Abstract:
Even a growing body of literature discusses the detrimental consequences of product
harm crisis; very few have discussed how the culpability of the crisis shapes consumer
> purchases decisions from a cross-cultural perspective in a highly globalized marketing
environment. Moreover, studies related to consumer perceptions between Asian
countries are very rare in the present crisis literature. Therefore, current comparative
study-between China and Sri Lanka investigates consumer purchase decisions in two
different crisis grounds; company culpable and consumer culpable. The main objective
of the study is to examine whether there is a significant difference in consumers’
purchase decisions between China and Sri Lanka with respect to the culpability of the
crisis. A self administrated, pre-tested questionnaire survey was conductedand two
samples of Sri Lankan (n=100) and Chinese (n=101) based undergraduate marketing and
business management specialized students were participated in the survey. Study used a
fictitious product harm crisis scenario to highlight the company and consumer culpable
product harm crises situations. A fictitious yogurt brand “X” was used as the stimulus
brand.Purchase intentions related to the affected brand, other products of the affected
brand and any other products from the affected company were measured with 7- point
Likert scales.Results of independent t test reveal that consumers’ perceptions of
purchase intention decisions vary significantly between china and Sri Lanka under the
consumer culpable crisis. However, the main purchase decisions are insignificant
between these two countries when company is accused for the crisis. Current study
provides an indispensable guide for the crisis managers to take managerial decisions in
midst of crisis and for further comparative research investigations in the crisis literature.
