature does not provide much insight into actual purchase behaviors and
gender differences. Specifically, this study addresses two major limitations of previous
studies. First, although the majority of studies have mainly focused on the effects of
antecedent variables on boycott intentions (Delistavrou, 2021; Hawkins, 2019; Krishna and
Kim, 2019; Shin and Yoon, 2018), only a few have surprisingly offered insights on actual
boycott participation (Coss
ıo-Silva et al., 2019; Ettenson and Klein, 2005; Klein et al., 2004;
Lavorata, 2014). In this vein, as Vermeir and Verbeke (2008) indicated, studies have neglected
to empirically analyze whether the intention to engage in a boycott campaign leads to actual
boycott participation. More crucially, Lavorata (2014) found an unexpected result suggesting
that boycott intention is negatively associated with boycott behaviors. Given high perceived
costs when engaging to boycott behaviors, this finding may express the difficulty for
consumers to actually participate in the boycott campaign. Thus, our knowledge of whether
and how consumers’ psychological and motivational factors are related to their actual
purchase behavior is still unclear.
Second, although the majority of studies have mainly investigated gender as a control
variable to consider observed heterogeneity among respondents (Fernandes, 2020; Hawkins,
2019; Klein et al., 2004; Stolle et al., 2005), only a few have offered insights on possible
explanatory mechanisms conceptualizing gender in consumer boycotts (Cruz et al., 2017;
Delistavrou, 2021; Krishna and Kim, 2019; Lindenmeier et al., 2012; Neilson, 2010). In addition,
these prior studies offer conflicting findings. Although a lot of research supports the more
active participation of women in boycotts (Cruz et al., 2017; Klein et al., 2004; Lindenmeier
et al., 2012; Stolle et al., 2005), a few recent studies have found the opposite, suggesting that
men show greater involvement (Delistavrou, 2021; Fernandes, 2020). In contrast, while
Krishna and Kim (2019) found a nonsignificant result of gender differences, Neilson (2010)
contended that gender is a lesser prominent factor in explaining consumer boycotts. To
advance our knowledge on how and why gender differences matter in consumer boycotts, the
challenge of adopting a more powerful explanatory approach to gender differences remains.
Against this background, this study advances the literature in two ways. First, to
surmount the key limitation of previous research, this study examines how three
psychological and motivational factors of the theory of planned behavior (TPB) are linked
to boycott intention and actual purchase behavior. These factors are attitudes toward
boycotts, subjective norms on boycotts and perceived behavioral control of boycotts. To
measure consumers’ actual purchase behavior objectively, this study examines a percentage
basis concerning their behavioral changes before and after the boycott regarding purchase
frequency, number of items purchased and purchase amount.
Second, this study further analyzes the moderating role of gender differences (i.e. men vs.
women). To the best of our knowledge, this study is the first to test how gender differences
influence actual boycott participation when boycott intention is evident. In doing so, we
discuss how a culture-inclusive psychologies perspective explaining interrelations between
culture and mental phenomena (Sieben, 2016) would provide a plausible theoretical Do consumer
mechanism to this study’s result, thereby overcoming the second key limitation of previous boycotts really
research.
To this effect, we employed a structural equation model using survey data from 571 South
matter?
Korean consumers. Compared to conventional South Korean boycotts against Japanese
companies (e.g. in reaction to history textbooks, comfort women and territorial issues), the
current boycott campaign is led by young people among overall participants and has been
ongoing for more than a year. Accordingly, an empirical investigation of an actual, ongoing 5709
South Korean boycott case is beneficial, which would offer new insights into our key research
questions.
The rest of the paper adopts the following structure. In Section 2, we briefly explain
consumer boycott research, theoretical framework and hypothesis development. We then
present the research method employed and the results in Section 3 and 4, respectively.
Finally, in Section 5, we discuss implications for both theory and practice, the study’s
limitations and ideas for further research.

2. Theoretical background and hypotheses

2.1 Consumer boycott research
Consumer boycotts are understood as a form of political consumerism, which is referred to as
publicly motivated consumption (Neilson, 2010). Political consumers are involved with a
variety of social phenomena across the world (see also Tables 1 and 2), such as the US
presidential tweeting (Krishna and Kim, 2019), Turkish–Kurdish political conflicts involving
a military operation (Ali, 2021), US citizens’ political ideologies (Fernandes, 2020), Malaysian
Muslim consumers’ religion-based boycott against US food brands (Muhamad et al., 2019), a
German company’s workplace surveillance (Lindenmeier et al., 2012), France’s nuclear testing
(Ettenson and Klein, 2005) or a territorial dispute between Japan and China (Lee et al., 2017).
In the case of the South Korean boycott campaign, South Koreans have participated in the
boycott, punishing the target (i.e. Japanese government) for unfavorable behaviors (i.e.
economic sanctions). South Korean consumers saw greater value of the boycott than the
buycott (i.e. rewarding the target for favorable behaviors) for the possibility of making the
target change its offending behavior through expected overall participation (Shin and Yoon,
2018), including the participation of small business owners (Song, 2020). This is in accordance
with insights on a behavioral approach to economics through the lens of norms of fairness
(Kahneman et al., 1986; Sunstein et al., 1998). On this point, Hahn and Albert (2017)
emphasized the significant role that strongly reciprocal consumers play in a boycott’s
success. Accordingly, it should be noted that consumer boycotts differ from propaganda, a
manipulative form of social opinion or suggestion by individuals, organizations or groups to
affect opinions, attitudes or actions of market participants for achieving predetermined
purposes (Bakir et al., 2019; Chang and Lin, 2014).
Relevant literature has offered insight on the relationships between various causes,
motives, intentions or behaviors in the context of boycott campaigns. Specifically, previous
studies highlighted that the boycott intention is determined by religious motivation (Dekhil
et al., 2017; Muhamad et al., 2019), the perceived concerns (e.g. mass dismissals) about factory
relocation (Hoffmann and M€ uller, 2008), consumer outrage caused by workplace surveillance
(Lindenmeier et al., 2012) or the sale of unethical products (Delistavrou, 2021). Meanwhile,
consumer animosity to a specific country’s behavior is negatively related to the willingness to
purchase (Ali, 2021; Fern
andez-Ferr
ın et al., 2015; Lee et al., 2017). In line with this reasoning,
some studies have also underscored that boycotts are negatively associated with brand
image or attitudes (Abosag and Farah, 2014; Klein et al., 2004), although a strong consumer-
brand relationship protects the brand because it represents the consumer’s personal and
social identity (Coss
ıo-Silva et al., 2019; Hawkins, 2019).
 18,12

5710

Table 1.
IJOEM

campaigns
actual boycott
Empirical studies on

participation in boycott
Study context with Theoretical
Study boycott case perspective Measure of actual behavior Key findings

