Consumers React Strongly to Brand Inauthenticity, Study Reveals

Research from George Mason University reveals that consumers experience intense emotional responses when they perceive a brand as inauthentic. Professors Jessica Hoppner and Russell Abratt conducted an in-depth study examining how feelings of betrayal influence consumer behavior. Their findings suggest that brands must navigate the complex emotional landscape that arises from perceived inauthenticity to maintain customer loyalty.

The study, published on November 12, 2025, in the Journal of Product & Brand Management, involved 218 participants recruited through Amazon’s Mechanical Turk platform. Respondents shared their experiences of brand inauthenticity, detailing the emotional fallout and actions taken afterward. Hoppner explains that brand authenticity is defined by the relationship between the brand and the consumer, emphasizing that inauthenticity occurs when a brand’s actions conflict with its perceived core values.

The researchers found that consumers identified a total of 156 different brands in their responses, with only 25.2% appearing on Interbrand’s Top 100 Best Global Brands List. This broad range indicates that brand inauthenticity is a widespread issue, affecting both large and small brands across various sectors.

Emotional Responses Triggered by Inauthenticity

The emotional impact of brand inauthenticity mirrors that of personal betrayal. Participants reported feelings of anger, anxiety, and disappointment, all of which varied in intensity based on the perceived severity of the betrayal. The study’s analysis drew on psychological concepts, including appraisal theory and balance theory, to explore these emotional reactions.

Anger was categorized as a “hot emotion,” leading consumers to retaliate against brands they viewed as inauthentic. This could manifest through complaints or a withdrawal of loyalty. In contrast, anxiety prompted consumers to seek deeper truths about the brand, often increasing their engagement as they searched for clarification. Hoppner notes, “Anxiety is very ambiguous. When we’re anxious, it’s often because we don’t really know what happened, why it happened, who’s to blame, etc.”

Disappointment, on the other hand, often resulted in a more passive response. Instead of seeking resolution, consumers focused on avoiding further disappointment by disengaging from the brand altogether.

Implications for Brand Managers

The findings highlight significant implications for brand managers. Hoppner and Abratt caution against generic responses aimed at winning back customers who feel betrayed. The researchers suggest that anger and anxiety manifest differently, and disappointment may not be easily measurable. Instead, brands should engage with consumers by asking questions and listening closely before attempting to resolve issues of inauthenticity.

To prevent perceptions of inauthenticity in the first place, brands must cultivate a clear understanding of their identity and communicate this effectively. “I think the real issue for firms is to understand who they are,” Abratt states. “Brands have to talk about their identity. And once they have figured that out, they have to ensure their employees are trained to communicate their values consistently.”

Hoppner and Abratt’s research underscores the importance of authenticity in building lasting consumer relationships. As brands navigate an increasingly complex marketplace, understanding the emotional dynamics of their customers will be crucial to maintaining trust and loyalty.

For further details, refer to the full study by Hoppner et al. in the Journal of Product & Brand Management (2025).