The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of priming social identity (cosmopolitan vs. parochial) within the context of diversity-related corporate social advocacy (CSA) on organization-public relationships (OPRs) and the intention to participate. It also explored whether the individual’s dispositional factor of social identity complexity (SIC), or the type of message that accompanies the priming strategy, moderates these effects. To test the hypotheses, a 2 (identity priming: parochial vs. cosmopolitan) × 2 (message type: abstract vs. concrete) experiment was conducted with 585 American participants. Results indicated that priming cosmopolitan identity (as compared to parochial identity) positively influenced both OPRs and participation intention. Although SIC did not moderate these relationships, message type demonstrated a moderating effect on participation intention, but not on OPRs. Specifically, participants showed greater intention to participate in the cosmopolitan identity (vs. parochial identity) priming strategy when the CSA message was presented concretely.
AbramsD.HoggM. A. (1988). Comments on the motivational status of self-esteem in social identity and intergroup discrimination. European Journal of Social Psychology, 18(4), 317–334. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420180403
2.
AggarwalP.LawS. (2005). Role of relationship norms in processing brand information. Journal of Consumer Research, 32(3), 453–464. https://doi.org/10.1086/497557
3.
AjzenI. (2012). The theory of planned behavior. In Van LangeP. A. M.KruglanskiA. W.HigginsE. T. (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology: Volume 1 (pp. 438–459). Sage Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446249215
4.
AlbarelloF.RubiniM. (2012). Reducing dehumanisation outcomes towards Blacks: The role of multiple categorisation and of human identity. European Journal of Social Psychology, 42(7), 875–882. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.1902
5.
BallietD.WuJ.De DreuC. K. (2014). Ingroup favoritism in cooperation: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 140(6), 1556–1581. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037737
6.
BassettJ. F.ClevelandA. J. (2019). Identification with all humanity, support for refugees and for extreme counter-terrorism measures. Journal of Social and Political Psychology, 7(1), 310–334. https://doi.org/10.5964/jspp.v7i1.678
7.
BergamiM.BagozziR. P. (2000). Self-categorization, affective commitment and group self-esteem as distinct aspects of social identity in the organization. British Journal of Social Psychology, 39(4), 555–577. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466600164633
8.
BilgenE.ZagefkaH.BjornsdottirR. T. (2024). Unity in diversity: Exploring the effect of oneness with humanity on the willingness to donate to Syrian and Ukrainian refugees. Personality and Individual Differences, 222, Article 112591. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2024.112591
9.
BrewerM. B. (2010). Social identity complexity and acceptance of diversity. In CrispR. J. (Ed.), The psychology of social and cultural diversity (pp. 11–33). Wiley Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444325447.ch2
10.
BrewerM. B.GonsalkoraleK.Van DommelenA. (2013). Social identity complexity: Comparing majority and minority ethnic group members in a multicultural society. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 16(5), 529–544. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430212468622
11.
BrewerM. B.PierceK. P. (2005). Social identity complexity and outgroup tolerance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31(3), 428–437. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167204271710
12.
BrowningN.LeeE.ParkY. E.KimT.CollinsR. (2020). Muting or meddling? Advocacy as a relational communication strategy affecting organization–public relationships and stakeholder response. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 97(4), 1026–1053. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077699020916810
13.
BruningS. D.LedinghamJ. A. (2000). Perceptions of relationships and evaluations of satisfaction: An exploration of interaction. Public Relations Review, 26(1), 85–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0363-8111(00)00032-1
14.
CiszekE.LimH. S. (2021). Perceived brand authenticity and LGBTQ publics: how LGBTQ practitioners understand authenticity. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 15(5), 395–409. https://doi.org/10.1080/1553118X.2021.1988954
CrispR. J.TurnerR. N. (2011). Cognitive adaptation to the experience of social and cultural diversity. Psychological Bulletin, 137(2), 242–266. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021840
17.
DeVerteuilG.YunO.ChoiC. (2019). Between the cosmopolitan and the parochial: The immigrant gentrifier in Koreatown, Los Angeles. Social & Cultural Geography, 20(1), 64–86. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649365.2017.1347955
18.
