Responding to illegitimate negative reviews: how defensive responses affect purchase intentions

Purpose This paper examines how service firm responses to illegitimate negative online reviews influence third-party observers’ purchase intentions. Specifically, it investigates the benefits and risks of a “callout” strategy, where a company publicly refutes misleading or false complaints. Design/methodology/approach Three experimental studies were conducted. Study 1 employs a monetary allocation experiment to examine consumer decision-making processes and outcomes following different firm response strategies (no response, apology and callout). Study 2 investigates the psychological mechanisms (blame and credibility appraisals) that mediate the effect of firm responses on third-party purchase intentions. Study 3 examines how verbal aggression within the callout influences these outcomes. Findings Defensive responses that call out illegitimate reviewers can increase third-party purchase intentions by shifting blame to the reviewer, diminishing the reviewer’s credibility. However, overly aggressive callouts damage the service provider’s credibility and reduce purchase intentions. Originality/value This research advances the service recovery and online impression management literature by identifying when and how defensive responses to illegitimate negative reviews can benefit (or harm) firms. It also highlights the importance of blame and credibility as mediators and introduces verbal aggression as a critical factor. Findings offer both theoretical insights and practical guidance for service managers navigating the complexities of responding to illegitimate negative online reviews.