Klein et al. Survey of 1,216 adult A cost-benefit Boycott decision capturing • The perception of firm’s egregiousness is a powerful (direct) predictor of boycott participation, while
(2004) boycotts against approach appeals to boycott Bremmer self-enhancement and constrained consumption are significant moderators of the same relationship
Bremmer, a European- in reaction to the factory
based multinational closings
firm, in reaction to the
factory closings
Ettenson Survey of 250 The animosity Boycott participation • Animosity, consumer efficacy and prior purchase directly promote boycott participation
and Klein Australian boycotts model capturing the number of
(2005) against French product categories in which a
products in reaction to consumer ceases to purchase
nuclear testing in the French goods
South Pacific
Lavorata Survey of 252 French TPB Boycott behavior capturing • Both perceived control and subjective norms increase boycott intention that is negatively associated with
(2014) boycotts against the actions of whether to have boycott behavior
hypermarket in boycotted hypermarket
reaction to retailers’
commitment to
sustainable
development
Coss
ıo- Survey of 351 Spanish Socio- Boycott behavior capturing • While animosity promotes boycott intention that positively affects boycott behavior, it also
Silva et al. boycotts against psychological actions stopping purchasing directly influences boycott behavior
(2019) Catalonian products in theories products made by Catalonia • Whereas legitimacy encourages boycott behavior, important brands decrease the likelihood
reaction to the of boycotts
separation of Catalonia
from Spain
Our study Survey of 571 South TPB Actual purchase behavior • Attitudes, subjective norms and perceived behavioral control promote boycott intention
Korean boycotts capturing behavioral • Boycott intention, together with perceived behavioral control, directly inhibits actual purchase behavior
against Japanese changes in terms of purchase • A negative link between boycott intention and actual purchase behavior becomes stronger for men than for women
products in reaction to frequency, number of items
Japan’s economic purchased, and purchase
sanctions amount for Japanese
products before and after the
boycott
Note(s): The table provides an overview of consumer boycott in terms of the empirical context and explicit focus of the investigation to examine actual boycott participation; key findings
provide each study’s main implications related to the topic of the current study
 Study context with boycott
Study case Main focus Key findings

Neilson (2010) Survey of 21,535 European Differences between • Gender does not influence the probability of consumer boycott, acting as a lesser factor in explaining
boycotts (buycotts) against boycotters and the boycott campaign
(for) certain products in buycotters in
reaction to political, ethical understanding political
or environmental reasons consumerism
Lindenmeier Survey of 227 German Consumer outrage model • Women are more motivated to participate in consumer boycotts than men
et al. (2012) boycotts against the Lidl, a with boycott • Women’s (men’s) outrage and boycott intention is more and largely influenced by affective (cognitive)
German food store chain, in communication and processes
reaction to the Lidl’s intention
workplace surveillance
Cruz et al. Survey of 281 Brazilian Perception of men’s and • Women feel guiltier and more uncomfortable than men in relation to the purchase of Nike products
(2017) boycotts against the Nike women’s guilt regarding
company in reaction to child boycott motivation
labor in its supply chain
Krishna and Survey of 517 American Impact of presidential • Gender is not a predictor of boycott intention because gender difference is not associated with
Kim (2019) boycotts (buycotts) against tweeting on publics’ perceived moral inequity and business purchase
(for) the Nordstrom perceptions of moral
company in reaction to inequity and business
President Trump’s tweet purpose and intentions to
about Nordstrom’s actions boycott or buycott
to stop carrying Ivanka companies
Trump’s line of clothing and
accessories
Delistavrou Survey of 420 Greek Predictive ability of TPB • A positive link between subjective norms and boycott intention becomes stronger for men compared
(2021) boycotts against unethical and roles of politics and to women
supermarket products demographics to explain
boycott intentions
Our study Survey of 571 South Korean The link between boycott • Under circumstances where boycott intention is strong, men show a more active participation in the
boycotts against Japanese intention and actual boycott campaign than women in terms of all three aspects of purchase frequency, number of items
products in reaction to purchase behavior and purchase amount
Japan’s economic sanctions
Note(s): The table provides an overview of gender differences in boycott campaigns in terms of the empirical context and explicit focus of the investigation to examine
gender as an explanatory mechanism in each proposed model; key findings provide each study’s main implications related to the topic of the current study
Do consumer
matter?

5711
boycotts really

Empirical studies on
Table 2.

gender in boycott
campaigns
IJOEM In contrast, as summarized in Table 1, a few studies offer empirical findings that predict
18,12 the relationship between boycott motivations and actual participation in diverse contexts and
perspectives. These include consumers’ perceptions of a firm’s egregiousness toward the
factory closings in terms of a cost-benefit approach (Klein et al., 2004), consumer animosity to
the specific country drawn from the animosity model (Ettenson and Klein, 2005) or consumer
animosity to a locality from the perspective of socio-psychological theories (Coss
ıo-Silva et al.,
2019). In relation to the effects of consumers’ psychological and motivational factors, prior
5712 studies applied TPB and demonstrated how attitudes, subjective norms and perceived
behavioral control increase the boycott intention (Delistavrou, 2021; Delistavrou et al., 2020;
Farah and Newman, 2010). Yet, Lavorata (2014) found an unanticipated result, suggesting
that boycott intention enhanced by subjective norms and perceived behavioral control is
negatively linked to actual boycott behavior.
Last, despite the significant role of demographic variables in gaining a better
understanding of consumers’ boycott campaigns, only a few studies have offered initial
insights into this issue in terms of gender, age, education, income or country (Delistavrou,
2021; Klein et al., 2004; Krishna and Kim, 2019; Neilson, 2010; Stolle et al., 2005). Among the
various demographic variables, prior studies have especially focused on the relationship
between consumer boycotts and gender differences (see Table 2). For example, Neilson (2010)
suggested that gender does not influence the probability of a consumer boycott while
investigating the differences between boycotters and buycotters in understanding political
consumerism. Although early investigators offered mixed results regarding gender
differences, initial insights about the role of gender in predicting consumer boycotts are
valuable. While women feel more guilty and uncomfortable than men toward unethical
corporate behaviors (Cruz et al., 2017), affective processes are highly associated with women’s
(as compared to men’s) outrage and boycott intention (Lindenmeier et al., 2012). In contrast,
Delistavrou (2021), drawing on TPB, demonstrated that the positive link between subjective
norms and boycott intention becomes stronger for men than for women.

2.2 Theoretical framework

This study provides a challenge to advance our knowledge on actual boycott participation
regarding consumers’ psychological and motivational factors and gender differences. To
address our research, following early investigators (Delistavrou, 2021; Delistavrou et al., 2020;
Farah and Newman, 2010), we anchor our study in TPB. As the nature of boycotts is outlined
in the work of Delistavrou (2021), the South Korean boycott campaign against Japanese
products cannot be an improvised, impulsive and unconscious action. Rather, such a
campaign represents consumers’ conscious, planned behavior as a sign of protest to the
Japanese government. South Koreans most probably made up their mind before their
purchase behaviors, even though contemporary Japanese companies may not have made any
direct, significant mistakes at this point. TPB is based on the assumption that most human
social behavior results from individual decisions through cognitive self-regulation (Ajzen,
1991; Fern
andez-Ferr
ın et al., 2015; George, 2004; Raut, 2020), thus offering a valuable
theoretical foundation for this study.
The key concept of this theory, which has been frequently adopted as a framework in
marketing studies that investigate consumer decision-making, is planned behavior. That is,
people’s intention to behave arises from motivating factors before they act and is reflected in
their actual behavior. Specifically, according to Ajzen’s (1991, p. 188) study, TPB entails three
basic psychological and motivational concepts: (1) attitudes toward the behavior (i.e. “the
degree to which a person has a favorable or unfavorable evaluation or appraisal of the
behavior in question”), (2) subjective norms (i.e. “the perceived social pressure to perform or
not perform the behavior”) and (3) perceived behavioral control (i.e. “the perceived ease or
difficulty of performing the behavior”).
 Consequently, this theory postulates that while an individual’s behavioral intention, Do consumer
together with perceived behavioral control, is a predictor of actual behavior, such behavioral boycotts really
intention is influenced by the three psychological and motivational factors of an individual’s
attitudes, subjective norms and perceived behavioral control (Al-Swidi et al., 2014;
matter?
Delistavrou et al., 2020; Raut, 2020). Similarly, previous investigators have primarily
focused on advancing the development of the TPB model by analyzing interactions among
the three psychological and motivation factors (Al-Swidi et al., 2014), antecedents of the three
psychological and motivation factors (George, 2004) and moderating variables intervening 5713
the relationships between the three psychological factors and the intention to behave
(Delistavrou et al., 2020). In addition, while some studies extend TPB by analyzing the role of
demographic variables such as gender, age, income or education (Delistavrou, 2021), others
underscore the moderating role that gender plays in comprehensively explaining consumer
behavior in terms of the purchase of state-branded food products (Shin et al., 2020), intention
to play the lottery (Walker et al., 2006) and green restaurant patronage (Moon, 2021).

2.3 Hypothesis development and research model

First, this study predicts that attitudes toward boycotts promote boycott intention. We define
attitudes toward boycotts as an individual’s mental state, representing an individual’s self-
beliefs and self-feelings about their boycott behavior. In contrast, boycott intention refers to a
consumer’s willingness to boycott a certain product or service. According to TPB, an
individual’s attitude toward performing a certain behavior is a multidimensional construct
consisting of cognitive, affective and conative components, and is thus one of the most
important predictors of intention to engage in consumer behavior (Ajzen, 1991; George, 2004;
Parkinson et al., 2018; Raut, 2020).
Except for Lavorata (2014), who reported a nonsignificant result, most previous studies
investigating boycott campaigns also provide concrete evidence on the causal relationship
between attitudes toward boycotts and boycott intention in various contexts, such as a
retailer’s ethics-based boycott (Delistavrou, 2021; Delistavrou et al., 2020), consumer
animosity to a locality (Coss
ıo-Silva et al., 2019) or a religion-based boycott (Abosag and
Farah, 2014; Farah and Newman, 2010; Muhamad et al., 2019). Similar to this, the more the
South Koreans believe that the boycott campaign against Japanese companies is a useful
means to resolve their moral dilemma (Fernandes, 2020; Lindenmeier et al., 2012) and/or to
increase the possibility of the Japanese government’s change in its offending behavior (Shin
and Yoon, 2018), the more motivated they would be to engage in the boycott campaign. Thus,
the following hypothesis is proposed:
H1. Attitudes toward boycotts have a significant and positive impact on boycott
intention.
Second, this study assumes that the stronger the subjective norms on boycotts, the stronger
the boycott intention. Subjective norms on boycotts refer to an individual’s perception of
social opinions and pressure about their decision on boycott behavior. According to TPB, if a
social expectation or pressure is that people should engage in a specific behavior in question,
such subjective norms are likely to lead individuals to have a greater intention to engage in
such behavior (Ajzen, 1991; George, 2004; Parkinson et al., 2018; Raut, 2020).
For the South Korean boycott campaign trigged by the historical issue of forced
conscription during the Japanese colonial period, we argue that South Korean consumers’
decision of whether or not to participate in the boycott campaign is highly affected by social
influence or pressure from people close to them (Delistavrou et al., 2020; Farah and Newman,
2010; Muhamad et al., 2019). In particular, when most people are participating (or are expected
to participate) in a boycott campaign (Shin and Yoon, 2018), any individual who does not
IJOEM participate will suffer losses in social relations, personal image or even reputation among
18,12 people who are strongly motivated to participate in the campaign (Maher and Mady, 2010).
South Korean boycott campaigns against Japanese companies have been considered an
intractable problem of a historical issue ever since the early 1900s, being highly susceptible to
the influence of the people in the social environment and the society at large. Hence, the
following hypothesis is proposed:
5714 H2. Subjective norms on boycotts have a significant and positive impact on boycott
intention.
Third, this study expects that the stronger the perceived behavioral control of boycotts, the
stronger the boycott intention. Perceived behavioral control of boycotts refers to an
individual’s perception of their controllability when engaging in boycott behavior. Based on
TPB, an individual’s beliefs about their abilities (i.e. ease or difficulty) to perform the behavior
in question also influences whether they actually engage in behavioral intention (Ajzen, 1991;
George, 2004; Parkinson et al., 2018; Raut, 2020). Accordingly, the intention to participate in
the South Korean boycott campaign will increase when there are more options for products
and services other than those offered by Japanese companies and/or if South Korean
consumers consider that Japanese products or services are not necessary (Delistavrou, 2021;
Delistavrou et al., 2020; Farah and Newman, 2010; Lavorata, 2014). Accordingly, the following
hypothesis is proposed:
H3. Perceived behavioral control of boycotts has a significant and positive impact on
boycott intention.
Fourth, this study also posits that perceived behavioral control of boycotts directly curbs
actual purchase behavior. According to prior studies examining boycott campaigns or
consumer behavior (Cruz et al., 2017; George, 2004; Klein et al., 2004; Pare and Pourazad, 2017),
the dimensions of actual purchase behavior can be largely divided into the frequency of
purchase, number of items purchased and total amount spent. Building on these insights, this
study defines actual purchase behavior as consumer behavior to purchase a certain product
or service in terms of the changes in purchase frequency, number of items purchased and
purchase amount.
According to the TPB (Ajzen, 1991), because the resources and opportunities available to a
person dictate the likelihood of behavioral achievement, perceived behavioral control can
often be employed as a proxy measure of actual behavioral control. However, TPB
researchers have reported mixed results, indicating a positive relationship between perceived
behavioral control and actual behavior (George, 2004; Parkinson et al., 2018) and a
nonsignificant relationship on the same path (Shin et al., 2020). Given that the relative
importance of perceived behavioral control in the prediction of actual behavior may vary
across contexts and situations (Ajzen, 1991), the split view of TPB research on this
relationship in question is acceptable and needs further investigation. However, little insight
on this issue has been provided in the consumer boycott context. Applying insights on TPB
into consumer boycotts, we argue that when South Korean consumers feel capable of
controlling their own consumption behavior, they are more motivated to engage in the actual
boycott behavior. Therefore, the following hypothesis is proposed:
H4. Perceived behavioral control of boycotts has a significant and negative impact on
actual purchase behavior of (a) purchase frequency, (b) number of items purchased
and (c) purchase amount.
Fifth, this study postulates that boycott intention inhibits actual purchase behavior. Although
some initial insights of antecedents on actual boycott participation are given (see Table 1),
astonishingly, most studies are still silent about offering a better understanding of whether
boycott intention is empirically linked to actual purchase behavior in boycott campaigns. The Do consumer
exception is Lavorata’s (2014) work that reported the negative causal relationship on the same boycotts really
path, which is inconsistent with the primary assumption of TPB (Ajzen, 1991). Lavorata (2014)
assumed the rationale behind such a reverse result is because the consumers may have been
matter?
restrained to act in ways that they had intended to due to high perceived costs when engaging
in boycott behaviors.
In contrast, given the activeness of the South Korean boycott campaign, which is led by
overall participation and has been ongoing for more than a year, we postulate the positive 5715
relationship between behavioral intention and actual behavior based on general insights of
TPB research (Parkinson et al., 2018; Shin et al., 2020). Specifically, as boycott intentions by
South Koreans increase, the purchase frequency and number of items purchased from
Japanese companies will decrease. This, in turn, will result in a reduced purchase amount.
Therefore, the following hypothesis is proposed:
H5. Boycott intention has a significant and negative impact on actual purchase behavior
of (a) purchase frequency, (b) number of items purchased and (c) purchase amount.
Last, the present study also aims to advance existing knowledge on the relationship in H5
regarding the moderating role of gender. Studies on gender demonstrate that notable changes
or gaps between men and women (e.g. roles in the family or society, social beliefs or values,
culture and financial independence) are changing the effects of gender differences that past
studies on contemporary consumer life revealed (Belch and Wills, 2002; Davis et al., 2017;
Nielsen, 2019; Smith, 2012; Stolle et al., 2005). These changes may also compel firms to
reconsider their marketing decisions based on past assumptions. This implies that our
conventional knowledge of gender differences may not offer a powerful explanation of the
dynamics of consumer boycotts.
Recent research claim that the perceptions, motives, attitudes or intentions of men and
women in consumer life vary, depending on the issues, situations or culture in their purchase
context (Fern
andez-Ferr
ın et al., 2015; Moon, 2021; Qayyum et al., 2013; Sieben, 2016). As
Davis et al. (2017) summarized, gender is also heavily affected by cultural and/or political
differences in both off-line and online consumer studies, which largely correspond to other
studies examining political consumerism (Neilson, 2010; Stolle et al., 2005). In this regard,
some studies drawing on TPB underscore that gender plays an important moderating role in
creating or adjusting to the fundamental changes in both domestic and overseas market
segmentation (Moon, 2021; Shin et al., 2020; Walker et al., 2006).
Fortunately, a few studies investigating boycotts offer useful evidence on how gender
difference influences behavioral intention or actual behavior (Cruz et al., 2017; Delistavrou,
2021; Krishna and Kim, 2019; Lindenmeier et al., 2012; Neilson, 2010; Stolle et al., 2005). For
example, Cruz et al. (2017) found that after receiving negative information about Nike’s
supply chain abuse, Brazilian women felt more guilty than men, leading to stronger boycott
motivations against Nike products. Similarly, while Lindenmeier et al. (2012) demonstrated
women’s stronger inclination to boycott coupled with feelings of outrage, Stolle et al. (2005)
suggested that women show a higher tendency toward political consumerism (i.e. buycott
and boycott). On the contrary, Delistavrou (2021) argued that a positive impact of subjective
norms on boycott intention becomes stronger for men. However, while Neilson (2010)
indicated that gender is a lesser factor in predicting boycotts, Krishna and Kim (2019) found
no gender difference. These studies imply that while some boycotts are thought to be
triggered or made stronger when a specific consumer group (i.e. men vs. women) experiences
outrage, guilt or animosity toward companies or other countries as violating moral or ethical
norms, others are not affected by this factor.
Building on prior studies suggesting complex findings within limited research settings,
this study specifically assumes that in cases where boycott intention is evident, men
IJOEM (compared to women) are more motivated to actively engage in actual boycott participation.
18,12 This, in turn, results in the decrease in actual purchase behavior. For the South Korean
boycott campaign, we anticipated this response by adopting the perspective of gender in
culture-inclusive psychologies, which emphasizes the importance of culture coupled with
historical background for shaping human mental phenomena (Sieben, 2016).
As stated earlier in Section 1, South Koreans responded to Japan’s economic sanctions –
caused by a large gap in the historical perception of Japan’s colonial rule between the two
5716 countries – with a boycott campaign as if they were participating in the independence movement.
In this situation, the stronger the animosity felt by South Koreans toward the Japanese
government, the more strongly they are associated with actual boycott participation. More
crucially, considering that the South Korean armed forces are based on general conscription only
for men, we believe that men are likely to be more susceptible than women to such animosity
toward conflicts on historical and/or political issues underpinned by a military operation or war
(Fern
andez-Ferr
ın et al., 2015). Consequently, this would restrain men from purchasing Japanese
products they frequently used previously. Consequently, the following hypothesis is proposed:
H6. A significant and negative causal relationship between boycott intention and actual
purchase behavior of (a) purchase frequency, (b) number of items purchased and
(c) purchase amount would be stronger for men compared to women.
As Figure 1 shows, the current study builds on TPB and empirically investigates whether
and how consumers’ psychological and motivational factors, including attitudes toward
boycotts, subjective norms on boycotts and perceived behavioral control of boycotts, are
linked to their boycott intention and actual purchase behavior. Following the assumption of
TPB that underscores an only possible direct impact of perceived behavioral control on actual
behavior (Ajzen, 1991; Parkinson et al., 2018; Shin et al., 2020), this study does not hypothesize
direct paths of attitudes toward boycotts and subjective norms on boycotts to actual
purchase behavior. In addition, to adopt a more powerful explanatory approach to gender, we
examine the moderating effect of gender differences in the relationship between boycott
intention and actual purchase behavior.