De VriesC. E. (2018). The cosmopolitan-parochial divide: changing patterns of party and electoral competition in the Netherlands and beyond. Journal of European Public Policy, 25(11), 1541–1565. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2017.1339730
19.
DoddM. D.SupaD. W. (2014). Conceptualizing and measuring “corporate social advocacy” communication: Examining the impact on corporate financial performance. Public Relations Journal, 8(3), 2–23.
20.
DorroughA. R.GlöcknerA.HellmannD. M.EbertI. (2015). The development of ingroup favoritism in repeated social dilemmas. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, Article 476. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00476
21.
FaulF.ErdfelderE.BuchnerA.LangA. G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G* Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41(4), 1149–1160. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149
22.
FaulF.ErdfelderE.LangA. G.BuchnerA. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146
23.
GaertnerS. L.DovidioJ. F.AnastasioP. A.BachmanB. A.RustM. C. (1993). The common ingroup identity model: Recategorization and the reduction of intergroup bias. European Review of Social Psychology, 4(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/14792779343000004
HallM. R. (2006). Corporate philanthropy and corporate community relations: Measuring relationship-building results. Journal of Public Relations Research, 18(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532754xjprr1801_1
26.
HayesA. F. (2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Publications.
27.
HessY. D.CarnevaleJ. J.RosarioM. (2018). A construal level approach to understanding interpersonal processes. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 12(8), Article e12409. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12409
HongC.LiC. (2020). To support or to boycott: A public segmentation model in corporate social advocacy. Journal of Public Relations Research, 32(5-6), 160–177. https://doi.org/10.1080/1062726X.2020.1848841
30.
IntraviaJ.PiqueroA. R.Leeper PiqueroN.ByersB. (2020). Just do it? An examination of race on attitudes associated with Nike’s advertisement featuring Colin Kaepernick. Deviant Behavior, 41(10), 1221–1231. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2019.1604299
31.
JoppkeC. (1996). Multiculturalism and immigration: A comparison of the United States, Germany, and Great Britain. Theory and Society, 25, 449–500. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00160674
32.
JungblutM.JohnenM. (2022). When brands (don’t) take my stance: the ambiguous effectiveness of political brand communication. Communication Research, 49(8), 1092–1117. https://doi.org/10.1177/00936502211001622
33.
LeeS. J. (2019). The role of construal level in message effects research: A review and future directions. Communication Theory, 29(3), 319–338. https://doi.org/10.1093/ct/qty030
34.
LeeS. Y.KimY.KimY. (2020). The co-creation of social value: what matters for public participation in corporate social responsibility campaigns. Journal of Public Relations Research, 32(5–6), 198–221. https://doi.org/10.1080/1062726X.2021.1888734
35.
LeslieL. M.BonoJ. E.KimY. S.BeaverG. R. (2020). On melting pots and salad bowls: A meta-analysis of the effects of identity-blind and identity-conscious diversity ideologies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 105(5), 453–471. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000446
36.
LiJ. Y.KimJ. K.AlharbiK. (2022). Exploring the role of issue involvement and brand attachment in shaping consumer response toward corporate social advocacy (CSA) initiatives: The case of Nike’s Colin Kaepernick campaign. International Journal of Advertising, 41(2), 233–257. https://doi.org/10.1080/02650487.2020.1857111
37.
LimJ. S.YoungC. (2021). Effects of issue ownership, perceived fit, and authenticity in corporate social advocacy on corporate reputation. Public Relations Review, 47(4), Article 102071. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2021.102071
38.
LiuJ.WangT. (2024). Divided responses to corporate social advocacy: Explicating the roles of hope and perceived authenticity in shaping online engagement, word of mouth, and purchasing intention. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 18(5), 469–489. https://doi.org/10.1080/1553118X.2024.2372487
39.
MaX.MaL.LiuB. F. (2023). Should relationships be at the heart of public relations? A meta-analysis of the antecedents and consequences of organization-public relationships. Public Relations Review, 49(5), Article 102388. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2023.102388
40.
MacKenzieS. B.LutzR. J. (1989). An empirical examination of the structural antecedents of attitude toward the ad in an advertising pretesting context. Journal of marketing, 53(2), 48–65. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224298905300204
41.
