Notes on Kirmani et al. (2017) – The Differential Effect of Underdog Positioning

Paper: “Doing Well versus Doing Good: The Differential Effect of Underdog Positioning on Moral and Competent Service Providers,” Journal of Marketing, 81 (1), 103–17.

Main Topic or Phenomenon

This paper addresses consumer trade-offs between competence and morality when selecting service providers. Specifically, it examines how consumers choose between highly competent but less moral service providers versus highly moral but less competent service providers, and how underdog positioning moderates these choices.

Theoretical Construct

Competence-Morality Trade-off: The tension consumers face when choosing between service providers who excel in different dimensions:

• Competence: Traits related to effective service provision (knowledge, skill, intelligence, expertise)

• Morality: Traits related to ethical behavior and trustworthiness (honesty, sincerity, integrity, fairness)

• Warmth: Traits related to sociability and interpersonal kindness (friendliness, sociability, niceness)

Underdog Positioning: Positioning a brand/provider as disadvantaged in resources but possessing passion and determination to overcome obstacles.

Empathy: The mechanism through which underdog positioning works - “sharing another’s feelings by placing oneself psychologically in that person’s circumstance.”

Key Findings

1. Competence Dominates Morality: In service contexts, consumers systematically prefer competent over moral providers when the immoral behavior doesn’t directly harm them (contrary to general impression formation research).
2. Asymmetric Underdog Effect: Underdog positioning significantly increases choice of moral providers but does not help competent providers overcome moral deficits.
3. Empathy as Mediator: Empathy toward the service provider mediates the effect of underdog positioning on choice.
4. Morality vs. Warmth Distinction: Underdog positioning helps moral providers overcome competence deficits but does not help warm providers do the same.
5. Large Effect Sizes: Choice shares for moral providers doubled when positioned as underdogs across studies.

Boundary Conditions and Moderators

Key Boundary Condition: The dominance of competence over morality only occurs when the immoral behavior does NOT directly harm the consumer. When immoral behavior directly harms consumers (e.g., accountant embezzles money), morality becomes paramount.

Moderators:

• Underdog positioning: Reverses the competence preference for moral providers only
• Type of deficit: Underdog positioning works for moral providers with competence deficits, not for competent providers with moral deficits or warm providers with competence deficits
• Empathy levels: High empathy instructions simulate underdog effects; low empathy instructions eliminate them

Building on Previous Work

Extends impression formation literature: Challenges Wojciszke et al. (1994, 1998) and Goodwin et al. (2014) findings that morality dominates competence in general evaluations. Shows this reverses in goal-oriented service contexts.

Builds on underdog research: Extends Paharia et al. (2011) by identifying when underdog positioning is most effective - specifically for moral (not competent or warm) providers.

Advances warmth-morality distinction: Separates morality from warmth (unlike Cuddy, Fiske & Glick, 2008), showing they have different effects in service evaluation.

Major Theoretical Contribution

The paper provides a significant qualification to impression formation theory by demonstrating that context matters crucially. In service relationships focused on task accomplishment, the typical morality dominance reverses, with competence taking precedence. This represents a fundamental shift from interpersonal to instrumental evaluation frameworks. The identification of empathy as the key mechanism through which underdog positioning works specifically for moral providers also advances our understanding of when and how positioning strategies are effective.

Major Managerial Implication

For Less Competent, Moral Providers: Actively emphasize underdog origins combined with moral positioning to compete against more competent competitors. This strategy is particularly effective for startups, nonprofits, and small businesses competing against larger, more established players.

For Competent but Less Moral Providers: Underdog positioning will not help overcome moral deficits. Alternative positioning strategies (perhaps emphasizing pride rather than empathy) may be more effective.

For Service Rating Platforms: The research suggests consumers value both competence and morality information, with morality information being particularly influential when negative.

Unexplored Theoretical Factors

Potential Novel Moderators Not Examined:

1. Service Type Characteristics:
   • Search vs. experience vs. credence services
   • High-stakes vs. low-stakes services
   • Personal vs. business service contexts
2. Consumer Individual Differences:
   • Moral identity centrality
   • Need for cognitive closure
   • Regulatory focus (prevention vs. promotion)
   • Cultural values (individualism vs. collectivism)
3. Temporal Factors:
   • Time pressure in decision making
   • Relationship length/repeat vs. one-time service
   • Timing of moral information revelation
4. Message and Source Factors:
   • Source of moral/competence information (third-party vs. self-reported)
   • Severity and type of moral transgression
   • Framing of competence information (objective vs. subjective)
5. Competitive Context:
   • Number of alternatives available
   • Market concentration
   • Switching costs
6. Psychological Distance:
   • Social distance from the service provider
   • Temporal distance of the service need
   • Construal level effects

Reference

Kirmani, Amna, Rebecca W. Hamilton, Debora V. Thompson, and Shannon Lantzy (2017), “Doing Well versus Doing Good: The Differential Effect of Underdog Positioning on Moral and Competent Service Providers,” Journal of Marketing, 81 (1), 103–17.