3. Methodology
3.1 Research context and data collection
The current study’s research context is the South Korean consumers’ boycott campaign
against Japanese products in reaction to Japan’s economic sanctions. To test the hypotheses
using quantitative methods, a questionnaire survey was distributed to 571 consumers
through a research company (i.e. Macromill Embrain) in South Korea. Data were collected in

Gender difference:
(men = 1, women = 0)
Attitudes toward
boycotts H6 (−)
H1 (+)

Actual purchase behavior:

Subjective norms H2 (+) a) Purchase frequency
Boycott intention
on boycotts H5 (−) b) Number of items purchased
c) Purchase amount

Perceived H3 (+)
Figure 1.
Research model behavioral control
of boycotts H4 (−)
August 2020, approximately a year after the boycott campaign started in July 2019. To Do consumer
accurately identify the trends of the boycott campaign, while excluding luxuries and services, boycotts really
this study asked respondents to recall their purchase behaviors of Japanese products they
frequently used in daily life: that is, alcoholic beverages/soft drinks, food, electronic products,
matter?
clothing/shoes, pharmaceuticals, furniture and other miscellaneous goods. These are typical
Japanese items that are widely assimilated into everyday South Korean consumer life. Table 3
presents a brief description of the sample.
5717
3.2 Measurement
The scale items used for each construct are listed in Table 4. Building on the literature
examining boycott campaigns or related consumer behavior, this study adjusted the existing
scales to suit the context of the South Korean boycott campaign. Excluding actual purchase
behavior and gender variables, four constructs are multi-item and reflective, using a five-
point scale ranging from 1 (“strongly disagree”) to 5 (“strongly agree”).
The final scale items used for assessment were as follows. First, by adopting Muhamad
et al.’s (2019) approach, attitudes toward boycotts were measured using four items related to
the mental state representing self-beliefs and feelings about boycotting Japanese products.
Second, referring to Maher and Mady (2010), the subjective norms on boycotts were measured
using four items regarding perceived social opinions and pressures to indulge in boycott
behavior. Third, based on Al-Swidi et al. (2014), perceived behavioral control of boycotts was
measured using four items dictating perceived controllability when engaging in boycott
behaviors. Fourth, by adopting Muhamad et al. (2019), the boycott intention was measured
using four items by capturing the willingness of South Korean consumers to boycott Japanese
products. Fifth, building on Pare and Pourazad (2017), the actual purchase behavior was
measured using three items. This study assessed the percentage changes in three dimensions
of purchase frequency, number of items purchased, purchase amount over one year since the
beginning of the boycott campaign, compared with the average over the year before the

