Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Organizational Top Dog (vs. Underdog) Narratives Increase the Punishment of Corporate Moral Transgressions: When Dominance is a Liability and Prestige is an Asset

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Although company narratives frequently emphasize impressive sales numbers and market leadership, such an organizational “top dog” narrative can backfire when companies are accused of engaging in unethical conduct. This research demonstrates, through a series of nine (N = 3872) experimental studies, that an organizational top dog (vs. underdog) narrative increases the intended punishment of company moral transgressions but not non-moral transgressions. Such differences in intended punishment emerge because observers infer that organizations with a top dog narrative use predominantly dominance-based strategies to achieve their status, whereas companies with an underdog narrative are less likely perceived as employing such strategies. We provide preliminary evidence that a debiasing intervention decreases the harsher punishment of organizations with a top dog narrative but does not affect the punishment of organizations with an underdog narrative.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The data that support the findings of this study are openly available at OSF (see URLs in supplementary web appendix).

Notes

  1. Note that this is different from the outcomes of such strategies (i.e., the perceived power or status an organization currently has in the market; Cheng et al., 2013) and different from the constructs of communion and agency (see Cheng et al., 2010 for correlations).

  2. Status manipulation more in line with dominance than with prestige (Kakkar et al., 2020).

  3. Note, making consumers aware of too lenient punishments of underdog narratives did not alter their punishment of organizations with that narrative (Munderdog = 70.24, SD = 24.64 vs. Munderdog_intervention = 69.29, SD = 26.96, t(609) = 0.33, p = .740, d = 0.04). Importantly, even with this intervention aiming to reduce leniency toward the underdog narrative, the difference in punishment between the top dog and underdog narrative condition remains significant (Munderdog_intervention vs. Mtop dog: p = .015, d = 0.27).

  4. In this initiative, the car manufacturer emphasizes its superior knowledge of automobile safety. Volvo positions itself as a “leader” in safety—a typical top dog narrative (https://www.volvocars.com/intl/v/our-story). At the same time, this initiative informs consumers that the firm is sharing this knowledge with other car manufacturers to help them produce equally safe vehicles. While this narrative clearly positions Volvo as a major player in safety (i.e., a top dog), consumers attribute the organization’s status to knowledge-sharing prestige (Cheng et al., 2013) rather than intimidating dominance.

References

  • Aaker, J., Vohs, K. D., & Mogilner, C. (2010). Nonprofits are seen as warm and for-profits as competent: Firm stereotypes matter. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(2), 224–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allison, S. T., & Burnette, J. L. (2009). Fairness and preference for underdogs and top dogs. Social Decision Making: Social Dilemmas, Social Values, and Ethical Judgments, 291, 291–314.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, C., & Kilduff, G. J. (2009). Why do dominant personalities attain influence in face-to-face groups? The competence-signaling effects of trait dominance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(2), 491–503.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bales, R. F., Strodtbeck, F. L., Mills, T. M., & Roseborough, M. E. (1951). Channels of communication in small groups. American Sociological Review, 16(4), 461–468.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benjerry.com (2014, August 14). https://www.benjerry.com/whats-new/2015/forgotten-flavors-we-love

  • Bigica, K. (2013, September 13). Biggest Companies Founded by College Dropouts. https://www.cnbc.com/2011/08/02/Biggest-Businesses-Run-by-College-Dropouts.html.

  • Cambridge Dictionary (n.d.) The underdog. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/underdog.

