Abstract
In recent years, more and more consumers have defended brands online against criticism. Despite the high relevance of consumer brand defense (CBD) when recovering from adverse critique such as negative word of mouth online, the understanding of the motives that drive CBD beyond emotionally intense consumer–brand connections remains limited. Building on a social media analysis of the phenomenon, qualitative in-depth interviews with consumers who defend brands, and a survey of brand defenders, the authors provide a better understanding of the motivational and relational drivers as well as the contextual factors of CBD. Specifically, the results show that brand defenders are driven by the motives of reciprocal altruism, equity restoration, and egoism as well as relational factors including brand satisfaction and attachment. Using a large-scale study with 570 actual brand defenders along with subsequent cluster analysis, the authors distinguish three distinct brand defender types: brand promoters, justice promoters, and self-promoters. These defender types differ not only in their behavior but also in terms of contextual factors related to consumer characteristics, brand-related criticism, and company-related dynamics that influence their active engagement in CBD. Applying the distinct characteristics of the three defender types, the authors discuss how managers can more effectively motivate consumers to defend their brand online.
Keywords
Some years ago, Nike was heavily criticized after a Duke University star player, Zion Williamson, injured his knee when his Nike shoe broke apart during a college basketball game. While various media reported negatively on the quality of Nike shoes and some consumers made fun of the incident (Boren and Bogage 2019), other consumers countered the criticism and publicly defended Nike on online platforms. For example, one consumer pointed out that even the smallest of production errors could cause a shoe to break, given Williamson’s body weight and the jerky movements so common in basketball (e.g., YouTube user Zachary Keller commenting on CNBC Television [2019]). Others defended Nike based on their own personal positive experience with the brand (e.g., Reddit user yumyumnom commenting on mpnitsua22 [2019]).
In our increasingly polarized world with ever-present social media firestorms and their potentially severe consequences for brands (e.g., Hansen, Kupfer, and Hennig-Thurau 2018), the incident with Nike illustrates the important phenomenon of consumer brand defense (CBD). Thereby, consumers deliberately act as a buffer against criticism by sharing brand-related information and experiences online in support of a criticized brand (Colliander and Hauge Wien 2013; Hassan and Casaló Ariño 2016). A pilot study in which we conducted interviews with marketing experts revealed that they are increasingly aware of the phenomenon of consumers defending their brand and perceive it as a valuable resource for online reputation management, as this quote from the head of community management for a transportation company illustrates: “Since we are more present on social media, especially on Facebook, we can observe users who defend us and who step into the breach for us—not just employees, as you would expect, but real fans. That's invaluable support for our brand” (see Web Appendix A for details of the pilot study).
Research has shown that when consumers defend a brand in response to online criticism, it promotes positive perceptions and conversations about the brand (Dhaoui and Webster 2021; Weitzl and Hutzinger 2017). Consumer messages are often viewed as more credible than company responses (Kozinets et al. 2010). Encouraging consumer defense can therefore be an effective tool for marketing managers to protect a brand's reputation (e.g., Hong and Cameron 2018; Scholz and Smith 2019). To leverage this strategy, it is crucial for managers to understand the motivations behind consumers’ decisions to support their brand online.
Scholars have highlighted strong emotional connections, including brand passion (Alnawas, Ghantous, and Hemsley-Brown 2023) and brand love (Dalman, Buche, and Min 2017), as key drivers of CBD. However, it remains unclear whether less intense and less emotionally charged brand relationships can also motivate CBD. While studies have discussed motives like perceived justice and self-enhancement (Colliander and Hauge Wien 2013; Roy et al. 2023) a notable research gap remains in systematically and empirically examining these factors in online CBD and exploring the existence of other potential motives. Furthermore, while CBD has been linked to contexts such as utilitarian brands (Hassan and Casaló Ariño 2016) and corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives (Aljarah et al. 2023), no systematic approach has yet been taken to comprehensively examine the contextual factors that may contribute to the existence of CBD. This highlights the need for further research, echoing Wilk, Soutar, and Harrigan’s (2019) call for expanded exploration into the drivers of consumer advocacy and, more specifically, CBD in online environments. Finally, despite the long tradition of studying consumer behavior and clustering based on motivations (e.g., Novak and MacEvoy 1990), there is still no typology focused on consumers who defend brands online. Developing such a typology would help managers better understand and identify the distinct motivations and behaviors of various consumer segments actively defending their brand online.
Against this background, our study aims to answer the following questions: (1) What drives consumers to defend brands online in terms of their existing brand relationship, their motives, and relevant contextual factors? (2) To what extent can consumer brand defenders be segmented into different types? In addressing these research questions, we delve into the prevalence and drivers of online CBD, presenting findings from a social media analysis (Study 1) and qualitative interviews with consumer brand defenders (Study 2). We discuss these insights in light of theoretical considerations from related research on positive electronic word of mouth (eWOM), brand advocacy, and literature on prosocial behavior. Finally, we validate our identified drivers of online CBD through a large-scale survey among brand defenders and group them into homogeneous segments based on their motivational and relational drivers to defend a brand under attack (Study 3).
This article advances academic literature by identifying CBD's motivational and relational drivers beyond just strong emotional connections. Combining qualitative and quantitative studies, we identify three primary motive categories—reciprocal altruism, egoism, and equity restoration—thereby validating and extending the conceptual ideas proposed in previous research on CBD. We reveal that both consumers with strong brand attachment and less emotionally connected ones participate in online CBD. Extending prior research, we find that high levels of brand satisfaction alone can prompt CBD, highlighting the potential of satisfied consumers in supporting brand defense. This comprehensive understanding of CBD's drivers extends the current literature's focus on emotional brand relationships and conceptual discussions of isolated motives (Colliander and Hauge Wien 2013; Dalman, Buche, and Min 2017; Roy et al. 2023). Our typology of brand defenders enhances the understanding of consumers engaged in online CBD. The three identified types—brand promoters, justice promoters, and self-promoters—exhibit distinct behaviors and defense styles shaped by their motives and brand relationships. This offers a more complete perspective on CBD. Moreover, our analysis of contextual factors—including consumer-related insights, company-related considerations, and aspects of the brand-related criticism—reveals differential influences on the motivation of defender types, contributing to prior research on CBD, which has looked at specific CBD contexts in isolation (e.g., Aljarah et al. 2023; Hassan and Casaló Ariño 2016). Such an improved understanding of the drivers and contextual factors of CBD is crucial for managers when developing strategies to leverage consumer brand defenders’ potential in mitigating the impact of brand criticism.
Definition of CBD
Hassan and Casaló Ariño (2016, p. 965) are among the first scholars to offer an explicit definition of CBD, which they refer to as “sharing of information and real-life experiences with the intention to protect a brand's image and integrity against negative remarks which may adversely affect the brand.” The notion of consumers who protect a brand through their behavior is in line with the concept of prosocial behavior from social psychology, commonly referred to as the actions of one person to promote the welfare of another or to prevent declines in that person's welfare (Clark et al. 2015). In CBD, the consumer can be considered the benefactor and the brand a recipient of the prosocial act (Dovidio et al. 2006). This conceptualization aligns with the emerging literature on prosocial consumer behavior, which categorizes brand advocacy as part of prosocial consumer behavior (Sweeney et al. 2020; White, Habib, and Dahl 2020), thereby acknowledging the positive impact of consumer actions aimed at promoting brands and preventing harm to their reputation. In essence, CBD represents a manifestation of prosocial behavior within the domain of consumer–brand interactions, where consumers engage in actions to support and protect brands from negative critique. Drawing from this conceptualization and previous descriptions, we define brand defenders as consumers who respond to criticism of a brand with replies that are supportive of the criticized brand.
Several important aspects of this definition merit highlighting. First, CBD inherently entails a reaction to perceived criticism of a brand, which may come from consumers, competitors, media, or other organizations (e.g., nongovernmental organizations). For CBD to occur, this criticism must be publicly shared with an audience, underscoring the crucial role of online platforms such as social media. Second, brand defenders’ replies must explicitly or implicitly refer to the criticism and the criticized brand and bear the potential to depreciate the criticism. These replies can take many forms—comments, memes, audio, or videos—and vary in content and style (Colliander and Hauge Wien 2013). Examples include defending the brand by comparing competitors’ actions or attributing blame to third parties or uncontrollable events (Hassan and Casaló Ariño 2016). Third, brand defenders’ replies are supportive of the criticized brand, potentially mitigating the negative effects of the criticism and reputational damage among observers such as consumers, investors, or (potential) employees (Weitzl and Hutzinger 2017).
