Understanding consumers' perceived credibility bias and reactions to online disclosures of transgressions by foreign vs domestic brands

Abstract

Purpose This study introduces perceived credibility bias (PCB), that is, the tendency of bystanders to perceive unverified online disclosures about foreign brands as more credible than equivalent disclosures about domestic brands. The study examines how PCB affects bystanders' desires for social media revenge and reconciliation and identifies the conditions under which these effects are intensified or mitigated. Design/methodology/approach Five experiments (N = 2,229) were conducted using virtual (Studies 1, 2, and 4) and real brands (Studies 3 and 5). Samples were drawn from China (Studies 1–3 and 5) and the United States (U.S.) (Study 4). Findings Across the Chinese samples, disclosures targeting foreign brands were consistently perceived as more credible. In the U.S. sample, PCB emerged only among participants with high animosity. Higher perceived credibility increased social media revenge and reduced the desire for reconciliation. These effects were amplified by consumer animosity and attenuated by discloser influence. Practical implications Multinational brands face a heightened reputational risk from unverified online disclosures, particularly in markets characterized by elevated animosity. Firms should prioritize early detection, rapid response, and credible clarification strategies, especially when disclosures originate from low-influence sources. Originality/value This study advances credibility and international marketing research by identifying brand origin as a target-based credibility heuristic that operates in the belief-formation stage. By focusing on bystanders, this study demonstrates how credibility bias systematically shapes revenge versus reconciliation responses and clarifies the key boundary conditions.