Can Mixed Martial Arts be Ethically Defended?: Autonomy, Paternalism and the Harm Principle

Abstract Mixed Martial Arts (MMA) and the Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) founded in 1993 have been under scrutiny for the past two decades. Unlike boxing, the ethical status of MMA and whether it is morally defensible have rarely been analyzed in the academic literature. I argue that MMA requires such an analysis because it is inherently violent. The purpose of this study was to examine elite-level MMA by referring to the ethical concepts of autonomy, paternalism and the Harm Principle. Findings from interviews with MMA athletes as well as my personal experience of MMA were presented to establish a deeper understanding of the sport and what it means to train and compete in a sport defined as violent. The conceptual analysis and findings of MMA athletes' experiences in this investigation resulted in the conclusion that MMA is ethically defensible. Additional findings, implications and recommendations for further research were also discussed.

Is Brand Equity an Asset or a Liability in Brand Harm Crisis? Buffering and Amplifying Effects and Contingent Conditions

Brand harm crisis often result in negative consumer responses. This thesis addresses the buffering and amplifying theoretical perspectives of brand equity effects. We theorize that brand equity may interplay with the nature of brand-harm crisis in shaping consumer reactions. Results from focus group studies provide interesting insights into the amplifying and buffering effects. Moreover, research findings from two experiment studies show that brand equity amplifies consumer negative responses in a performance-related crisis but only when the crisis is extremely severe. When the crisis becomes less severe, the amplifying effect diminishes from outset. However, in a value-related crisis, the amplifying effect of brand equity is pervasive regardless of the level of crisis severity. The current thesis adds to the extant literature by demonstrating that brand equity can have very complex effects on consumer responses, which are contingent on the severity and domain of a crisis. Theoretical and managerial implications are discussed.

Alleviating Negative Spillover of a Brand-Harm Crisis: Sensegiving vs. Sensehiding in a Competitor’s Denial Response Strategy

A brand-harm crisis not only affects the scandalized brand, but may also influence competing brands. Thus, marketers of competing brands need to develop response strategies for reducing negative spillover effects. This research takes a competitor’s perspective and introduces two types of response strategies used to convey a sense of denial: sensegiving and sensehiding. It also investigates how the effects of response strategies are contingent upon brand relatedness and individual thinking styles. The results from three experimental studies show that using a sensegiving strategy reduces negative spillover effects more than using a sensehiding strategy. Additionally, the studies suggest that the observed difference in the effects of response strategy tends to be greater when the level of brand relatedness is high than when it is low. However, individual thinking styles (holistic vs. analytic) seem to have little impact on consumers’ responses to the two denial strategies. This research contributes to the brand-harm crisis literature and provides novel insights into a competitor’s response to potential negative spillover effects.