In essence, CBD serves as mechanism through which consumers contribute to the protection of a brand's image and reputation in the face of criticism, highlighting its role as a form of prosocial behavior in the context of consumer–brand interactions. While Hassan and Casaló Ariño's (2016) definition of CBD emphasizes the intentional defense of brands by consumers, the concept of prosocial behavior extends beyond conscious intent of benefiting the recipient (Schroeder and Graziano 2015), including both deliberate, reflective actions and intuitive, emotional responses (Grehl and Tutić 2022; Rand et al. 2014; Zaki and Mitchell 2013). Thus, consumers may engage in brand defense even without clear intention to support the brand. Accordingly, consumers can defend a brand either through a thoughtful consideration of facts and structured arguments (i.e., reflective narrative style) or through instinctive reactions rooted in their emotions and experiences with the brand (i.e., intuitive narrative style).
Finally, while our definition of CBD encompasses various behaviors that may also manifest in offline contexts such as in-person interactions, we focus on online CBD for several reasons. First, online platforms enhance global brand visibility and leverage the viral potential of online content, thereby amplifying the reach and impact of CBD. Second, they enable swift reputation management by facilitating immediate responses to criticism and fostering real-time dialogue among consumers and brands, strengthening engagement (Eigenraam et al. 2018). Thus, focusing on online CBD offers unique advantages for brands to effectively manage their reputation and engage with consumers in the digital age (see also Hollebeek and Macky 2019).
Related but Distinct Concepts of CBD
CBD has garnered increasing attention in branding literature as a distinctive form of positive engagement with brands, particularly in the digital era. Branding scholars have discussed CBD as an extreme form of positive eWOM (Dalman, Buche, and Min 2017; Javed, Roy, and Mansoor 2015), whereby positive eWOM is referred to as positive and consumption-related communication by consumers that is directed to other consumers or institutions via digital tools (Babić Rosario, De Valck, and Sotgiu 2020; Hennig-Thurau et al. 2004). Whereas this description generally also applies to CBD, brand defenders act within a specific context, where they respond positively, either implicitly or explicitly, to criticism against a brand. Positive eWOM, in contrast, encompasses a wider range of contexts beyond CBD, including praise, suggestions, and recommendations (Brown et al. 2005).
While CBD shares similarities with other brand-related concepts such as brand advocacy, brand evangelism, and brand ambassadorship, it also possesses distinct characteristics that set it apart. Brand advocacy embraces a broader scope, covering positive communication about a brand regardless of criticism, whereas CBD specifically responds to brand criticism (e.g., Sweeney et al. 2020; Wilk, Soutar, and Harrigan 2019). Similarly, while both CBD and brand ambassadorship involve positive engagement with a brand, they originate from different sources and serve different purposes. Brand ambassadors, strategically appointed by companies, promote and advocate for brands, aiming to influence consumer behavior and foster brand loyalty (Ambroise et al. 2014; McCracken 1989). In contrast, CBD emerges organically from consumer reactions to brand criticism, reflecting a form of prosocial behavior aimed at protecting a brand's image. Finally, while both CBD and brand evangelism involve positive brand communication, evangelists focus on actively recruiting consumers to experience the brand and encouraging them to switch from competitor brands (Becerra and Badrinarayanan 2013). In contrast, CBD centers on defending a brand from negative remarks. These distinctions underscore the importance of understanding the specific drivers behind CBD, which we explore in this article by drawing on prior research in CBD and related marketing literature, as well as theories of prosocial behavior.
Previous Research on CBD
Previous research on CBD has primarily focused on its manifestations (Colliander and Hauge Wien 2013), its consequences (e.g., Esmark Jones et al. 2018), and the relationship between defenders and brands (e.g., Ilhan, Kübler, and Pauwels 2018), while research on the motives behind CBD remains scarce. Early netnographic studies of its manifestation identified various defense styles such as advocating (“arguing in favor of a company using reason”), justifying (“emphasizing the reciprocity of a customer-company relationship”), trivializing (“playing down the issue”), stalling (“urging the complainer to obtain additional information before passing judgment”), vouching (making “favorable statements based on direct self-experience”), and doubting (“challenging the credibility of the complainer”; Colliander and Hauge Wien 2013, pp. 1739, 1741–44). Other netnographic studies have found similar defense behaviors across various community contexts, such as justifying brand actions by sharing personal experiences in Facebook communities (Hassan and Casaló Ariño 2016) or, for example, mitigating criticism of a sports team by attacking the accuser, a behavior often observed in the context of rivalries between sports teams (Brown and Billings 2013). More recent research has added styles such as “provoking,” where defenders use aggressive or emotional messages that may escalate the conflict, and “pacifying,” where defenders acknowledge the complaint but offer suggestions for improvement or moderate the discussion (Au, Ho, and Law 2021). Related to these various manifestations of CBD, researchers have examined its specific contextual factors, finding CBD comments more common in the case of utilitarian (vs. hedonic) brands (Hassan and Casaló Ariño 2016), brands that engage in CSR initiatives (Aljarah et al. 2023), brands with active rival communities (e.g., Samsung vs. Apple; Ilhan, Kübler, and Pauwels 2018), and communities where consumers have high domain knowledge (Au, Ho, and Law 2021).
Later studies have elucidated the positive consequences of CBD on observers and documented that CBD can increase consumers’ satisfaction and attitude toward the company (Esmark Jones et al. 2018), reduce intentions for negative eWOM (Weitzl and Hutzinger 2017), and improve corporate reputation (Hong and Cameron 2018). Accordingly, there have been first attempts to examine strategies to activate consumer brand defenders (e.g., Scholz and Smith 2019), such as positively affirming defenders via “thank you” comments (Dineva, Breitsohl, and Garrod 2017).
Regarding drivers of CBD, prior research has mainly focused on consumers’ relationship with the defended brand. Scholars have examined strong emotional and self-relevant brand relationship constructs, such as those evident in rivalries between sports teams, identified through self-declarations in Twitter (now X) biographies or profile pictures (Brown and Billings 2013); in brand communities on Facebook, where members defend their brand and attack rival brands (Ilhan, Kübler, and Pauwels 2018); and in consumers’ brand passion (Alnawas, Ghantous, and Hemsley-Brown 2023) and brand love (e.g., Dalman, Buche, and Min 2017) as predictors of CBD. Ali et al. (2021) contribute to this discussion by highlighting the role of brand anthropomorphism, whereby humanlike brand characteristics can intensify brand love and, consequently, CBD. Also, highly self-relevant relationships such as brand attachment (Park et al. 2010) and self–brand connection (Cheng, White, and Chaplin 2012; Wilson, Giebelhausen, and Brady 2017) have been shown to trigger defensive consumer reactions, as protecting the brand becomes linked to protecting their identity. Thus, emotional and self-relevant bonds seem to motivate individuals to protect their brand (or themselves) from harm. Little is known, however, about the role of less emotionally charged brand relationships, which raises the question of whether less intense relations also play a role in CBD. Interestingly, initial evidence suggests that brand trust may also drive CBD (Roy et al. 2023).
Finally, research on CBD's motivational drivers remains scarce. Initial studies have conceptually derived that brand defenders may be motivated by their sense of justice, need for self-enhancement, or desire to raise social capital (Colliander and Hauge Wien 2013; Roy et al. 2023). However, the motivational drivers of CBD have not been empirically studied, and it remains unclear how these drivers are connected to consumers’ brand relationships. Related literature on prosocial behavior, for example, suggests that individuals’ motivation to help others is more pronounced in close relationships (Maner and Gailliot 2007).
Recognizing gaps in the literature and the need for interdisciplinary approaches, as highlighted by Roy et al. (2023), our study systematically examines the relational and motivational drivers of online CBD. By applying prosocial behavior theories and integrating both qualitative and quantitative insights, we provide a deeper understanding of this emerging phenomenon.