Variables % Variables %

Gender Occupation
Men 49.9 Student 22.8
Women 50.1 Civil servant 2.5
Age (years) Businessman 5.3
Under 19 15.9 White collar 36.3
20–29 17.2 Professional occupation 9.8
30–39 16.6 Educational occupation 3.5
40–49 17.0 Full time housewife 12.8
50–59 16.8 In occupation 4.2
Above 60 16.5 Others 3.0
Residence Annual income (won)b
Metropolitan areaa 59.0 Under 20 million 21.5
Others 41.0 20–40 million 34.2
Education 40–60 million 23.6
Junior high school or below 4.4 60–80 million 13.8
High school 25.7 80–100 million 3.9
College/university 59.4 Above 100 million 3.0
Graduate school or above 10.5
Note(s): aMetropolitan area represents Seoul, Incheon and Gyeonggi-do; bBased on the Statistics Korea, the Table 3.
average annual income in 2019 was approximately 37.4 million won (US$ 32,325 at the time of December The description of
31, 2019) sample profile
IJOEM Constructs and scale items Estimatea Mean SD
18,12
Attitudes toward boycotts (AVE 5 0.89, CR 5 0.96) 3.87 1.03
Boycotting Japanese products is beneficial 0.91
Boycotting Japanese products is good 0.95
Boycotting Japanese products is favorable 0.97
I support to boycott Japanese products 0.94
5718 Subjective norms on boycotts (AVE 5 0.63, CR 5 0.86) 3.32 0.88
People close to me think I should boycott Japanese products 0.84
People who are important to me would not approve of purchase of Japanese 0.74
products
People close to me think I should not buy Japanese products 0.91
People close to me will look down on me if I buy Japanese products 0.65
Perceived behavioral control of boycotts (AVE 5 0.64, CR 5 0.90) 3.94 0.75
Whether to boycott is entirely within my control 0.62
I think there are enough alternatives to replace Japanese products 0.92
I think there is no problem in replacing Japanese products with other things 0.90
I have the resource and the knowledge to buy alternative products 0.74
Boycott intention (AVE 5 0.91, CR 5 0.97) 3.70 1.06
I plan to boycott Japanese products 0.93
I will boycott Japanese products 0.98
I want to boycott Japanese products 0.96
I have the intention to boycott Japanese products 0.95
Actual purchase behavior (AVE 5 n/a, CR 5 n/a)
What is the percentage change in the following items over the past one year
since the boycott compared to the year before the boycott began (in July
2019)?
Purchase frequency _______% change n/a 56.17 40.27
Number of items purchased _______% change n/a 57.74 40.26
Purchase amount _______% change n/a 58.55 41.02
Table 4. Gender (AVE 5 n/a, CR 5 n/a)
Constructs and 1. Men ( ), 2. women ( ) n/a n/a n/a
measurement Note(s): astandardized factor loading; CR 5 composite reliability; AVE 5 average variance extracted;
assessment SD 5 standard deviation; n/a 5 not applicable

boycott campaign started in July 2019. Last, similar to previous studies (Lindenmeier et al.,
2012; Shin et al., 2020), gender was measured as a dummy variable (men 5 1, women 5 0).

3.3 Common method bias

To identify the issue of common method bias, this study performed a marker variable test
suggested by Lindell and Whitney (2001). This study assumed a theoretically noncorrelated
scale item (i.e. I know the brand very well) as a covariate (jrj 5 0.06–0.15). Based on the
results, we found no significant differences between the observed and adjusted correlations,
suggesting that common method bias was not a major problem.

4. Analysis and results

4.1 Construct validity
Following a two-step approach of the measurement and structural model (Byrne, 2010),
structure equation modeling (SEM) was employed using AMOS 27. In the first procedure, we
assessed the measurement model through a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to validate
constructs, which suggested a good fit with our data (χ 2 (97) 5 265.29, p < 0.05, CMIN/
DF 5 2.74, GFI 5 0.94, CFI 5 0.98, IFI 5 0.98, RMSEA 5 0.06). Overall, the results of the CFA
strongly supported construct validity in terms of convergent and discriminant validity in our Do consumer
data (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). boycotts really
Specifically, we examined the average variance extracted (AVE) and composite reliability
(CR) to assess convergent validity. As presented in Table 4, while AVE values ranged from
matter?
0.63 to 0.91, CR values ranged from 0.86 to 0.97. These findings suggest good convergent
validity, implying adequate internal consistency in our data. As for discriminant validity, we
compared the AVE values for each pair of constructs with the shared variance (r2) between
them. As presented in the results of square roots of AVE values in Table 5, no shared variance 5719
(0.24–0.60) greater than the AVE (0.64–0.91) was found, suggesting satisfactory discriminant
validity.

4.2 Results of hypothesis testing

Next, the hypotheses were tested using the structural model, which showed a good fit to the
data (χ 2 (139) 5 318.824, p < 0.05, CMIN/DF 5 2.29, GFI 5 0.94, CFI 5 0.99, IFI 5 0.99,
RMSEA 5 0.05). Before discussing the results of hypothesis testing, this study also checked
whether our research model in Figure 1, built on the insights of TPB (Ajzen, 1991; Parkinson
et al., 2018; Shin et al., 2020), is theoretically relevant. As described in Table 6, we compared
the model fit of our research model (model 1) with the possible alternative model (model 2) that
incorporates direct paths of attitudes toward boycotts and subjective norms on boycotts to
actual purchase behavior (χ 2 (133) 5 313.61, p < 0.05, CMIN/DF 5 2.36, GFI 5 0.95,
CFI 5 0.99, IFI 5 0.99, RMSEA 5 0.05). Based on the findings of a chi-square (χ 2) difference
test, comparison of fitness to data between models 1 and 2 proved the superiority of our
proposed research model (△χ 2 (6) 5 5.21, p > 0.05).
Table 6 provides the results of H1, H2, H3, H4, H5. First, the results regarding these direct
effects were in accordance with our assumptions. Specifically, attitudes toward boycotts (H1;
β 5 0.42, p < 0.001), subjective norms on boycotts (H2; β 5 0.33, p < 0.001) and perceived
behavioral control of boycotts (H3; β 5 0.28, p < 0.001) are positively associated with boycott
intention. Hence, H1, H2 and H3 are supported. Next, the results of H4 demonstrated that
perceived behavioral control of boycotts also has a significant and negative causal
relationship with actual purchase behavior of purchase frequency (H4a; β 5 0.17, p < 0.01),
number of items purchased (H4b; β 5 0.23; p < 0.001) and purchase amount (H4c;
β 5 0.24, p < 0.001). Hence, H4 is supported. Finally, the results of H5 indicated that boycott
intention is negatively associated with actual purchase behavior of purchase frequency (H5a;
β 5 0.38; p < 0.001), number of items purchased (H5b; β 5 0.40; p < 0.001) and purchase
amount (H5c; β 5 0.38; p < 0.001). Hence, H5 is supported. Concerning this study’s findings,
we further checked indirect effects using a bootstrapping method (with a bootstrapped
dataset of 1,000), as suggested by Byrne (2010). As summarized in Table 6, the results
revealed that the three psychological and motivational factors of TPB are indirectly linked to
all three aspects of actual purchase behavior via boycott intention (p < 0.01).

Constructs X1 X2 X3 X4 X5

X1. Attitudes toward boycotts 0.94

X2. Subjective norms on boycotts 0.52* 0.79
X3. Perceived behavioral control of boycotts 0.61* 0.49* 0.80
X4. Boycott intention 0.77* 0.66* 0.70* 0.95 Table 5.
X5. Gender (men 5 1, women 5 0) 0.00 0.05 0.08 0.10* n/a Descriptive statistics
Note(s): The italic numbers in the diagonal row are square roots of AVE values; n/a 5 not applicable; *p < 0.05 and correlation matrix
IJOEM Hypothesised paths Model 1 Model 2
18,12
Direct effects
H1: Attitudes toward boycotts → Boycott intention 0.42*** 0.42***
H2: Subjective norms on boycotts → Boycott intention 0.33*** 0.33***
H3: Perceived behavioral control of boycotts → Boycott intention 0.28*** 0.28***
H4a: Perceived behavioral control of boycotts → Purchase frequency 0.17** 0.16**
5720 H4b: Perceived behavioral control of boycotts → Number of items purchased 0.23*** 0.22***
H4c: Perceived behavioral control of boycotts → Purchase amount 0.24*** 0.23***
H5a: Boycott intention → Purchase frequency 0.38*** 0.37***
H5a: Boycott intention → Number of items purchased 0.40*** 0.29***
H5a: Boycott intention → Purchase amount 0.38*** 0.31***
Attitudes toward boycotts → Purchase frequency 0.07
Attitudes toward boycotts → Number of items purchased 0.06
Attitudes toward boycotts → Purchase amount 0.04
Subjective norms on boycotts → Purchase frequency 0.07
Subjective norms on boycotts → Number of items purchased 0.08
Subjective norms on boycotts → Purchase amount 0.09
Indirect effects
Attitudes toward boycotts → Purchase frequency 0.20** 0.15**
Attitudes toward boycotts → Number of items purchased 0.17** 0.13**
Attitudes toward boycotts → Purchase amount 0.16**
0.12**
Subjective norms on boycotts → Purchase frequency 0.16** 0.12**
Subjective norms on boycotts → Number of items purchased 0.13** 0.10**
Subjective norms on boycotts → Purchase amount 0.13** 0.10**
Perceived behavioral control of boycotts → Purchase frequency 0.13**
0.10**
Perceived behavioral control of boycotts → Number of items purchased 0.11** 0.09**
Perceived behavioral control of boycotts → Purchase amount 0.11** 0.08**
Table 6. Note(s): Mode1 1 5 The current study’s conceptual model. Model 2 5 The alternative model that incorporates
The results of path direct paths of attitudes toward boycotts and subjective norms on boycotts to actual purchase behavior.
analysis Table reports standardized coefficients; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001