  • Cheng, J. T., Tracy, J. L., Foulsham, T., Kingstone, A., & Henrich, J. (2013). Two ways to the top: Evidence that dominance and prestige are distinct yet viable avenues to social rank and influence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104(1), 103–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheng, J. T., Tracy, J. L., & Henrich, J. (2010). Pride, personality, and the evolutionary foundations of human social status. Evolution and Human Behavior, 31(5), 334–347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cuddy, A. J. C., Glick, P., & Beninger, A. (2011). The dynamics of warmth and competence judgments, and their outcomes in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 31, 73–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fiske, A. P., Haslam, N., & Fiske, S. T. (1991). Confusing one person with another: What errors reveal about the elementary forms of social relations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(5), 656–674.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forbes, R. C., & Stellar, J. E. (2021). When the ones we love misbehave: Exploring moral processes within intimate bonds. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 122(1), 16–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fragale, A. R., Rosen, B., Xu, C., & Merideth, I. (2009). The higher they are, the harder they fall: The effects of wrongdoer status on observer punishment recommendations and intentionality attributions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108(1), 53–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gino, F., Shu, L. L., & Bazerman, M. H. (2010). Nameless+ harmless= blameless: When seemingly irrelevant factors influence judgment of (un) ethical behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 111(2), 93–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graffin, S. D., Bundy, J., Porac, J. F., Wade, J. B., & Quinn, D. P. (2013). Falls from grace and the hazards of high status: The 2009 British MP expense scandal and its impact on parliamentary elites. Administrative Science Quarterly, 58(3), 313–345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton, V. L., & Sanders, J. (1999). The second face of evil: Wrongdoing in and by the corporation. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3(3), 222–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haran, U. (2013). A person–organization discontinuity in contract perception: Why corporations can get away with breaking contracts but individuals cannot. Management Science, 59(12), 2837–2853.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haslam, N. (1995). Factor structure of social relationships: An examination of relational models and resource exchange theories. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 12(2), 217–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haslam, N., & Fiske, A. P. (1999). Relational models theory: A confirmatory factor analysis. Personal Relationships, 6(2), 241–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, A. F. (2018). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • He, Y., You, Y., & Chen, Q. (2020). Our conditional love for the underdog: The effect of brand positioning and the lay theory of achievement on WOM. Journal of Business Research, 118, 210–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henrich, J., & Gil-White, F. J. (2001). The evolution of prestige: Freely conferred deference as a mechanism for enhancing the benefits of cultural transmission. Evolution and Human Behavior, 22(3), 165–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herzog, W., Hattula, J. D., & Dahl, D. W. (2021). Marketers project their personal preferences onto consumers: Overcoming the threat of egocentric decision making. Journal of Marketing Research, 58(3), 456–475.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hornsey, M. J., Chapman, C. M., Mangan, H., La Macchia, S., & Gillespie, N. (2021). The moral disillusionment model of organizational transgressions: Ethical transgressions trigger more negative reactions from consumers when committed by nonprofits. Journal of Business Ethics, 172(4), 653–671.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Islam, G. (2020). Psychology and business ethics: A multi-level research agenda. Journal of Business Ethics, 165(1), 1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jin, L., & Huang, Y. (2019). How power states influence the persuasiveness of top-dog versus underdog appeals. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 29(2), 243–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kakkar, H., Sivanathan, N., & Gobel, M. S. (2020). Fall from grace: The role of dominance and prestige in the punishment of high-status actors. Academy of Management Journal, 63(2), 530–553.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karelaia, N., & Keck, S. (2013). When deviant leaders are punished more than non-leaders: The role of deviance severity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49(5), 783–796.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khan, U., & Kalra, A. (2021). It’s good to be different: How diversity impacts judgments of moral behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 49(2), 177–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, Y., & Park, K. (2020). When the underdog positioning backfires! The effects of ethical transgressions on attitudes toward underdog brands. In Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 1988.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, Y., Park, K., & Stacey Lee, S. (2019). The underdog trap: The moderating role of transgression type in forgiving underdog brands. Psychology & Marketing, 36(1), 28–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirmani, A., Hamilton, R. W., Thompson, D. V., & Lantzy, S. (2017). Doing well versus doing good: The differential effect of underdog positioning on moral and competent service providers. Journal of Marketing, 81(1), 103–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lagace, M. (2010, September 13). The consumer appeal of underdog branding, Retrieved from https://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/the-consumer-appeal-of-underdog-branding#:~:text=Examples%20of%20%22brands%22%20that%20emphasize,like%20those%20we%20live%20in.

  • Laustsen, L., & Petersen, M. B. (2015). Does a competent leader make a good friend? Conflict, ideology and the psychologies of friendship and followership. Evolution and Human Behavior, 36(4), 286–293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Litowitz, D. (2003). Are corporations evil. 58, U. Miami L. Rev.811.

  • MacCoun, R. J. (1996). Differential treatment of corporate defendants by juries: An examination of the" deep-pockets" hypothesis. Law and Society Review, 30, 121–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Magee, J. C., & Galinsky, A. D. (2008). 8 Social hierarchy: The self-reinforcing nature of power and status. The Academy of Management Annals, 2(1), 351–398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maner, J. K., & Case, C. R. (2016). Dominance and prestige: Dual strategies for navigating social hierarchies. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 54, 129–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maner, J. K., & Mead, N. L. (2010). The essential tension between leadership and power: When leaders sacrifice group goals for the sake of self-interest. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99(3), 482–497.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McClanahan, K. J., Maner, J. K., & Cheng, J. T. (2022). Two ways to stay at the top: Prestige and dominance are both viable strategies for gaining and maintaining social rank over time. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 48(10), 1516–1528.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDonnell, M.-H., & Nurmohamed, S. (2021). When are organizations punished for organizational misconduct? A review and research agenda. Research in Organizational Behavior, 41, 100150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merchant, B. (2017, June 18). Life and death in Apple’s forbidden city. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jun/18/foxconn-life-death-forbidden-city-longhua-suicide-apple-iphone-brian-merchant-one-device-extract