Conceptual Framework and Overview of Empirical Studies
Figure 1 presents our conceptual framework for understanding the drivers and behaviors of CBD. We propose that CBD is shaped by preexisting brand relationships, such as satisfaction or attachment, and specific motives like altruism or egoism. These drivers lead to the emergence of distinct defender types—brand promoters, justice promoters, and self-promoters—who engage in CBD through different narrative styles, such as intuitive and reflective. The framework also includes contextual factors, such as consumer knowledge, the nature of criticism, and the brand's response. This model is examined across multiple studies to explore the dynamics of CBD.
Conceptual Framework and Overview of Empirical Studies.
In a first step, we conducted a thorough content analysis of brand pages on Facebook to examine the prevalence of CBD and the nature of such comments in terms of reflective versus intuitive narrative styles (Study 1). To delve deeper into the underlying drivers, motives, and contextual factors behind consumers’ defense behavior, we then conducted in-depth interviews with ten actual consumer brand defenders (Study 2). In a final step, we conducted a large-scale survey of 570 brand defenders (Study 3) to validate our identified drivers of CBD and group them into homogeneous segments based on motivational and relational drivers.
Study 1: An Observational Study of CBD's Prevalence in the Field
Method
This study assessed the frequency and nature of CBD comments through a three-month social media content analysis (e.g., Lai and To 2015) of eight U.S.-based Facebook brand pages. Brands were selected to ensure diversity in hedonic versus utilitarian offerings and between manufacturer brands and service providers (see Table 1). We examined all posts and responses for instances of brand criticism and defense, categorizing CBD comments into intuitive, reflective, or mixed types based on their narrative qualities, using a well-described encoding key based on existing conceptualizations (Rand et al. 2014; Zaki and Mitchell 2013). Intuitive CBD comments involved emotions, heuristics, and personal experiences (e.g., insulting language, use of emojis, some typos, less clear structure), whereas reflective CBD comments contained logic and evidence-based content (e.g., rational argumentation, thoughtful structure, and references). Mixed comments exhibited both narrative styles. Two trained graduate students coded the comments using Atlas.ti software, achieving an intercoder reliability of 80.2%, with discrepancies resolved through author review (Lombard, Snyder-Duch, and Bracken 2002).
Prevalence of CBD Comments.
Notes: The Tesla Facebook page was run by a user and was not an official page operated by Tesla. Criticism is listed only if at least one CBD comment responded to it. For AT&T, the number of analyzed criticisms exceeded the number of defense comments because some defense comments referred to more than one criticism.
Results and Discussion
We reviewed a total of 36,860 comments for the eight brands, of which 3.2% (1,173 comments) were identified as brand criticism and 4.7% (1,714 comments) as CBD (see Table 1). At the extremes, the brands’ share of CBD differed tenfold (min = 1.0%, max = 10.3%). With 969 comments (56.5%), the intuitive defense form was most prevalent for all the observed brands except for Tesla, followed by the mixed form with 409 comments (23.9%), and the reflective defense form was least common with 336 comments (19.6%; see Table 2).
Prevalence of Intuitive Versus Reflective CBD Comments.
The findings reveal significant potential for CBD in company reputation management, with nearly one in every 20 comments defending brands against criticism. Understanding this statistic's relevance is crucial, considering that consumers use Facebook brand pages for many reasons such as recommending products, sharing experiences, providing feedback, and discussing product-related topics (Dhaoui and Webster 2021). As social media comments grow more negative (Whatman 2018), defense comments not only counteract negative sentiments but also play a critical role in protecting brand perception during crisis (Weitzl and Hutzinger 2017).
While prior studies emphasized CBD's reflective nature, our content analysis revealed a surprising predominance of intuitive CBD comments, suggesting that solely focusing on reflective CBD underestimates the potential of defense comments in mitigating online brand criticism. Our study also identified diverse narrative defense styles across brands: Tesla attracted more reflective defenses, while Samsung elicited more intuitive defenses. This underscores the influence of various factors on defenders’ choice of narrative styles, highlighting the need for further exploration of motivational and relational drivers and contextual factors in CBD.
Study 2: Insights from Actual Consumer Brand Defenders on the Motives and Relationship Constructs That Drive CBD
In this study, we conducted qualitative in-depth interviews with consumers who defended brands online to understand the motivational and relational drivers of their behavior. Recognizing the impact of situational factors on prosocial behavior (e.g., Schroeder and Graziano 2015), we also aimed to explore the contextual factors shaping consumers’ defense behaviors.
Method
We identified interview candidates by searching social networking sites for CBD comments based on our definition of CBD and directly contacted candidates with interview requests. Interviews continued until theoretical saturation was reached (Saunders et al. 2018), resulting in ten interviews (80% male, 20% female; Mage = 32 years; European citizens). Participants received a voucher from an online retailer (approx. CHF 25) as an incentive. The sample was diverse in terms of education level, platforms, defended brands, industries, narrative defense style, and criticism. Table W2 in Web Appendix B provides an overview of the interviewed brand defenders.
Each interview, lasting from 32 to 78 minutes with an average of 53 minutes (totaling 8.9 hours), followed a semistandardized structure comprising three main sections (see Kähr et al. [2016] and Willis [2004] for similar approaches). The first section prompted participants to recount the initial brand criticism and their defense actions, delving into emotional responses to the criticism and the underlying thought processes to uncover their motivations driving their defense behavior. The second section allowed defenders to elaborate on their brand relationship. In the final section, participants were asked about factors encouraging them to defend a brand, covering personal aspects, perceptions of the company, and characteristics of the criticism. Following these sections, participants completed a brief one-page survey, providing demographic details such as gender, age, profession, and education level.
All interviews were recorded, transcribed, and anonymized. We conducted inductive content analysis on the three interview sections to pinpoint key factors derived directly from participant responses (Krippendorff 2018; Spiggle 1994). Our analysis focused on categorizing various motives, relationships, and contextual factors. We then compared these findings with existing research on CBD, positive eWOM, brand advocacy, and prosocial behavior.
Results and Discussion
Motivational drivers
In a first step, we sought to understand the motives behind brand defenders’ actions. A first relevant finding that emerged from our interviews was the presence of motives that are altruistic in nature. Five brand defenders (1, 3, 7, 8, 10) expressed a desire to help the criticized company and protect the brand's reputation, as this quote illustrates: It's about putting the club in a better light or just defending the brand to make it look better. So, you don't come off as overly ambitious, but rather, you're doing it for rational reasons, so the club doesn't go bankrupt. We have some good examples here in [European country where interview was conducted]. Almost every club is struggling financially again because they're paying salaries and transfer fees that they don't really have available. (Defender 1)
This finding is related to prior research on positive eWOM, which has identified several altruistic motives such as sharing information about a company or brand out of concern for other consumers or to help the company (e.g., Eelen, Özturan, and Verlegh 2017; Hennig-Thurau et al. 2004). Such altruistic motivations are also present in prosocial behavior, which has “the ultimate goal of increasing another's welfare” (Batson 2011, p. 20). As we found in our interviews, such an intention to help the company was mostly connected to past positive experiences with the brand and the desire to give something back to the brand: Of course, it would be nice to get some appreciation or a thank you. Because that's what you associate with the brand and it might also lead to future actions. But above all, it's also about thanking for the experience, like I was able to thank the ground staff. (Defender 7)
Such reciprocity plays a crucial role in consumer-brand interactions (Fournier 1998), suggesting that CBD may stem from reciprocal altruism rather than pure altruism.
As a second category of motivational drivers, we found that some brand defenders were motivated by the perception of unjust criticism, driving their desire to restore equity: It depends on whether it [the criticism] is justified or not. If the media has valid criticism, I'm the last person to say anything. Then, it might even make a difference. Whether it's the government or whoever, it doesn't really matter to me. For me, it's about whether it's justified or not. That's what matters. (Defender 8) I think if someone talks very vehemently negatively about something, then I tend firmly, almost reflexively, to provide a counterpoint if I feel it's not justified. It's a bit because of justice—can you call it a sense of justice? Just a bit of balancing things out. (Defender 9)
For four defenders (3, 4, 6, 7), the perceived inequity was not the main motivation but represented a necessary condition to defend the brand, as this quote illustrates: Depending on whether the criticism is justified. Then [if the criticism is justified], I think the company deserves the criticism, so to speak (laughter) [and I would not defend the brand]. (Defender 7)
The motive of restoring equity aligns with Colliander and Hauge Wien (2013), who suggested that CBD may be motivated by justice considerations. Relatedly, research shows that perceptions of justice (e.g., about how consumers are treated) predict positive word of mouth (WOM) and online brand advocacy (e.g., Cavdar Aksoy and Yazici 2023; Maxham and Netemeyer 2002) and drive prosocial behaviors like organizational citizenship in general (e.g., Van Dijke et al. 2018). Furthermore, observing perceived injustices, such as the unfair treatment of others, can evoke strong negative emotions that compel individuals to act, even when there is no personal gain involved (Mattila, Hanks, and Wang 2014; Turillo et al. 2002). This aligns with the principlism theory of prosocial behavior, which suggests that individuals are motivated to act out of moral principles—such as fairness and justice—rather than self-interest (Batson 2011; Turiel 2015). Our interviews suggest many brand defenders act out of a need to counter perceived unjust criticism, underscoring the desire to restore equity as a pivotal motive for CBD.
Finally, seven defenders (2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9) indicated egoistic motivation such as boosting their ego, seeking appreciation from the company or other consumers, seeking economic incentives, or finding pleasure in defending the brand. Specifically, several interviewees (2, 5, 6, 9) appeared to be driven by self-enhancement as they aimed at boosting their ego, as this quote illustrates: There wasn’t any specific driver other than being in the flow of writing and thinking, “Let's see how he reacts.” It's partly about curiosity, seeing what response comes back. It's a bit for the ego—if there's agreement in the response. (Defender 6)
Others wanted to present themselves in the best light, as expressed by this interviewee: “I wanted to appear in a good light; that's just how it is” (Defender 2). Yet others wished to be perceived as sophisticated individuals, as this quote exemplifies: I feel that I like to be perceived as nuanced, and I think that's also my objective [of commenting online]. If someone says something like “everything is crap,” I feel that's not nuanced enough for me. (Defender 9)
An important egoistic motivation in CBD is the desire for self-enhancement or presenting oneself in a positive light (Sedikides 1993). Defending a brand can serve to boost one's reputation, elevate one's status, and impress others (see also Colliander and Hauge Wien 2013). Similarly, studies on positive eWOM have shown that individuals share positive brand information to fulfill ego needs (e.g., Berger 2014; Cheung and Lee 2012; Hennig-Thurau et al. 2004). Helping and sharing information can inflate one's ego (Clary et al. 1998), enhance one's self-image (Batson, Ahmad, and Stocks 2011), and impress observers (Brown and Smart 1991), making self-enhancement a key motivational driver in CBD.
As an additional egoistic driver of CBD, three interviewees expressed the hope for future reciprocity and rewards from the brand or other consumers, such as economic incentives or feedback. Three defenders viewed it as a give-and-take situation (Defenders 5, 6, 7): It was probably self-serving, because maybe I would have gotten something [such as a product sample or voucher]. (Defender 7) Let's put it this way. I’m happy when they [community] like it. Especially when I get feedback that they find it funny. (Defender 5) If [I defend a brand], then really only when I know there will be a reaction [by observers], because otherwise you have wasted electricity, wasted time, thrown data into the world. (Defender 6)
The motivation to defend a brand in the hope of getting a favor back has been suggested in CBD literature (Roy et al. 2023) and has also been discussed in the literature on positive WOM: Individuals are often motivated by the promise of future reciprocity, anticipating benefits from sharing information (e.g., Berger 2014; Cheung and Lee 2012). Economic incentives and rewards, such as loyalty points or online coupons, have proven effective in encouraging individuals to write positive comments (e.g., Hennig-Thurau et al. 2004). The belief in future reciprocity and the expectation of returns from third parties are also important drivers of prosocial behavior (Leider et al. 2009; Simpson and Willer 2008). Economic incentives, such as tax deductions for charitable giving, have been shown to motivate prosocial behavior (Clotfelter 1980). For CBD, these rewards may include monetary incentives like gift cards or product samples (White, Habib, and Dahl 2020).
Finally, four defenders (2, 4, 5, 8) expressed experiencing hedonic benefits from CBD.
Their motivation stemmed from the enjoyment of correcting critics, as these quotes exemplify: You just give the reward center in your brain a little boost by making someone look stupid. Or frankly, I just like to lecture people. (Defender 2) There are definitely brands that I defend, to put it mildly, for fun. There are two typical camps, especially in computer gaming. One side is AMD and the other is Intel. And the two sides are like fire and water. They don’t get along at all. Every time one side comes up with something, the other has to fight it. You also know this from games consoles, whether it’s Xbox or PlayStation, it’s a miserable war. (Defender 5)
This aligns with existing literature indicating that gratification and enjoyment of online discussions serve as drivers of positive eWOM (e.g., Babić Rosario, De Valck, and Sotgiu 2020). Similarly, studies on prosocial behavior demonstrate that hedonic benefits such as maintaining or enhancing positive feelings (e.g., Clary et al. 1998; Small and Cryder 2016) or gratification and enjoyment can motivate individuals to help others.
Relational drivers
In exploring defenders’ relationship with the defended brand, our interviews revealed that consumers’ brand connection played an important role for their behavior. Nine out of ten defenders disclosed varying relationships with the brand, with four mentioning loyalty (1, 3, 4, 6), including two who reported strong attachment to the brand (1, 3): There must be a certain relationship with the [defended] company. So, the fact that I would commit myself to the company at all, I think, is an extremely important point for me personally. So, I must have some connection. (Defender 3)
These findings align with previous research demonstrating that consumers who have a strong connection to the brand (e.g., Cheng, White, and Chaplin 2012; Wilson, Giebelhausen, and Brady 2017) or love the brand (e.g., Dalman, Buche, and Min 2017) show defensive behavior. Similarly, in the context of prosocial behavior, strong personal relations between potential helper and recipient (Clark et al. 2015) increase the likelihood of prosocial acts (e.g., Barry and Wentzel 2006; Burnstein, Crandall, and Kitayama 1994; Clark et al. 1987). In support of these findings, our interviews revealed that brand attachment, which refers to the strength of the bond connecting a brand with consumers’ self, involving thoughts and feelings about the brand and its relationship to the self (Park et al. 2010), is an important relational driver of CBD.
In contrast, six interviewees (2, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10) only occasionally consumed the products or services without sharing an emotional bond with the defended brand. They have been very satisfied with the defended brand's performance. Defender 8, for example, defended the criticized tourism region predominantly because he had always been a satisfied guest. Similarly, reflecting on the intensity of his connection to the brand, Defender 2 remarked: It's not about defending [brand] specifically. I like drinking it, but I don’t have an emotional attachment to this brand. I’m completely indifferent if someone thinks poorly of it and criticizes it. It could have been Coca-Cola or Aperol Spritz, whatever. (Defender 2)
In line with these findings, studies in the context of prosocial behavior have found evidence of prosocial acts among individuals with weaker and less self-relevant relationships, such as mere exchange relationships (Clark et al. 1987). Drawing on these theoretical considerations and the statements made by our interviewees, we suggest that CBD is not limited to consumers who are strongly attached to a brand, but also extends to those who are merely satisfied. Consumers’ overall positive evaluation of a brand, based on their experiences, can be a vital source for CBD (Cavdar Aksoy and Yazici 2023). Thus, brand satisfaction—considered a less self-relevant relationship based on meeting expectations (Nyffenegger et al. 2015; Oliver 1993)—is an important relational factor driving CBD. Table W3 in Web Appendix B presents an overview of motivational and relational factors with further exemplary quotes.