To test the moderating effect of gender in H6, this study applied a multi-group analysis
following the procedure adopted in prior studies (Shin et al., 2020; Qayyum et al., 2013). First,
the data for 571 participants were divided into two groups: men (n 5 285) and women
(n 5 286). We then developed two models: unconstrained and constrained. While the
unconstrained model freely estimated the path from boycott intention to the actual purchase
behavior between men and women, the constrained model imposed an equality constraint on
the same path between the two groups. Finally, we conducted a χ 2 difference test to assess the
hypothesis by comparing the two models.
As summarized in Table 7, the results were consistent with our predictions, thereby
supporting H6. Specifically, we found a significant difference between the two models in
terms of purchase frequency (△χ 2 (1) 5 2.88, p < 0.10), number of items purchased (△χ 2
(1) 5 5.21, p < 0.05) and purchase amount (△χ 2 (1) 5 5.60, p < 0.05). All standardized
coefficients estimated by path analysis are stronger for men (β purchase frequency 5  0.53,
p < 0.001; β number of items purchased 5  0.52, p < 0.001; β purchase amount 5  0.51, p < 0.001) than
for women (β purchase frequency 5  0.39, p < 0.001; β number of items purchased 5  0.30, p < 0.001;
β purchase amount 5  0.27, p < 0.001). This study also examined whether additional moderating
effects of gender exist. As shown in Table 7, we found no significant difference in any
possible paths between the three psychological and motivational factors of TPB and boycott
intention, and between perceived behavioral control of boycotts and actual purchase
behavior (p > 0.10). This implies that our proposed research model is superior to other
potential alternative models.
 Estimatea χ 2 difference
Do consumer
Hypothesized path Men Women test b boycotts really
matter?
H6a: Boycott intention → Purchase frequency 0.53
***
0.39
***
df (1) 5 2.88y
H6b: Boycott intention → Number of items purchased 0.52*** 0.30*** df (1) 5 5.21*
H6c: Boycott intention → Purchase amount 0.51*** 0.27*** df (1) 5 5.60*
Attitudes toward boycotts → Boycott intention 0.47*** 0.42*** df (1) 5 0.05
Subjective norms on boycotts → Boycott intention 0.31*** 0.37*** df (1) 5 1.67 5721
Perceived behavioral control of boycotts → Boycott intention 0.23*** 0.27*** df (1) 5 1.80
Perceived behavioral control of boycotts → Purchase frequency 0.16y 0.16** df (1) 5 0.03
Perceived behavioral control of boycotts → Number of items 0.18* 0.24** df (1) 5 0.74
purchased
Perceived behavioral control of boycotts → Purchase amount 0.18* 0.24** df (1) 5 0.74 Table 7.
a b
Note(s): Table reports standardized coefficients; values greater than 3.84 (2.71) are significant at a 5% (10%) The results of
level (△χ 2 (1) 5 3.84, p < 0.05; △χ 2 (1) 5 2.71, p < 0.10); yp < 0.10; *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001 moderating effect

5. Conclusions and implications

5.1 Conclusions
This study proposed and empirically examined a comprehensive model of boycott campaigns
on how psychological and motivational factors and gender difference are linked to actual
purchase behavior. The main findings are as follows. First, attitudes, subjective norms and
perceived behavioral control increase boycott intention. Second, boycott intention, together
with perceived behavioral control, directly inhibits actual purchase behavior. Third, when
boycott intention is strong, men show more active participation in the boycott campaign
than women.

5.2 Theoretical implications

Two key theoretical implications are presented. First, building on TPB, this study advances
boycott literature by empirically testing how consumers’ psychological and motivational
factors are linked to actual boycott participation in an ongoing boycott campaign. While
some studies using the TPB shed light on positive associations of the three psychological and
motivational factors with boycott intention (Delistavrou, 2021; Delistavrou et al., 2020; Farah
and Newman, 2010), Lavorata (2014) suggested a negative linkage between boycott intention
and actual behavior. As Vermeir and Verbeke (2008) also pointed out, our knowledge on
whether and how such consumer motives are associated with actual boycott behavior is
obscure.
Against this background, this study focuses on actual purchase behavior in an ongoing
boycott campaign. We attempted to elaborate on and measure actual purchase behavior by
assessing a percentage basis to consumers’ behavioral changes in the purchase of Japanese
products before and after boycott from three perspectives: purchase frequency, number of
items purchased and purchase amount. To the best of our knowledge, this study is the first to
offer empirical evidence that the three psychological and motivational factors of TPB curb
overall actual purchase behavior through enhanced boycott intention. Also, note that perceived
behavioral control directly promotes actual boycott participation, which is neglected in boycott
literature. Thus, this study is important because it responds to calls for research to develop a
more comprehensive model of consumer boycott campaigns of the overall actual purchase
behavior, especially considering that Hughner et al. (2007) showed that consumer attitudes
(toward organic food) do not necessarily lead to intended or actual behavior.
Second, this study extends the literature by empirically examining the role of gender in
understanding boycott campaigns. While prior studies provide conflicting evidence about
IJOEM how gender differences are linked to consumer boycotts, only a few researchers have taken an
18,12 explanatory approach to gender. Against this background, this study suggests that under
circumstances where the boycott intention is strong, men show a more active participation in
the boycott campaign than women. This study’s finding is different from that of other
previous studies reporting women’s stronger participation in terms of broadly political
consumerism (Cruz et al., 2017; Klein et al., 2004; Lindenmeier et al., 2012; Stolle et al., 2005).
However, we extend the work of Delistavrou (2021). Delistavrou (2021) reported men’s
5722 stronger boycott motivation, while examining the moderating role of gender in the
relationship between the three psychological and motivational factors of TPB and boycott
intention.
In contrast, more crucially, we take a more plausible explanatory approach to understand
gender differences from the viewpoint of culture-inclusive psychologies (Sieben, 2016). This
study’s explanation largely corresponds to the findings of some prior studies (Fern
andez-
Ferr
ın et al., 2015; Park, 2005). Specifically, Fern
andez-Ferr
ın et al. (2015) found that men had
stronger war animosity toward the US than women, and such animosity negatively affected
willingness to buy. In a similar vein, Park (2005) revealed that while historical animosity
toward Japan seems to be stronger for men than for women, men are negatively associated
with intention to purchase Japanese products. Given Gr
egoire and Fisher’s (2008) insights
pointing that men have a greater propensity to retaliate than women, our study stimulates
further investigations that men as customers may be more active to punish the target for
unfavorable behaviors in the context of historical and/or political conflicts, particularly with
regard to a military operation or war.