McFarlandS.WebbM.BrownD. (2012). All humanity is my ingroup: A measure and studies of identification with all humanity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103(5), 830–853. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028724
42.
MirbagheriS.NajmiM. (2019). Consumers’ engagement with social media activation campaigns: Construct conceptualization and scale development. Psychology & Marketing, 36(4), 376–394. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21185
43.
NeureiterM.BhattacharyaC. B. (2021). Why do boycotts sometimes increase sales? Consumer activism in the age of political polarization. Business Horizons, 64(5), 611–620. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2021.02.025
44.
OvertonH.VafeiadisM.DiddiP.BuckleyC.DardisF. E. (2025). Examining the impact of corporate social advocacy (CSA) issue ownership and message content on authenticity perceptions and behavioral intentions. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 30(7), 21–43. https://doi.org/10.1108/CCIJ-05-2024-0080
45.
OvertonH.XiaoA. (2022). Conscience-driven corporate social advocacy: Analyzing moral conviction and perceived motives as predictors of organization-public relationships. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 27(4), 641–653. https://doi.org/10.1108/CCIJ-12-2021-0138
46.
ParchaJ. M. (2024). The theory of corporate social advocacy (CSA) success: A guide to CSA success using moral foundations theory, balance theory, and CSA authenticity. International Journal of Business Communication. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/23294884241283808
47.
ParkD. J.BergerB. K. (2004). The presentation of CEOs in the press, 1990–2000: Increasing salience, positive valence, and a focus on competency and personal dimensions of image. Journal of Public Relations Research, 16(1), 93–125. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532754xjprr1601_4
48.
ParkG.ParkH. S. (2016). Corporate social responsibility in Korea: How to communicate global issues to local stakeholders. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 23(2), 77–87. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1362
49.
PatelC. J.JohnsL. (2009). Gender role attitudes and attitudes to abortion: Are there gender differences?The Social Science Journal, 46(3), 493–505. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soscij.2009.02.006
50.
PintoD. C.BorgesA.HerterM. M.FerreiraM. B. (2020). Reducing ingroup bias in ethical consumption: The role of construal levels and social goodwill. Business Ethics Quarterly, 30(1), 31–63. https://doi.org/10.1017/beq.2019.25
51.
PratiF.CrispR. J.PrattoF.RubiniM. (2016). Encouraging majority support for immigrant access to health services: Multiple categorization and social identity complexity as antecedents of health equality. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 19(4), 426–438. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430216629814
52.
PratiF.MoscatelliS.PrattoF.RubiniM. (2016). Predicting support for Arabs’ autonomy from social dominance: The role of identity complexity and dehumanization. Political Psychology, 37(2), 293–301. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12274
53.
RiekB. M.ManiaE. W.GaertnerS. L. (2006). Intergroup threat and outgroup attitudes: A meta-analytic review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10(4), 336–353. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr1004_4
54.
RimH.LeeY.YooS. (2020). Polarized public opinion responding to corporate social advocacy: Social network analysis of boycotters and advocators. Public Relations Review, 46(2), Article 101869. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2019.101869
55.
RimH.XuH.DongC. (2022). Triadic public-company-issue relationships and publics’ reactions to corporate social advocacy (CSA): An application of balance theory. Journal of Public Relations Research, 34(3–4), 109–134. https://doi.org/10.1080/1062726X.2022.2071273
56.
RiosK.SosaN.OsbornH. (2018). An experimental approach to intergroup threat theory: Manipulations, moderators, and consequences of realistic vs. symbolic threat. European Review of Social Psychology, 29(1), 212–255. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463283.2018.1537049
SekerdejM.KołeczekM.RuparM.Jamróz-DolińskaK. (2025). Social identity complexity decreases exclusion of immigrants by reducing the glorification dimension of national identification. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 28(2), 377–392. https://doi.org/10.1177/13684302241267972
59.
SchatzR. T.LavineH. (2007). Waving the flag: National symbolism, social identity, and political engagement. Political Psychology, 28(3), 329–355. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2007.00571.x
60.