Contextual factors
The third part of the interviews focused on contextual factors that encouraged interviewees to defend a brand. We organized these factors along three categories that refer to the consumer, the criticism, and the company/brand. Table W4 in Web Appendix B presents an overview of the contextual factors with exemplary quotes. A first situational driver is consumers’ knowledge about the brand and its products and services as well as the confidence in their knowledge (i.e., self-efficacy). Our interviews highlight the critical role that preexisting knowledge and prior experiences with the brand play. All ten defenders stated that some degree of knowledge and experience is necessary to be able to counter the critics: I do not like to talk about things I do not know or have only read about superficially. But if I know what it is about and what it is, then I also comment on it. (Defender 10)
In line with this finding, research on prosocial behavior has shown that self-efficacy can drive prosocial actions (e.g., Grant and Gino 2010; Sharma and Morwitz 2016). For instance, Kerr and Kaufman-Gilliland (1997) find that individuals’ perception of their ability to make a difference influenced their cooperative and prosocial behaviors. Similarly, in online knowledge-sharing contexts, Lee et al. (2006) reveal that reluctance to share knowledge often stems from low knowledge self-efficacy. Au, Ho, and Law (2021) further demonstrate that domain knowledge empowers consumers to justify brand defending behaviors, particularly in online communities where expertise boosts confidence in countering negative claims.
Consistent with prior research highlighting the role of consumers’ product involvement in driving WOM (e.g., Sundaram, Mitra, and Webster 1998) and CBD (Hassan and Casaló Ariño 2016), three interviewees mentioned product involvement as a predictor of CBD (1, 5, 10): [I wouldn’t defend a low-involvement product such as toothpaste] because it's not an affair of the heart at these prices. Unless you’re a toothpaste fan. (Defender 10)
A second category of contextual factors is related to the criticism that triggered CBD. Five interviewees (1, 4, 6, 8, 10) mentioned that they incorporated attributions of blame in their evaluation of the criticism, as this quote illustrates: “It's a huge difference for me: Is it self-inflicted, is it the fault of a third-party, is it force majeure?” (Defender 6).
In addition, the severity of the criticized failure can influence whether someone defends a brand (3, 6, 8, 9), with more severe failures inhibiting defense behavior, as this quote exemplifies: If now somehow the accusation of a sexual abuse or something like that [would be taken up by the critics], then I would certainly not have commented. (Defender 3)
Blame attribution and failure severity are critical factors in product-harm crises, brand crises, brand transgressions, and service failures (e.g., Coombs 2007; Grégoire, Laufer, and Tripp 2010; Kähr et al. 2016). They play crucial roles in determining the impact of negative events and companies’ response strategies. Our findings indicate that lower levels of blame attribution and less severe failures are more likely to stimulate CBD. This aligns with prior research that has found that higher levels of blame attribution to the brand and more severe failures are associated with increased levels of anger, desire for revenge, negative WOM, and brand sabotage (e.g., Grégoire, Laufer, and Tripp 2010; Kähr et al. 2016).
Finally, participants indicated that their likelihood of engaging in CBD was influenced by their evaluation of the critic's credibility (3, 5, 9). They were less likely to counter critics seen as credible, such as government authorities. There was a notable reluctance to challenge highly authoritative or esteemed figures, like Nobel Prize winners, as highlighted by Defender 5, due to a perceived discrepancy in expertise or standing, described as “not at eye level” by Defender 3. This supports existing literature on the crucial role of source credibility in digital contexts and its impact on the evaluation of negative WOM (Craciun and Moore 2019).
A last category of contextual factors consists of those related to the brand or company. Interviewees mentioned the brand's philosophy as driver of CBD (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9). Transparency and social and sustainable engagement increased their willingness to defend a brand: But of course, if I now see that a brand is even socially committed and it is attacked anyway, then I would defend the brand even more confidently. (Defender 2)
Studies on CSR support this finding as they demonstrate that the prosocial behavior of companies can minimize vindictive behaviors after product failures (Kim and Park 2020), drive brand advocacy behaviors like resistance to negative information (Xie, Bagozzi, and Grønhaug 2019), or positively influence customer participation behavior as well as customer citizenship behavior (Hur, Moon, and Kim 2020). Furthermore, Aljarah et al. (2023) emphasize that CSR initiatives, when perceived as authentic, can significantly enhance CBD by strengthening the bond between consumers and the brand.
An additional brand-related factor that emerged from the interviews concerns the impact of management response to the criticism (1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 9). One interviewee mentioned not feeling the need to defend a brand after an official statement, while five others felt more inclined to support the brand after such responses. The relevance placed by our interviewees on managerial responses to negative incidents echoes existing research highlighting its crucial role in crisis communication and in bolstering a company's reputation (e.g., Coombs 2007).
In summary, our interviews provide initial evidence for the relevance of three motives—reciprocal altruism, equity restoration, and egoism—as well as defenders’ relationship with the brand in driving CBD. Thereby, not only highly attached but also simply satisfied consumers defended brands. In developing our typology of brand defenders, we will focus on these three motive categories along with brand attachment and satisfaction. The study also identified relevant contextual factors influencing CBD, categorized into consumer-related (i.e., brand-related knowledge, knowledge self-efficacy, and product involvement), criticism-related (i.e., blame attribution, severity of failure, source credibility), and company-related (i.e., company philosophy and management response) factors. These factors strongly shape CBD tendencies, underscoring their importance in determining which defender type emerges in specific contexts.
Study 3: Typology of Consumer Brand Defenders
The study aimed at validating our initial insights through a quantitative examination and at identifying types of brand defenders through a cluster analysis.
Method
Procedure and sample
We recruited U.S. participants on Amazon Mechanical Turk, screening for CBD behavior by describing it and asking if they had engaged in it within the last six months. Participants then described the brand criticism and their defensive behavior in two open-ended questions and identified CBD comments from fictitious statements to test their CBD understanding (e.g., CBD: “Adidas is not to blame for this glitch! I think it's clearly the supplier's mistake. So be careful with whom you blame!”). After these screening questions, we administered participants’ motives, brand relationship, defense behavior styles and frequency, and contextual factors identified in Study 2, before collecting demographic data.
To conduct our cluster analysis for the brand defender typology, we aimed for a sample of 600 defenders (e.g., Dolnicar, Grün, and Leisch 2016). To verify respondents’ qualification for the study, we manually analyzed their responses to the open-ended screening questions. Thus, we conducted the recruitment process in two waves with 1,596 consumers (Wave 1: 661; Wave 2: 935) of which 570 qualified for our study (Wave 1: 224; Wave 2: 346). Despite 844 indicating defense behavior (Wave 1: 316; Wave 2: 528), we excluded 182 individuals based on their open-ended responses (i.e., their CBD comment could not be perceived as supportive of the brand; Wave 1: 79; Wave 2: 103), and an additional 92 due to incorrect responses to the screening question on their understanding of CBD (Wave 1: 13; Wave 2: 79). Our final sample consisted of 570 brand defenders (66% male, 34% female; Mage = 34 years). A MANOVA revealed no significant differences between the two waves on the key constructs (i.e., egoism, reciprocal altruism, equity restoration, brand attachment, and satisfaction; Roy's largest root, λ = .008, F(5, 564) = .946, p = .451), indicating that attrition likely did not bias our two-wave data (McCullough et al. 2001).
Measures
Unless indicated otherwise, we used seven-point Likert scales (1 = “I completely disagree,” and 7 = “I completely agree”; see Table 3 and Table W5 in Web Appendix C for study items and Cronbach's alphas). We employed a similar approach to Hennig-Thurau et al. (2004) and Alexandrov, Lilly, and Babakus (2013) in assessing consumers’ motives, querying participants about their motivations using established scales. Reciprocal altruism was measured using three items adapted from Hennig-Thurau et al., while equity restoration was measured with two items from Wenzel and Okimoto (2009) and Schmitt et al. (2005). Self-enhancement and future reciprocity were each assessed with three items, and hedonic benefits with two items, all adapted from Hennig-Thurau et al. All these items began with the stem, “I defended [Brand] because …” Brand attachment was measured using Park et al.’s (2010) seven-item scale, and brand satisfaction was assessed with Nyffenegger et al.’s (2015) three-item scale. CBD behavior was measured using six items for each of the six defense styles from Colliander and Hauge Wien (2013), although these styles were assessed only in the second wave due to a survey error. Last, we measured intuitive and reflective narrative styles with two items each from Rand et al. (2014) and general CBD frequency with a single item.
Factor Structure and Item Stability for the Motivational and Relational Drivers of CBD.
We measured contextual factors including defender characteristics, the criticism addressed, and brand attributes. These constructs, based on our qualitative interviews, were complemented by variables such as internet usage, Big Five personality traits, self-threat, and failure type. Defender characteristics included product knowledge (two items; Gürhan-Canli 2003), self-efficacy (four items; Cheung and Lee 2012), and product involvement (five items; Malär et al. 2011). Self-threat was measured using a six-item scale (White, Argo, and Sengupta 2012), reflecting the impact of brand criticism on consumers strongly connected to the brand (Cheng, White, and Chaplin 2012). We also measured the Big Five personality traits using a 15-item scale (Schupp and Gerlitz 2014), as these traits significantly impact behavior and offer a relatively stable framework for differentiating our CBD types (Graham et al. 2020). Finally, we assessed internet usage through five metrics from the Digital 2024 Global Overview Report (We Are Social and Meltwater 2024) to identify channels for managers to connect with defenders.
Regarding brand criticism, we assessed blame attribution with the three-item scale of Grégoire, Laufer, and Tripp (2010) and failure severity with three seven-point bipolar items from Grégoire and Fisher (2008). We also measured the criticized type of failure with one item each for performance- and value-based incidents per Kähr et al. (2016), as prior research has shown that consumers react differently to these two types of failures (Nyffenegger et al. 2018). Performance-based failures include defective products and service mishaps, whereas value-based incidents include ethical misconduct of the brand (e.g., Kähr et al. 2016). Finally, regarding company-related factors, we measured perceived CSR with the six-item scale of Alvarado-Herrera et al. (2017). We assessed the managerial response—apology, defense, or no response—using a single-item measure based on Coombs (2007).
Results and Discussion
This study presents findings in three key sections. First, we conducted a factor analysis of the motivational and relational drivers. Second, we used multiple regression analyses to assess how these factors influence forms and frequencies of CBD. Finally, through cluster analysis, we grouped consumers by shared brand relationships and motivations and examined variations in contextual factors across these groups.
Analysis of the structure of the drivers of CBD
We conducted a principal components analysis of our three key motives (reciprocal altruism, equity restoration, egoism) and two relationship types (attachment, satisfaction), confirming a five-factor structure. Table 3 presents factor loadings of the varimax rotation and Cronbach's alpha values, indicating strong reliability (Cronbach's αs > .71). Confirmatory factor analyses in Amos 28.0 demonstrated sufficient reliability, convergent validity, and acceptable global fit (e.g., Hu and Bentler 1999: RMSEA = .07, NFI = .91, NNFI = .92, CFI = .93). Discriminant validity based on Fornell and Larcker (1981) was also confirmed, with average variance extracted exceeding squared correlations for all construct pairs (see Table W6 in Web Appendix C). The factor analysis thus confirmed the five-factor structure of our qualitatively derived motives and brand relationship types that drive CBD.
Analysis of the relevance of the motivational and relational factors for CBD
We conducted three multiple regression analyses using the enter method to examine the relevance of motivational and relational factors for CBD, with regression factor scores from our principal components analysis as independent variables (Thurstone 1935). No influential outliers were detected (Cook 1977; Stevens 1984), and multicollinearity was not a concern (Thompson et al. 2017). The first regression aimed to predict intuitive CBD, showing significant explanatory power of our five factors (F(5, 340) = 8.842, p < .001,
Factor Score Regression Results.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
Notes: B = unstandardized regression coefficients; SE = standard errors; β = standardized regression coefficients.
These results confirm the significance of our proposed factors in predicting CBD behavior. Egoism and brand attachment drive intuitive CBD and its frequency, while equity restoration, reciprocal altruism, and brand satisfaction influence reflective CBD. This demonstrates the relevance of these five factors as key drivers of CBD, validating their use in our cluster analysis to develop distinct brand defender types.
A brand defender typology based on motivational and relational factors
We conducted a hierarchical cluster analysis using the three motives and two brand relationship constructs, based on their mean values. Using the Ward method and squared Euclidean distance, both the dendrogram and theoretical considerations suggested a three-cluster solution (e.g., Ketchen and Shook 1996). We compared cluster mean values across our five input factors (e.g., egoism, brand attachment), CBD behavior (e.g., defense frequency, styles), and context-related factors (see Tables 5 and 6). The analysis revealed significant differences among clusters in both the clustering variables and related external factors, supporting the validity of our solution (e.g., contextual factors; Ketchen and Shook 1996). The clusters were stable, with 89.5% correctly assigned based on multiple discriminant analysis (Carvalho et al. 2015). Next, we discuss the detailed results for (1) motivational and relational drivers, (2) contextual factors, and (3) defense behavior.
Mean Difference Comparisons for the Three Brand Defender Types.
Welch test was significant (p < .001).
One-way ANOVA was significant (p < .001).
Welch test was significant (p < .05).
Welch test was marginally significant (p < .1).
One-way ANOVA was significant (p < .05).
Chi-square test was significant (p < .001).
No significant differences (p > .1).
Within each row, superscripts (a,b,c) indicate the significant differences for the respective column based on the Games–Howell test (p < .05).
Within each row, superscripts (a,b,c) indicate the significant differences for the respective column based on the Gabriel test (p < .05).
Within each row, superscripts (a,b,c) indicate the significant differences for the respective column based on the Games–Howell post hoc test (p = .055).
Notes: The numbers displayed in this table are the respective means as well as the corresponding standard errors in parentheses and also, for some constructs, the relative frequencies.
Defense Styles per Brand Defender Type.
Welch test is significant (p < .001).
Welch test is significant (p < .05).
Notes: The numbers displayed in this table are the respective means with the corresponding standard errors in brackets. Within each row, superscripts (a,b,c) indicate the significant differences for the respective column based on the Games–Howell post hoc test (p < .05).
Regarding our cluster factors—the motivational and relational drivers of CBD—the cluster analysis revealed three distinct types of brand defenders. Cluster 1, termed “brand promoters,” is primarily driven by strong brand relationships and reciprocal altruism. They exhibited the highest levels of brand satisfaction across the three segments (M = 6.15) and the second-highest brand attachment (M = 4.99) after Cluster 3. With the highest value for reciprocal altruism (M = 6.05) and high scores on equity restoration (M = 6.24), they aim to reciprocate positive brand experiences. This segment represents the largest cluster, with about two-thirds being male and the average age being slightly older (M = 34.65 years), compared with the other clusters.
Defenders of Cluster 2, labeled “justice promoters,” are mainly motivated by a desire to restore equity. Across all three motives, they scored highest on equity restoration (M = 6.11), significantly surpassing reciprocal altruism (M = 5.01, t(194) = 8.592, p < .001). Compared with the other two segments, they exhibited the lowest levels of egoism (M = 2.06) and brand attachment (M = 2.32), while displaying high brand satisfaction similar to Cluster 3 (M = 5.39). This segment, with the highest proportion of female participants (39%) and the oldest average age (M = 35.23 years) among the clusters, represents the second-largest cluster.
Cluster 3, termed “self-promoters,” is primarily motivated by egoistical factors, namely need for self-enhancement, expectations of future reciprocity, and hedonic benefits. They displayed the highest mean for egoistic motives (M = 4.75), double that of Clusters 1 and 2. Additionally, they showed high brand attachment (M = 5.08) and satisfaction (M = 5.52) but the lowest mean for equity restoration (M = 5.14). This cluster represents the smallest and youngest group (M = 30.64 years), with the highest share of male participants (71.4%).
In sum, while both brand promoters and self-promoters show a strong brand connection, their motivations differ significantly. Brand promoters defend altruistically, whereas self-promoters act for personal gain. Further, the relationship profile of justice promoters, with high satisfaction but low attachment, extends prior research on CBD, which primarily emphasized strong brand connections as driver of such behavior (e.g., Cheng, White, and Chaplin 2012).
In terms of consumer-related contextual factors, brand promoters reported the highest levels of product involvement (M = 5.70) and product knowledge (M = 5.90), but lower knowledge self-efficacy (M = 4.85). In contrast, self-promoters exhibited the highest knowledge self-efficacy (M = 5.35) but lower product knowledge (M = 5.57). This suggests that self-promoters may overestimate their knowledge, driven by their desire to defend the brand for selfish reasons, while brand promoters critically evaluate their brand-related knowledge, likely aiming to provide meaningful defense as a form of reciprocal altruism. Additionally, self-promoters experienced the highest levels of self-threat (M = 4.44), likely due to their strong brand attachment and the perception that criticism of the brand threatens their self-concept, reflecting their egoistic tendencies and a defensive response to protect their self-image (Cheng, White, and Chaplin 2012).
