Prior research indicates that a brand’s product-harm crisis can lower consumer evaluations of competing brands within the same industry, which are known as negative spillover effects. Competing brands should proactively respond to the crisis to dissociate from the crisis-stricken brand. In the current research, two experiments were conducted to examine the relative efficacy of crisis response strategies (bolstering vs. differentiation vs. no response) in mitigating negative spillover effects on competing brands with different market positions (market leader vs. market challenger). The context of these experiments is a product-harm crisis in which a brand’s product is recalled due to food-borne illness. The moderated mediation analyses reveal that the bolstering strategy leads to similar positive indirect effects on brand attitude and purchase intention through message evaluations regardless of whether market leaders or challengers employ the strategy. In contrast, the differentiation strategy yields a more positive indirect effect on brand attitudes and purchase intentions through message evaluations when a market challenger employs the strategy rather than a leader.

中文翻译：

---

减轻产品损害危机中的负面溢出效应：市场领导者与市场挑战者的策略

先前的研究表明，品牌的产品损害危机会降低消费者对同一行业内竞争品牌的评价，这被称为负面溢出效应。竞争品牌应主动应对危机，与危机重重的品牌脱钩。在当前的研究中，进行了两项实验来检验危机应对策略（支持与差异化与无响应）在减轻对具有不同市场地位的竞争品牌（市场领导者与市场挑战者）的负面溢出效应方面的相对效力。这些实验的背景是产品危害危机，其中品牌的产品因食源性疾病而被召回。调节中介分析表明，无论市场领导者还是挑战者采用该策略，支持策略都会通过信息评估对品牌态度和购买意愿产生类似的积极间接影响。相比之下，当市场挑战者而不是领导者采用差异化战略时，差异化战略通过信息评估对品牌态度和购买意向产生更积极的间接影响。