SchmidK.HewstoneM.TauschN.CairnsE.HughesJ. (2009). Antecedents and consequences of social identity complexity: Intergroup contact, distinctiveness threat, and outgroup attitudes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35(8), 1085–1098. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167209337037
61.
SongB.ChoiM. (2023). Testing publics’ perceptions of corporate social advocacy messaging: Linking organizational and social outcomes. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 17(4), 325–344. https://doi.org/10.1080/1553118X.2023.2228293
62.
StephanE.LibermanN.TropeY. (2011). The effects of time perspective and level of construal on social distance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47(2), 397–402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2010.11.001
TajfelH. (Ed.). (2010). Social identity and intergroup relations (Vol. 7). Cambridge University Press.
65.
TropeY.LibermanN. (2010). Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychological Review, 117(2), 440–463. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018963
66.
TropeY.LibermanN.WakslakC. (2007). Construal levels and psychological distance: Effects on representation, prediction, evaluation, and behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 17(2), 83–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1057-7408(07)70013-X
67.
TurnerJ. H. (1987). Toward a sociological theory of motivation. American Sociological Review, 52(1), 15–27. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095389
68.
VafeiadisM.DardisF.DiddiP.OvertonH.BuckleyC. (2025). Saying the right things to the right audience: The influence of message strategy and consumer demographics on reactions to Corporate Social Advocacy (CSA) Communications. International Journal of Business Communication. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/23294884251336354
69.
Van ZomerenM.PostmesT.SpearsR. (2008). Toward an integrative social identity model of collective action: A quantitative research synthesis of three socio-psychological perspectives. Psychological Bulletin, 134(4), 504–535. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.134.4.504
70.
WaymerD.LoganN. (2021). Corporate social advocacy as engagement: Nike’s social justice communication. Public Relations Review, 47(1), Article 102005. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2020.102005
71.
WeberT. J.JoiremanJ.SprottD. E.HydockC. (2023). Differential response to corporate political advocacy and corporate social responsibility: Implications for political polarization and radicalization. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 42(1), 74–93. https://doi.org/10.1177/07439156221133073
72.
XiaoA.OvertonH. K. (2022). Motivations for supporting corporate social advocacy: Applying the SIMCA model. Journal of Communication Management, 26(4), 373–385. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCOM-08-2021-0093
73.
XuH.LeeE.RimH. (2022). Should businesses take a stand? Effects of perceived psychological distance on consumers’ expectation and evaluation of corporate social advocacy. Journal of Marketing Communications, 28(8), 840–863. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527266.2021.1969588
74.
XuH.RimH.DongC. (2024). The combined effects of consumer-company stance congruence and consumers’ pre-existing corporate attitude in corporate social advocacy. Public Relations Review, 50(2), Article 102441. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2024.102441
75.
XuS. (2020). Issues, identity salience, and individual sense of connection to organizations: An identity-based approach. Journal of Public Relations Research, 32(3–4), 120–139. https://doi.org/10.1080/1062726X.2020.1802731
76.
YouL.HonL.LeeY. H. (2023). How value congruence and issue relevance affect consumer reactions to corporate political advocacy. International Journal of Business Communication. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/23294884231200858
77.
YuanS. U.YuepingL. I. (2022). Relationship between subjective socioeconomic status and sense of gain of health-care reform and the mediating role of self-rated health: A cross-sectional study in China. BMC Public Health, 22(1), Article 790. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-022-13106-y
78.
ZhangL. (2014). How effective are your CSR messages? The moderating role of processing fluency and construal level. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 41, 56–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2014.04.005
79.
ZhangX. (2024). Intention to participate in social activism activities in response to corporate social advocacy: A third-person effect perspective. Mass Communication and Society, 27(2), 278–307. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2023.2202643
80.
ZhouA. (2021). Communicating corporate LGBTQ advocacy: A computational comparison of the global CSR discourse. Public Relations Review, 47(4), Article 102061. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2021.102061
81.
ZhuL.HeY.ChenQ.HuM. (2017). It’s the thought that counts: The effects of construal level priming and donation proximity on consumer response to donation framing. Journal of Business Research, 76, 44–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.03.007