Concerning the Big Five personality traits, brand promoters exhibited the highest level of conscientiousness (M = 5.69), indicating a tendency toward diligence, organization, and reliability in their activities. Self-promoters scored highest on extraversion (M = 4.20), reflecting a greater likelihood of engaging in social interactions. Both brand promoters and justice promoters scored relatively high on agreeableness (M = 5.37 and M = 5.24, respectively), suggesting a propensity toward empathy and cooperation. Previous studies have linked agreeableness with reciprocal altruism, empathic concern (Ashton et al. 1998; Habashi, Graziano, and Hoover 2016), and equity sensitivity (Woodley et al. 2015). This aligns with the higher agreeableness observed in brand and justice promoters compared with self-promoters, who defend for selfish reasons. While openness levels were relatively high (mean values > 5) and neuroticism relatively low (mean values < 3.5), there were no significant differences across groups, indicating shared traits of curiosity and emotional stability among all clusters.
As a last consumer characteristic, we examined brand defenders’ internet usage. Our findings in Table 5 indicate that both brand promoters and justice promoters are more active online across various domains like information seeking, news consumption, and entertainment, compared with self-promoters. Brand promoters, especially, are highly engaged on social media (M = 5.85), suggesting a strong presence and influence in digital environments, leveraging their strong dedication to advocate for their preferred brands. Justice promoters, similarly engaged in online information search and news consumption, likely prioritize staying informed to actively contribute to discussions, including those on justice issues. Interestingly, self-promoters tend to express their opinions online more often (M = 4.67), compared with both brand promoters (M = 4.49) and justice promoters (M = 4.21), indicating a preference for actively voicing their views.
In terms of criticism triggering CBD, consumers were more likely to defend brands when they did not blame the brand (M = 3.03) and when the incident was less severe (M = 3.74). Self-promoters, however, blamed the brand more (M = 3.80) and defended it even with higher severity (M = 4.20), indicating that they care less about the severity and focus more on personal benefit. Justice promoters defended the brand when they perceived the criticism as unfair, with lower blame (M = 2.84) and severity (M = 3.41). Value-based incidents triggered more CBD (M = 4.38) than performance-based ones (M = 2.98). Self-promoters had the highest mean for performance-related failures (M = 3.91), while brand promoters defended most in value-based failures (M = 4.61).
Regarding company-related contextual factors, participants generally perceived the brands they defended to have high levels of CSR (M = 5.19). However, justice promoters rated the company's CSR less favorably (M = 4.70) compared with brand promoters (M = 5.51) and self-promoters (M = 5.33). This suggests that justice promoters prioritize addressing perceived injustices over broader CSR concerns. Research shows that perceived corporate social irresponsibility can paradoxically trigger prosocial behaviors aimed at restoring justice (Kim, He, and Gustafsson 2024). Reflecting on the brand's response to criticism, 52.3% of participants defended the brand even without a direct company response, underscoring the mixed relevance of this factor in our interviews. Brand promoters were more likely to defend when the company did not respond (58.3% of cases), whereas self-promoters defended more when the company did respond (40%). This indicates that self-promoters may prioritize personal benefit over brand support, while brand promoters defend when the company fails to respond. Justice promoters’ uncertainty suggests a focus on equity restoration as their main motivation.
For CBD behavior, self-promoters defend brands more often (M = 3.86) than brand promoters (M = 3.13) and justice promoters (M = 2.80). Brand promoters often justify the brand's behavior (M = 4.99) and vouch for the brand (M = 4.99), reflecting their past positive brand experiences. Justice promoters typically justify the brand's behavior to restore equity. In contrast, self-promoters employ a variety of styles, including trivializing the incident (M = 4.09) and doubting the critic's credibility (M = 4.65), indicating that, due to their selfish reasons, they may choose any means of defending the brand.
In sum, we have developed a typology of three distinct defenders based on their motivational and relational drivers. Each type varies in terms of contextual factors stimulating CBD and the specific defense behavior. Figure 2 provides a summary of the cluster analysis results.
Main Characteristics of the Three Brand Defender Types: Brand Promoters, Justice Promoters, and Self-Promoters.
General Discussion
In an increasingly polarized digital landscape marked by frequent social media controversies with significant brand implications (Hansen, Kupfer, and Hennig-Thurau 2018), consumers emerge as credible actors capable of defending brands online to protect their reputation and image (Dineva, Breitsohl, and Garrod 2017). To encourage such defense behavior, it is essential to understand the drivers behind it. This study explores the underexamined motivations of CBD and develops a typology of brand defenders. Drawing on literature related to positive WOM, brand advocacy, and prosocial behavior, as well as qualitative and quantitative research, we identified three key motives (reciprocal altruism, equity restoration, and egoism) and two brand relationship factors (brand attachment and satisfaction) that drive CBD. These elements differentiate unique defender types: brand promoters, justice promoters, and self-promoters, who vary not only in behavior but also in contextual factors related to consumer traits, criticism, and company characteristics. Enriching the literature, our findings provide valuable insights into the drivers of CBD.
Theoretical Contributions
Our study offers a significant advancement in understanding CBD motives through a comprehensive qualitative and quantitative approach. Despite CBD's practical relevance, there has been little research on brand defenders’ motives (e.g., Colliander and Hauge Wien 2013; Dalman, Buche, and Min 2017; Roy et al. 2023). While prior research has conceptually discussed potential motives of CBD including consumers’ sense of justice, need for self-enhancement, and desire to raise their social capital (Colliander and Hauge Wien 2013; Roy et al. 2023), these have not been empirically studied. Through our comprehensive approach, we identified three primary motive categories: reciprocal altruism, egoism, and justice restoration. Our research sheds light on these crucial motives, particularly highlighting the previously overlooked motive of reciprocal altruism, thus contributing significantly to the CBD literature.
Our study advances the literature on positive brand engagement, including eWOM, brand ambassadors, evangelists, and advocates. While some motivations overlap with positive eWOM (e.g., economic incentives), we uncover motives unique to CBD and less relevant ones (e.g., aiding purchase decisions; Hennig-Thurau et al. 2004). Unlike brand evangelists and ambassadors, who are driven by reciprocal altruism (Ambroise et al. 2014; Becerra and Badrinarayanan 2013), we identify egoism and equity restoration as key drivers of CBD in the context of online brand criticism. Additionally, while fairness perceptions influence advocacy (Cavdar Aksoy and Yazici 2023), we highlight the role of egoistic motives, distinguishing CBD from advocacy and other forms of positive brand engagement.
Second, we shed light on the drivers of CBD derived from the consumer–brand relationship. Whereas prior research on eWOM and brand advocacy has already identified brand satisfaction as a driver of such behavior (e.g., Hennig-Thurau et al. 2004), CBD studies have predominantly focused on strong and emotional brand relationships. These include exploring brand passion (Alnawas, Ghantous, and Hemsley-Brown 2023), the actions of brand community members on Facebook who defend their brand and attack rival brands (Ilhan, Kübler, and Pauwels 2018), and consumers in love-like relationships with the brand (e.g., Dalman, Buche, and Min 2017). However, our research shows that high levels of brand satisfaction alone can prompt CBD, even in the absence of strong brand attachment. This extends prior CBD studies and emphasizes the overlooked potential of satisfied consumers in driving CBD. Thus, our theoretical understanding of CBD should be broadened to include these individuals as brand defenders.
Third, our typology of brand defenders further contributes to our understanding of CBD by categorizing them based on their motives and brand relationships. Brand promoters, justice promoters, and self-promoters exhibit unique behaviors and defense styles reflective of their underlying motives and relationships. For instance, brand promoters, characterized by their vouching defense style, focus on amplifying positive brand attributes, reciprocating their past positive experiences. Justice promoters, employing a justification defense style, seek to rectify wrongs and advocate for fairness. Meanwhile, self-promoters utilize a variety of defense styles and employ more confrontational tactics such as challenging critics’ credibility, indicating their willingness to employ any means due to their selfish reasons. These distinctions enrich our theoretical framework of CBD by highlighting the distinct behaviors of each defender type, providing a more comprehensive understanding of consumer behavior in CBD.
