The influence of issue attitude, value involvement and consumer-company identification on consumers’ reactions to corporate social advocacy: a moderated mediation through cognitive dissonance
{"title":"The influence of issue attitude, value involvement and consumer-company identification on consumers’ reactions to corporate social advocacy: a moderated mediation through cognitive dissonance","authors":"Xueying Zhang, Ziyuan Zhou","doi":"10.1108/jcom-05-2022-0053","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"PurposeEmploying cognitive dissonance theory, this study examines how consumers’ preexisting attitudes toward an issue, value involvement with the issue and consumer-company identification (CCI) influence their reactions to corporate social advocacy (CSA) through cognitive dissonance.Design/methodology/approachStudy 1 conducted a 2 (CSA position: pro vs anti) × 3 (preexisting issue attitude: pro vs neutral vs anti) online quasi-experiment. The CSA messages were created in the context of same-sex marriage(s). Study 2 tested the hypotheses using an online survey in the context of gun control.FindingsThe results indicated that a conflict between consumers’ preexisting attitudes and a corporation’s stance on a controversial issue led to cognitive dissonance, which further led to consumers’ perceptions of the corporation being biased in both studies. Study 1 and Study 2 suggested a mixed effect of cognitive dissonance on participants’ inclination to disidentify with the corporation. Preexisting CCI appeared to have a direct negative influence on cognitive dissonance; however, value involvement and preexisting CCI were not found to significantly enhance the influence of consumers’ attitudes toward CSA on cognitive dissonance.Originality/valueThe study first extended the theoretical discussion of cognitive dissonance to a trendy strategic communication context. The results help public relations practitioners to better understand the segmented public groups and the risk of taking a stance on controversial issues.","PeriodicalId":51660,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Communication Management","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Communication Management","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/jcom-05-2022-0053","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
PurposeEmploying cognitive dissonance theory, this study examines how consumers’ preexisting attitudes toward an issue, value involvement with the issue and consumer-company identification (CCI) influence their reactions to corporate social advocacy (CSA) through cognitive dissonance.Design/methodology/approachStudy 1 conducted a 2 (CSA position: pro vs anti) × 3 (preexisting issue attitude: pro vs neutral vs anti) online quasi-experiment. The CSA messages were created in the context of same-sex marriage(s). Study 2 tested the hypotheses using an online survey in the context of gun control.FindingsThe results indicated that a conflict between consumers’ preexisting attitudes and a corporation’s stance on a controversial issue led to cognitive dissonance, which further led to consumers’ perceptions of the corporation being biased in both studies. Study 1 and Study 2 suggested a mixed effect of cognitive dissonance on participants’ inclination to disidentify with the corporation. Preexisting CCI appeared to have a direct negative influence on cognitive dissonance; however, value involvement and preexisting CCI were not found to significantly enhance the influence of consumers’ attitudes toward CSA on cognitive dissonance.Originality/valueThe study first extended the theoretical discussion of cognitive dissonance to a trendy strategic communication context. The results help public relations practitioners to better understand the segmented public groups and the risk of taking a stance on controversial issues.