Consumers’ CSR boycott: the mediating role of psychological contract violation

Consumers may boycott firms’ corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities, but little is known about when, why and how they would respond in this way. Based on psychological contract violation and discount principles, the purpose of this paper is to argue that timing and fit of CSR activities are the main dimensions of consumers’ psychological contract. It is posited that CSR activities would be boycotted if consumers perceived violation of their psychological contract, and their altruistic tendency would have a moderating effect on this mechanism.

This paper takes the form of an empirical study using a sample of 434 respondents through scene-questionnaire survey in central China.

It is found that (1) low fit or reactive CSR activities would induce consumers’ psychological contract violation, and the latter has a more significant influence; (2) perceived CSR is negatively related with consumers’ boycott behaviors, but CSR activities would be boycotted if consumers’ psychological contracts are violated; (3) the negative relationship between perceived CSR and consumers’ boycott behaviors would be strengthened by consumers’ altruistic tendency, and the positive relationship between consumers’ psychological contract violation and their boycott behaviors would also be strengthened by their altruistic tendency.

This paper has significant theoretical implications, as it answers the question that when, why and how CSR activities would be boycotted. Besides, it contributes to literature on psychological contract for applying it to CSR research field. Furthermore, the double-edged effect of consumers’ altruistic tendency extends literature on pro-social behaviors.

This paper is of interests to corporate management and academics who wish to understand when and why consumers would boycott CSR activities and the factors that would relax consumers’ negative responses.

This is the first paper that investigates when, why and how CSR activities would be boycotted from the perspective of consumers’ psychological contract violation.