  • Meyvis, T., & Van Osselaer, S. M. (2018). Increasing the power of your study by increasing the effect size. Journal of Consumer Research, 44(5), 1157–1173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oppenheimer, D. M., Meyvis, T., & Davidenko, N. (2009). Instructional manipulation checks: Detecting satisficing to increase statistical power. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(4), 867–872.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paharia, N., Keinan, A., Avery, J., & Schor, J. B. (2011). The underdog effect: The marketing of disadvantage and determination through brand biography. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(5), 775–790.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Polman, E., Pettit, N. C., & Wiesenfeld, B. M. (2013). Effects of wrongdoer status on moral licensing. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49(4), 614–623.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rai, T. S., & Diermeier, D. (2015). Corporations are cyborgs: Organizations elicit anger but not sympathy when they can think but cannot feel. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 126, 18–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rizzi, C. (2018). Unhappy cows: Ben & Jerry’s ice cream ingredients are not ‘humanely’ sourced, lawsuit alleges. https://www.classaction.org/blog/unhappy-cows-ben-and-jerrys-ice-cream-ingredients-are-not-humanely-sourced-lawsuit-alleges

  • Small, D. A., & Loewenstein, G. (2005). The devil you know: The effects of identifiability on punishment. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 18(5), 311–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Statistica.com (2022). The leading ice cream brands of the United States in 2022, based on sales. https://www.statista.com/statistics/190426/top-ice-cream-brands-in-the-united-states/

  • Steele, L. M., & Lovelace, J. B. (2021). Organizational underdog narratives: The cultivation and consequences of a collective underdog identity. Academy of Management Review. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2019.0336

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stiegert, P., Täuber, S., Leliveld, M. C., & Oehmichen, J. (2021). The stereotype rub-off effect–Organizational stereotypes modulate behavioural expectations, expectancy violation and punishment after transgressions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 165, 127–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stulp, G., Buunk, A. P., Verhulst, S., & Pollet, T. V. (2015). Human height is positively related to interpersonal dominance in dyadic interactions. PloS One, 10(2), e0117860. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0117860

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tang, S., & Gray, K. (2018). CEOs imbue organizations with feelings, increasing punishment satisfaction and apology effectiveness. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 79, 115–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tang, S., Koval, C. Z., Larrick, R. P., & Harris, L. (2020). The morality of organization versus organized members: Organizations are attributed more control and responsibility for negative outcomes than are equivalent members. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 119(4), 901–919.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • The Guardian (2015, September 22). Peanut Corp. CEO says ‘I’m truly sorry’ for salmonella outbreak that killed nine. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/sep/22/peanut-corp-owner-sorry-salmonella-outbreak

  • Vandello, J. A., Goldschmied, N. P., & Richards, D. A. R. (2007). The appeal of the underdog. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33(12), 1603–1616.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wade, J. B., Porac, J. F., Pollock, T. G., & Graffin, S. D. (2006). The burden of celebrity: The impact of CEO certification contests on CEO pay and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4), 643–660.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wedel, M., & Gal, D. (2023). Beyond statistical significance: Five principles for the new era of data analysis and reporting. Journal of Consumer Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcpy.1379

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weisfeld, G. E., & Beresford, J. M. (1982). Erectness of posture as an indicator of dominance or success in humans. Motivation and Emotion, 6, 113–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wells, G. L., & Windschitl, P. D. (1999). Stimulus sampling and social psychological experimentation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25(9), 1115–1125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Witkower, Z., Tracy, J. L., Cheng, J. T., & Henrich, J. (2020). Two signals of social rank: Prestige and dominance are associated with distinct nonverbal displays. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 118(1), 89–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xu, H. F., Bolton, L. E., & Winterich, K. P. (2021). How do consumers react to company moral transgressions? The role of power distance belief and empathy for victims. Journal of Consumer Research, 48(1), 77–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang, L., & Aggarwal, P. (2019). No small matter: How company size affects consumer expectations and evaluations. Journal of Consumer Research, 45, 1369–1384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Grenoble École de Management, 12 Rue Pierre Semard, 38000, Grenoble, France

    Anika Schumacher & Robert Mai

Authors
  1. Anika Schumacher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Robert Mai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anika Schumacher.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

We obtained informed consent from all individuals included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 1091 KB)

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Schumacher, A., Mai, R. Organizational Top Dog (vs. Underdog) Narratives Increase the Punishment of Corporate Moral Transgressions: When Dominance is a Liability and Prestige is an Asset. J Bus Ethics (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-023-05574-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-023-05574-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation