Publics’ Views of Corporate Social Advocacy Initiatives: Exploring Prior Issue Stance, Attitude Toward a Company, and News Credibility

IF 1.9 4区 管理学 Q2 COMMUNICATION Management Communication Quarterly Pub Date : 2022-06-02 DOI:10.1177/08933189221105808
Sun Young Lee, Sungwon Chung
{"title":"Publics’ Views of Corporate Social Advocacy Initiatives: Exploring Prior Issue Stance, Attitude Toward a Company, and News Credibility","authors":"Sun Young Lee, Sungwon Chung","doi":"10.1177/08933189221105808","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Corporate social advocacy (CSA) has emerged to promote change on social issues in response to publics’ expectations and demands, but how different publics might respond to CSA differently is little understood. Grounded in Du et al.’s (2010) corporate social responsibility (CSR) communication framework, social judgment theory (SJT), and the elaboration likelihood model (ELM), we conducted an online survey (N = 505) to examine whether publics perceived CSA differently depending on their existing stance on an issue and whether the existing stance interacted with their attitude toward the company and news credibility. The results showed that individuals’ reaction to the CSA differed in light of their existing stance on an issue. Furthermore, when an individual's stance was undecided, attitude toward the company and news credibility were significantly related to change in issue stance, attitude toward the CSA campaign, and skepticism toward the company’s motives. We discuss the theoretical and practical implications.","PeriodicalId":47743,"journal":{"name":"Management Communication Quarterly","volume":"37 1","pages":"281 - 309"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Management Communication Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/08933189221105808","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

Corporate social advocacy (CSA) has emerged to promote change on social issues in response to publics’ expectations and demands, but how different publics might respond to CSA differently is little understood. Grounded in Du et al.’s (2010) corporate social responsibility (CSR) communication framework, social judgment theory (SJT), and the elaboration likelihood model (ELM), we conducted an online survey (N = 505) to examine whether publics perceived CSA differently depending on their existing stance on an issue and whether the existing stance interacted with their attitude toward the company and news credibility. The results showed that individuals’ reaction to the CSA differed in light of their existing stance on an issue. Furthermore, when an individual's stance was undecided, attitude toward the company and news credibility were significantly related to change in issue stance, attitude toward the CSA campaign, and skepticism toward the company’s motives. We discuss the theoretical and practical implications.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
公众对企业社会倡导活动的看法:探索先前的问题立场、对公司的态度和新闻可信度
企业社会倡导(CSA)的出现是为了促进社会问题的变革,以回应公众的期望和需求,但人们对不同的公众如何以不同的方式回应CSA知之甚少。基于杜等人(2010)的企业社会责任(CSR)沟通框架、社会判断理论(SJT)和精化可能性模型(ELM),我们进行了一项在线调查(N=505),以调查公众对CSA的看法是否因其对某个问题的现有立场而有所不同,以及现有立场是否与他们对公司的态度和新闻可信度相互作用。结果显示,个人对CSA的反应因其在某一问题上的现有立场而异。此外,当个人的立场尚未确定时,对公司的态度和新闻可信度与问题立场的变化、对CSA活动的态度以及对公司动机的怀疑显著相关。我们讨论了其理论和实践意义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
16.00%
发文量
35
期刊介绍: Management Communication Quarterly presents conceptually rigorous, empirically-driven, and practice-relevant research from across the organizational and management communication fields and has strong appeal across all disciplines concerned with organizational studies and the management sciences. Authors are encouraged to submit original theoretical and empirical manuscripts from a wide variety of methodological perspectives covering such areas as management, communication, organizational studies, organizational behavior and HRM, organizational theory and strategy, critical management studies, leadership, information systems, knowledge and innovation, globalization and international management, corporate communication, and cultural and intercultural studies.
期刊最新文献
Technical Anonymity and Employees’ Willingness to Speak Up: Influences of Voice Solicitation, General Timeliness, and Psychological Safety Affective Sensemaking of Relational Precarities: Resilience as Becoming in Pandemic Shifting to Remote Work CSR Communication and the Polarization of Public Discourses: Introduction to the Special Issue From Being to Doing: Exploring the Situated Discourses and Performances of Work Engagement Book Review: Organizational Paradox
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1