The current study reveals that a corporate statement on a controversial social issue is effective in changing an individual’s attitude toward the issue depending on how much the issue is relevant to the individual’s goals and/or if the corporate statement is supported by other corporations. Advocacy fit, corporate credibility, the bandwagon heuristic, and position advocated were varied in a fully crossed 2 × 2 × 2 × 2 experiment (N = 677). The relevance of the controversial social issue to each participant’s goals and values was also considered. Findings indicate that the fit of an issue mattered for attitude change when the issue was relevant to one’s goals. The number of corporations that agreed with the corporate statement affected attitude change when the issue was relevant to each participant’s goals and values. Corporate credibility did not have any significant effect on whether individuals changed their attitudes. Implications and directions for future research are discussed.
AguileraR. V.RuppD. E.WilliamsC. A.GanapathiJ. (2007). Putting the S back in corporate social responsibility: A multilevel theory of social change in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 32, 836–863. https://doi.org/10.2307/20159338
2.
Becker-OlsenK. L.CudmoreB. A.HillR. P. (2006). The impact of perceived corporate social responsibility on consumer behavior. Journal of Business Research, 59, 46–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2005.01.001
3.
BlankenshipK. L.WegenerD. T. (2008). Opening the mind to close it: Considering a message in light of important values increases message processing and later resistance to change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 196–213. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.94.2.94.2.196
4.
BloomP. N.HoefflerS.KellerK. L.MezaC. E. B. (2006). How social-cause marketing affects consumer perceptions. MIT Sloan Management Review, 47, 49–55.
5.
BlumeK. A. (2012, July16). “Guilty as charged,” Cathy says of Chick-fil-A’s stand on biblical & family values. Baptist Press. http://www.bpnews.net/38271
CarpenterC. J. (2015). A meta-analysis of the ELM’s argument quality × processing type predictions. Human Communication Research, 41, 501–534. https://doi.org/10.1111/hcre.12054
9.
ChaikenS. (1987). The heuristic model of persuasion. In ZannaM. P.OlsonJ. M.HermanC. P. (Eds.), Social influence: The Ontario symposium (Vol. 5, pp. 3–40). Psychology Press.
10.
ChoH.BosterF. J. (2005). Development and validation of value-, outcome-, and impression-relevant involvement scales. Communication Research, 32, 235–264. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650204273764
DoddM. D.SupaD. W. (2014). Conceptualizing and measuring “corporate social advocacy” communication: Examining the impact on corporate financial performance. Public Relations Journal, 8, 1–23.
18.
DoddM. D.SupaD. W. (2015). Testing the viability of corporate social advocacy as a predictor of purchase intention. Communication Research Reports, 32, 287–293. https://doi.org/10.1080/08824096.2015.1089853
19.
DuS.BhattacharyaC. B.SenS. (2010). Maximizing business returns to corporate social responsibility (CSR): The role of CSR communication. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12, 8–19. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2009.00276.x
FuW. W.SimC. C. (2011). Aggregate bandwagon effect on online videos’ viewership: Value uncertainty, popularity cues, and heuristics. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 62, 2382–2395. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21641
GoldsmithR. E.LaffertyB. A.NewellS. J. (2000). The impact of corporate credibility and celebrity credibility on consumer reaction to advertisements and brands. Journal of Advertising, 29, 43–54. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2000.10673616
27.
HansenS. D.DunfordB. B.BossA. D.BossR. W.AngermeierI. (2011). Corporate social responsibility and the benefits of employee trust: A cross-disciplinary perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 102, 29–45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-0903-0
HooperD.CoughlanJ.MullenM. R. (2008). Structural equation modelling: Guidelines for determining model fit. The Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6, 53–60.
KimH.SundarS. S. (2014). Can online buddies and bandwagon cues enhance user participation in online health communities?Computers in Human Behavior, 37, 319–333. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.04.039
33.
KroneK. (2005). Trends in organizational communication research: Sustaining the discipline, sustaining ourselves. Communication Studies, 56, 95–105. https://doi.org/10.1080/0008957042000332269
34.
LaffertyB. A. (2007). The relevance of fit in a cause-brand alliance when consumers evaluate corporate credibility. Journal of Business Research, 60, 447–453. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2006.09.030
35.
LaffertyB. A.GoldsmithR. E. (1999). Corporate credibility’s role in consumers’ attitudes and purchase intentions when a high versus a low credibility endorser is used in the ad. Journal of Business Research, 44, 109–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0148-2963(98)00002-2
36.
LaffertyB. A.GoldsmithR. E. (2004). How influential are corporate credibility and endorser attractiveness when innovators react to advertisements for a new high-technology product?Corporate Reputation Review, 7, 24–36. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.crr.1540209
37.
LangeD.WashburnN. T. (2012). Understanding attributions of corporate social irresponsibility. Academy of Management Review, 37, 300–326. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2010.0522
LuttrellA.PettyR. E.BriñolP.WagnerB. C. (2016). Making it moral: Merely labeling an attitude as moral increases its strength. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 65, 82–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2016.04.003
40.
McCroskeyJ. C.TevenJ. J. (1999). Goodwill: A reexamination of the construct and its measurement. Communication Monographs, 66, 90–103. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637759909376464
MenonS.KahnB. E. (2003). Corporate sponsorships of philanthropic activities: When do they impact perception of sponsor brand?Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13, 316–327. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327663JCP1303_12
43.
MetzgerM. J.FlanaginA. J. (2013). Credibility and trust of information in online environments: The use of cognitive heuristics. Journal of Pragmatics, 59, 210–220. https://doi.org/1016/j.pragma.2013.07.012
44.
NadeauR.CloutierE.GuayJ. H. (1993). New evidence about the existence of a bandwagon effect in the opinion formation process. International Political Science Review, 14, 203–213. https://doi.org/10.1177/019251219301400204
45.
NanX.HeoK. (2007). Consumer responses to corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives: Examining the role of brand-cause fit in cause-related marketing. Journal of Advertising, 36(2), 63–74. https://doi.org/10.2753/JOA0091-3367360204
46.
O’ConnorA.GronewoldK. L. (2012). Black gold, green earth: An analysis of the petroleum industry’s CSR environmental sustainability discourse. Management Communication Quarterly, 27, 210–236. https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318912465189
47.
O’ConnorA.ShumateM.MeisterM. (2008). Walk the line: Active Moms define corporate social responsibility. Public Relations Review, 34, 343–350. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2008.06.005
48.
O’KeefeD. J. (2013). The elaboration likelihood model. In DillardJ. P.ShenL. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of persuasion: Developments in theory and practice (pp. 137–149). Sage.
49.
ParkH. S.LevineT. R.WestermanC. Y. K.OrfgenT.ForeggerS. (2007). The effects of argument quality and involvement type on attitude formation and attitude change: A test of dual-process and social judgment predictions. Human Communication Research, 33, 81–102. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00290.x
50.
PettyR. E.CacioppoJ. T. (1979). Issue involvement can increase or decrease persuasion by enhancing message-relevant cognitive responses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1915–1926. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.37.10.1915
51.
PettyR. E.CacioppoJ. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In BerkowitzL. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 19, pp. 123–205). Academic Press.
PettyR. E.CacioppoJ. T. (1996). Attitudes and persuasion: Classic and contemporary approaches. Westview Press.
54.
PornpitakpanC. (2004). The persuasiveness of source credibility: A critical review of five decades’ evidence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34, 243–281. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2004.tb02547.x
StanchiK. M. (2012). Involvement. In EdwardsL. H. (Ed.), Readings in persuasion: Briefs that changed the world (pp. 131–145). Wolters Kluwer Law & Business.
SundarS. S. (2008). The MAIN model: A heuristic approach to understanding technology effects on credibility. In MetzgerM. J.FlanaginA. J. (Eds.), Digital media, youth, and credibility (pp. 73–100). The MIT Press.
61.
SundarS. S.Knobloch-WesterwickS.HastallM. R. (2007). News cues: Information scent and cognitive heuristics. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58, 366–378. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20511
62.
SundarS. S.XuQ.Oeldorf-HirschA. (2009). Authority vs. peer: How interface cues influence users. In Proceedings of the 27th international conference extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems (pp. 4231–4236). https://doi.org/10.1145/1520340.1520645
63.
WaddockS.GooginsB. K. (2014). The paradoxes of communicating corporate social responsibility. In IhlenØ.BartlettJ. L.MayS. (Eds.), The handbook of communication and corporate social responsibility (pp. 23–44). John Wiley.
WestermanD.SpenceP. R.Van Der HeideB. (2014). Social media as information source: Recency of updates and credibility of information. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 19, 171–183. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12041
66.
WettsteinF.BaurD. (2016). “Why should we care about marriage equality?” Political advocacy as a part of corporate responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 138, 199–213. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2631-3
WorthingtonA. K.NussbaumJ. F.ParrottR. L. (2015). Organizational credibility: The role of issue involvement, value-relevant involvement, elaboration, author credibility, message quality, and message effectiveness in persuasive messages from public health advocacy organizations. Communication Research Reports, 32, 199–207. https://doi.org/10.1080/08824096.2015.1016153
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