5.3 Managerial implications

Managers of global companies are often puzzled about unpredicted boycott campaigns in
overseas markets, even though they are not directly associated with the causes or motives of
consumer boycotts. In this regard, the 2019 South Korean boycott campaign is a
representative case that emphasizes managerial challenges of adequate responses to such
potential consumer boycotts. Building on our main findings, this study offers three
managerial implications for global companies (e.g. Japanese companies) to mitigate the
devastating effects of unexpected boycott campaigns.
First, managers should strengthen brand loyalty through effective global brand
management. As verified in the existing research (Dekhil et al., 2017), brand loyalty can
mitigate the negative impact of attitudes and perceived behavioral control on boycott
decisions. Interestingly, it is not true that every Japanese company suffered due to the South
Korean boycott campaign. For example, the sales of Nintendo, Hitachi and Sony Korea, which
have strong brand loyalty, surged 36.6, 27.0 and 19.5%, respectively, in 2020 as compared to
2019 (Kim, 2020). Based on these insights, this study strongly recommends that global
companies can manipulate consumers’ attitudes and perceived controllability toward
boycotts to some degree while strengthening brand loyalty by offering differentiated,
irreplaceable products.
Second, managers should consider building and operating an attractive online channel
presence. As consumer boycotts have social/conspicuous aspects (Hahn and Albert, 2017;
Neilson, 2010; Shin and Yoon, 2018), the decision of consumers to participate in the boycott
campaign is highly affected by social influence or pressure. In South Korea, there are ideas
circulated both online and off-line, such as, We could not participate in the independence
movement, but we can participate in the boycott campaign! In fact, such social pressure greatly
leads consumers to minimize their purchases in physical retail stores due to concerns of a
negative view by others who actively participate in boycotts.
However, people who shop online can considerably mitigate such concerns because online
consumption is rarely observed by others. For example, the Uniqlo (apparel) sales at off-line
stores dropped sharply immediately after the boycott campaign; however, in contrast, sales Do consumer
at online stores greatly increased. This trend continued for over one year after the boycott boycotts really
campaign began. Consequently, this study strongly suggests that the importance of an
attractive online channel becomes even greater, especially in the face of an unexpected
matter?
boycott campaign when managing subjective norms.
Third, by adopting the perspective of culture-inclusive psychologies, managers also
should understand the effect of gender differences. Looking at sales changes for product
categories (Hankook Research, 2020), there seem to be some significant differences between 5723
men and women. Specifically, when comparing the amounts of imports from Japan in the
second half of 2018 with those in the same period in 2019, we see that imports of tobacco and
alcoholic beverages (preferred more by men) greatly decreased by 91 and 79%, respectively.
In contrast, for women, clothing imports increased by 15%, while cosmetics (the primary
consumer item for women) decreased by only 29%. Consequently, this study strongly
recommends that when implementing the above two strategies of brand and online channels,
it would be helpful for managers to understand whether and which product categories are
susceptible to gender differences.

5.4 Limitations and future research

There are three primary limitations of this study that warrant future research. First, this
study investigated representative Japanese products that were assimilated into daily life in
South Korea. To increase the accuracy of our findings, more comprehensive product
categories should be further examined, including luxuries and services that were excluded in
the present study. Second, the reason for the South Korean boycott campaign is the economic
sanctions triggered by a large gap in historical recognition between the two countries. There
could be a boycott campaign, not only against Japanese products on sale in South Korea, but
also against South Korean products on sale in some areas of Japan. If a comparative study can
be conducted on Japanese and South Korean consumption, it is more likely that the results of
this study can be generalized. Third, by paying attention to South Korean conscription rules,
we offered the rationale behind the accepted result in H6. However, the role of gender in
military service in society could be a country-specific issue that would require additional
research to further generalize our results.
This study also identifies other avenues for future research. First, in general, the nature of
consumer boycotts can be expected to vary across participants’ individual characteristics. In
addition to the issue of gender, future research could further examine the role of other
demographic variables (e.g. age, education, income) which may be significant moderators
(Delistavrou, 2021) or the antecedents (Krishna and Kim, 2019) in predicting boycott
campaigns. Accordingly, we anticipate that this study’s findings will stimulate further
empirical investigations in several research settings by extending our knowledge of
demographic variables. Second, future research could extend the TPB, uncovering the impact
of corporate strategies on boycott campaigns. Specifically, as discussed in Section 5.3, future
research could empirically examine whether and how global brand management and online
channel strategy affect three psychological and motivational factors, behavioral intention or
actual behavior toward boycotts. In this regard, it would also be prudent to examine the
impacts of online consumption on consumer boycotts through the lens of subjective norms.

References
Abosag, I. and Farah, M.F. (2014), “The influence of religiously motivated consumer boycotts on
brand image, loyalty and product judgment”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 48 Nos 11/12,
pp. 2262-2283.
IJOEM Ajzen, I. (1991), “The theory of planned behavior”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, Vol. 50 No. 2, pp. 179-211.
18,12
Al-Swidi, A., Huque, S.M.R., Hafeez, M.H. and Shariff, M.N.M. (2014), “The role of subjective norms in
theory of planned behavior in the context of organic food consumption”, British Food Journal,
Vol. 116 No. 10, pp. 1561-1580.
Ali, B.J. (2021), “Impact of consumer animosity, boycott participation, boycott motivation, and product
judgment on purchase readiness or aversion of Kurdish consumers in Iraq”, Journal of
5724 Consumer Affairs, Vol. 55 No. 2, pp. 504-523.
Bakir, V., Herring, E., Miller, D. and Robinson, P. (2019), “Organized persuasive communication: a new
conceptual framework for research on public relations, propaganda and promotional culture”,
Critical Sociology, Vol. 45 No. 3, pp. 311-328.
Belch, M.A. and Wills, L.A. (2002), “Family decision at the turn of the century: has the changing
structure of households impacted the family decision-making process?”, Journal of Consumer
Behaviour, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 111-124.
Byrne, B.M. (2010), Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS: Basic Concepts, Applications, and.
Programming, 2nd ed., Routledge, New York, NY.
Chang, T.-K. and Lin, F. (2014), “From propaganda to public diplomacy: assessing China’s
international practice and its image, 1950-2009”, Public Relations Review, Vol. 40 No. 3,
pp. 450-458.

Palacios-Florencio, B. and Ben
ıtez, D.G. (2019), “How to face
Coss
ıo-Silva, F.-J., Revilla-Camacho, M.-A.,
a political boycott: the relevance of entrepreneurs’ awareness”, International Entrepreneurship
and Management Journal, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 321-339.
Cruz, B.P.A., Pires, R.J.M. Jr and Ross, S.D. (2017), “Gender difference in the perception of guilt in
consumer boycott in Brazil”, in Alvinius, A. (Ed.), Gender Differences in Different Contexts,
IntechOpen, available at: https://www.intechopen.com/chapters/52314 (accessed 03
November 2021).
Davis, R., Smith, S.D. and Lang, B.U. (2017), “A comparison of online and offline gender and goal
directed shopping online”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 38, pp. 118-125.
Dekhil, F., Jridi, H. and Farhat, H. (2017), “Effect of religiosity on the decision to participate in a
boycott: the moderating effect of brand loyalty – the case of Coca-Cola”, Journal of Islamic
Marketing, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 309-328.
Delistavrou, A. (2021), “Theory of planned behaviour and boycotting: the moderating role of socio-
political control and demographics”, EuroMed Journal of Business. doi: 10.1108/EMJB-02-
2021-0020.
Delistavrou, A., Krystallis, A. and Tilikidou, I. (2020), “Consumers’ decision to boycott ‘unethical’
products: the role of materialism/post materialism”, International Journal of Retail and
Distribution Management, Vol. 48 No. 10, pp. 1121-1138.
Ettenson, R. and Klein, J.G. (2005), “The fallout from French nuclear testing in the south pacific: a
longitudinal study of consumer boycotts”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 22 No. 2,
pp. 199-224.
Farah, M.F. and Newman, A.J. (2010), “Exploring consumer boycott intelligence using a socio-
cognitive approach”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 63 No. 4, pp. 347-355.
Fernandes, D. (2020), “Politics at the mall: the moral foundations to boycotts”, Journal of Public Policy
and Marketing, Vol. 39 No. 4, pp. 494-513.
Fern
andez-Ferr
ın, P., Bande-Vilela, B., Klein, J.G. and del R
ıo-Ara

ujo, M.L. (2015), “Consumer
ethnocentrism and consumer animosity: antecedents and consequences”, International Journal
of Emerging Markets, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 73-88.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Structural equation models with unobservable variables and
measurement error: algebra and statistics”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 3,
pp. 382-388.
George, J.F. (2004), “The theory of planned behavior and internet purchasing”, Internet Research, Do consumer
Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 198-212.
boycotts really
Gr
egoire, Y. and Fisher, R.J. (2008), “Customer betrayal and retaliation: when your best customers become
your worst enemies”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 247-261.
matter?
Hahn, T. and Albert, N. (2017), “Strong reciprocity in consumer boycotts”, Journal of Business Ethics,
Vol. 145 No. 3, pp. 509-524.
Hankook Research (2020), “One year of the boycott against Japanese products: what is the current 5725
situation and the future direction?”, available at: https://hrcopinion.co.kr/archives/16215
(accessed 6 February 2021).
Hawkins, M.A. (2019), “The effect of activity identity fusion on negative consumer behavior”,
Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 395-409.
uller, S. (2008), “Consumer boycotts due to factory relocation”, Journal of Business
Hoffmann, S. and M€
Research, Vol. 62 No. 2, pp. 239-247.
Hughner, R.S., McDonagh, P., Prothero, A., Shultz II, C.J. and Stanton, J. (2007), “Who are organic food
consumers? A compilation and review of why people purchase organic food”, Journal of
Consumer Behaviour, Vol. 6 Nos 2/3, pp. 94-110.
Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J.L. and Thaler, R.H. (1986), “Fairness and the assumptions of economics”,
Journal of Business, Vol. 59 No. 4, pp. S285-S300.
Kim, E. (2020), “Japan boycott for one year, Uniqlo crying, Nintendo laughing”, available at: http://biz.khan.
co.kr/khan_art_view.html?artid5202007051629011&code5920100 (accessed 20 December 2020).
Klein, J.G., Smith, N.C. and John, A. (2004), “Why we boycott: consumer motivations for boycott
participation”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 68 No. 3, pp. 92-109.
Krishna, A. and Kim, S. (2019), “Treating Ivanka unfairly: understanding the impact of presidential
tweeting on publics’ perceptions and intentions to boycott or boycott corporations”, Corporate
Communications: An International Journal, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 636-652.
Lavorata, L. (2014), “Influence of retailers’ commitment to sustainable development on store image,
consumer loyalty and consumer boycotts: proposal for a model using the theory of planned
behavior”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 21 No. 6, pp. 1021-1027.
Lee, R., Lee, K.T. and Li, J. (2017), “A memory theory perspective of consumer ethnocentrism and
animosity”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 51 Nos 7/8, pp. 1266-1285.
Lindell, M.K. and Whitney, D.J. (2001), “Accounting for common method variance in cross-sectional
research designs”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86 No. 1, pp. 114-121.
Lindenmeier, J., Schleer, C. and Pricl, D. (2012), “Consumer outrage: emotional reactions to unethical
corporate behavior”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 65 No. 9, pp. 1364-1373.
Maher, A.A. and Mady, S. (2010), “Animosity, subjective norms, and anticipated emotions during an
international crisis”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 27 No. 6, pp. 630-651.
Moon, S.-J. (2021), “Investigating beliefs, attitudes, and intentions regarding green restaurant
patronage: an application of the extended theory of planned behavior with moderating effects
of gender and age”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 92, 102727.
Muhamad, N., Khamarudin, M. and Fauzi, W.I.M. (2019), “The role of religious motivation in an
international consumer boycott”, British Food Journal, Vol. 121 No. 1, pp. 199-217.
Neilson, L.A. (2010), “Boycott or buycott? Understanding political consumerism”, Journal of Consumer
Behaviour, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 214-227.
Nielsen (2019), “Women: primed and ready for progress”, available at: https://www.nielsen.com/us/en/
insights/article/2019/women-primed-and-ready-for-progress/ (accessed 6 February 2021).
Pare, V. and Pourazad, N. (2017), “The Big Bazaar: an examination of Indian shopping mall behaviour and
demographic differences”, Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, Vol. 29 No. 5,
pp. 1160-1177.
IJOEM Park, S. (2005), “The impact of media use and cultural exposure on the mutual perception of Koreans
and Japanese”, Asian Journal of Communication, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 173-187.
18,12
Parkinson, J., Russell-Bennett, R. and Previte, J. (2018), “Challenging the planned behavior approach in
social marketing: emotion and experience matter”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 52 Nos
3/4, pp. 837-865.
Qayyum, A., Khang, D.B. and Krairit, D. (2013), “An analysis of the antecedents of loyalty and the
moderating role of customer demographics in an emerging mobile phone industry”,
5726 International Journal of Emerging Markets, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 373-391.
Raut, R.K. (2020), “Past behaviour, financial literacy and investment decision-making process of
individual investors”, International Journal of Emerging Markets, Vol. 15 No. 6, pp. 1243-1263.
Shin, S. and Yoon, S.-W. (2018), “Consumer motivation for the decision to boycott: the social dilemma”,
International Journal of Consumer Studies, Vol. 42 No. 4, pp. 439-447.
Shin, Y.H., Jung, S.E., Im, J. and Severt, K. (2020), “Applying an extended theory of planned behavior
to examine state-branded food product purchase behavior: the moderating effect of gender”,
Journal of Foodservice Business Research, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 358-375.
Sieben, A. (2016), “Gender in culture-inclusive psychologies: a situated and selective mapping of
historical and contemporary territories”, Culture and Psychology, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 546-564.
Smith, S. (2012), “What men really want”, available at: http://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/
177735/what-men-really-want.html (accessed 6 February 2021).
Song, E. (2020), “South Korean consumers’ attitudes toward small business owners participating in
the 2019 anti-Japan boycott”, Social Science, Vol. 9 No. 5, p. 74.
Stolle, D., Hooghe, M. and Micheletti, M. (2005), “Politics in the supermarket: political consumerism as a
form of political participation”, International Political Science Review, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 245-269.
Sunstein, C.R., Jolls, C. and Thaler, R.H. (1998), “A behavioral approach to law and economics”,
Stanford Law Review, Vol. 50 No. 5, pp. 1471-1550.
Vermeir, I. and Verbeke, W. (2008), “Sustainable food consumption among young adults in Belgium:
theory of planned behavior and the role of confidence and values”, Ecological Economics, Vol. 64
No. 3, pp. 542-553.
Walker, G.J., Courneya, K.S. and Deng, J. (2006), “Ethnicity, gender, and the theory of planned
behavior: the case of playing the lottery”, Journal of Leisure Research, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 224-248.

About the authors

Changju Kim (Ph.D., Osaka City University) is a professor of marketing at the College of Business
Administration, Ritsumeikan University, Japan. His research focuses on retailing, sales management
and international marketing. He has published articles in academic journals, including Asia Pacific
Journal of Marketing and Logistics, European Journal of Marketing, International Journal of Retail and
Distribution Management, Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing and Psychology and Marketing.
Changju Kim is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: [email protected]
Xiuyan Yan (Ritsumeikan University) is a Ph.D. candidate at the Postgraduate School of Business
Administration, Ritsumeikan University, Japan. Her research focuses on international marketing,
consumer behavior and brand management.
Soohyun Park (Ph.D., Osaka City University) is a professor of marketing at the Faculty of
Management, Otemon Gakuin University, Japan. Her research focuses on marketing, Internet
marketing, relationship marketing, social network community and coordinated product development
projects for local SMEs.

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: [email protected]