Furthermore, we add to recent empirical research that provides strong evidence that intuitive processes often underlie prosocial behavior (Grehl and Tutić 2022; Rand et al. 2014; Zaki and Mitchell 2013). These studies consistently show that prosocial actions are typically quick, automatic, and less cognitively demanding, indicating that they stem from intuitive rather than reflective processes. Whereas prior research on CBD has often regarded such behavior as deliberate and intentional (Hassan and Casaló Ariño 2016), our research provides evidence of a more intuitive narrative style, which seems to be even more prevalent based on the results of Study 1. Focusing on reflective processes may have led to an incomplete understanding of CBD, and our insights contribute to the reevaluation of existing frameworks to include the role of intuitive processes.
Finally, we adopt a systematic and comprehensive approach to understand the context influencing various defender types (e.g., Romer, Gruder, and Lizzadro 1986). Specifically, we explore how contextual factors related to the consumer, the brand criticism, and the company affect different brand defender types. For instance, our results show that communication management can influence brand defender types differently (e.g., Crijns et al. 2017; Ilhan, Kübler, and Pauwels 2018). While a management response motivates brand promoters and self-promoters to defend the brand, it appears less critical for justice promoters, challenging previous findings (Dineva, Breitsohl, and Garrod 2017; Scholz and Smith 2019). This adds to prior CBD research, which often examined specific CBD contexts in isolation (e.g., Hassan and Casaló Ariño 2016). Understanding the importance of different contextual factors is crucial for incentivizing specific defender types, such as justice promoters, to engage in desired CBD behavior (e.g., justifying).
Managerial Implications
Our research offers valuable insights into CBD, examining its motivational and relational drivers, which are essential for marketing and brand managers aiming to address brand criticism effectively (Weitzl and Hutzinger 2017). This is especially relevant given the increasing number of social media platforms where brands are active and where criticism can arise, making management more resource intensive (e.g., TikTok, Twitch). According to a reputational risk readiness survey conducted by WTW (2022), 55% of companies consider reputational incidents among their top five risks. Despite this, there is a disparity: 87% of companies see social media as crucial for marketing, yet many executives avoid addressing reputational issues on these platforms (WTW 2022). Our Study 1 shows that up to 10% of user comments can be CBD, suggesting that CBD could be a valuable resource for countering negative criticism at a lower cost and with greater credibility than brands’ social media engagement (Kozinets et al. 2010).
Our study identifies three distinct types of brand defenders, each with unique motives, relationships, behaviors, and triggers. While managers often assume brand promoters are the primary defenders (see pilot study in Web Appendix A), our research highlights other types, such as justice promoters and self-promoters. This understanding enables managers to develop tailored strategies for engaging these different defender types and addressing brand criticism more effectively. Ultimately, our research deepens the understanding of defenders’ motives, helping managers motivate them through targeted interventions and incentives.
Companies should empower consumers to express their opinions in ways that align with their values and interests, fostering authentic and voluntary engagement. To motivate brand promoters’ reciprocal altruism, marketers can strengthen their emotional connection to the brand and appeal to empathy by framing requests from a victim's perspective (White and Peloza 2009). Justice promoters can be motivated by appealing to their sense of fairness, asking for their input on unjust criticism (Allard, Dunn, and White 2020). For self-promoters, who seek self-enhancement and future reciprocity, acknowledging or liking their defense comments can effectively make them feel valued (e.g., “bolstering”; Dineva, Breitsohl, and Garrod 2017).
However, it is crucial that companies maintain authentic communication online. Research by Karaman (2021) demonstrates that online review solicitations can reduce extremity bias and increase representativeness. Our results show that different types of brand defenders, such as justice promoters and self-promoters, engage for reasons beyond brand attachment. This diversity of perspectives can mitigate extreme opinions and enhance the representativeness of online discourse, fostering a more accurate understanding of consumer sentiments.
Brands should establish ethical guidelines for consumer engagement and regularly monitor the impact of their strategies on online discourse. This includes assessing the authenticity and quality of consumer interactions to ensure CBD efforts do not distort genuine opinions. Publicly praising brand defenders should be approached with caution, as it may give the impression that they are company representatives, potentially harming credibility (Crijns et al. 2017). Alternatively, brands can recognize and incentivize defenders through direct messages or community-based status signals, such as gamification with defense badges or level-ups (Berman et al. 2015).
Understanding the distinct internet usage patterns of different brand defender types can help brand managers create targeted strategies. For brand promoters, who engage in various online activities, personalized digital experiences, influencer collaborations, and community-building initiatives can effectively leverage their engagement. Justice promoters, active in information search and news consumption, may respond better to platforms that foster dialogue and activism on social justice issues. Self-promoters, who frequently share opinions online, can be engaged through participative forums or feedback platforms. By aligning digital strategies with each defender type's characteristics, managers can effectively mobilize them.
Our findings on relevant contextual factors for brand defender types offer insights for marketing and brand managers to determine when each type is likely to defend the brand. Marketers can strategically identify situations to rely on specific defender types and coordinate efforts to motivate CBD. For example, when the company faces blame for a failure, brand promoters and justice promoters may be less inclined to engage, while self-promoters might be willing to help. Conversely, brand promoters may defend the brand when a company opts not to react.
Finally, our insight that the reflective style was least prevalent helps practitioners recognize the contexts in which intuitive or reflective styles are more prevalent and tailor their approaches accordingly. For example, intuitive styles may be more typical in high-pressure, fast-paced environments, while reflective styles may be more common for complex problem-solving scenarios, such as when restoring equity after unfair criticism. This may also be company-specific, as Tesla attracted more reflective defenses, while Samsung elicited more intuitive defenses.
Limitations and Future Research
In line with previous research (e.g., Hennig-Thurau et al. 2004; Kähr et al. 2016), we used qualitative interviews in Study 2 to explore consumer motivations for CBD. While this method uncovered new motivational factors, it has limitations, as self-reported data may not fully capture the complexity of motivations. Future research could adopt more immersive methods, such as ethnography or behavioral experiments, to gain deeper insights into the underlying “why” of these motivations. Although we identified reciprocal altruism, egoism, and equity restoration as key drivers of CBD, additional factors may exist. For example, collectivism, a prosocial motive, was less relevant for brand defenders but could be more significant in brand communities where members support each other (Dineva et al. 2023).
Future research could also explore the dynamics of defender types across brands and over time. While our study identified distinct consumer segments within specific CBD cases, it remains unclear whether individuals maintain consistent defense strategies or shift between types depending on the brand. A longitudinal approach could shed light on the stability of these clusters, as consumer–brand relationships may evolve. Examining these shifts could assist practitioners in adapting strategies to evolving consumer engagement.
In addition, future research could also examine the link between influencer activities and CBD. Like self-promoters, influencers seek to build a positive image and a distinct personal brand (Lee and Eastin 2020). When there is strong alignment with a brand, defending it in response to criticism may benefit both parties, enhancing the influencer's visibility and audience engagement. Investigating whether influencer involvement in CBD should be explicitly addressed in contracts, particularly in long-term collaborations, could offer valuable insights for future studies.
Finally, from a managerial viewpoint, future research could explore the effectiveness of the three defender types. Our findings indicate that brand promoters and justice promoters often use defense styles like justifying and vouching, with vouching previously shown to have positive brand outcomes (Weitzl and Hutzinger 2017). Conversely, self-promoters, using varied defense styles like doubting and trivializing, might benefit brands as a complementary addition to official company responses (e.g., Frandsen and Johansen 2016).
Supplemental Material
sj-pdf-1-jnm-10.1177_10949968251320615 - Supplemental material for Beyond Strong Bonds: A Typology of and Motivational Insights into Online Brand Defenders
Supplemental material, sj-pdf-1-jnm-10.1177_10949968251320615 for Beyond Strong Bonds: A Typology of and Motivational Insights into Online Brand Defenders by Clemens Ammann, Andrea Giuffredi-Kähr, Bettina Nyffenegger, Harley Krohmer, and Wayne D. Hoyer in Journal of Interactive Marketing
Footnotes
Authors Contributions
This article is based on the first author's dissertation.
Editor
Arvind Rangaswamy
Associate Editor
Robert Kozinets
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
References
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
