Pushing hands and buttons: The effects of corporate social issue stance communication and online comment (in)civility on publics’ responses

Despite increasing interest and involvement in corporate social advocacy (CSA) among companies, there are growing concerns among public relations scholars and practitioners regarding the undesired outcomes of CSA communication. To advance the knowledge of whether and how CSA communication might contribute to enhancing publics’ support for an organization, a 3 (organizational issue stance: pro-refugee immigration vs. against-refugee immigration vs. open dialogue) x 2 (social media comment civility: civil vs. uncivil) between-subjects online experiment was conducted with a U.S. adult sample (N = 1388). We found when the organization expressed its pro-refugee immigration stance (in contrast to advocating against refugee immigration or calling for open dialogue), greater support toward the organization was intended by participants. Advocating for open dialogue about refugee immigration resulted in undesired effects only when social media user comments following the CSA communication were uncivil, as it led to higher level of conflicted and cynical feelings sequentially, which in turn lowered participants’ intended support for the organization. Political ideology and pre-existing issue stance were key moderators influencing participants’ responses to the organization’s CSA statement. Theoretical and practical implications for public relations scholars and practitioners are further discussed.