Examining Individual Characteristics to Predict Public Support for Corporate Social Advocacy: The Role of Self-Enhancement, Collective Efficacy, and Subjective Norm
Joon Kyoung Kim, Ph.D., University of Rhode Island
Holly Overton, Ph.D., The Pennsylvania State University
Jackson Carter, Ph.D., Ouachita Baptist University
Khalid Alharbi, Ph.D., Al Imam Mohammad Ibn Saud Islamic University (IMSIU)
Table of Contents
Abstract
Companies have increasingly taken a public stance on controversial political-social issues, which scholars define as corporate social advocacy (CSA). However, little scholarly attention has been devoted to understanding how individual characteristics predict individuals’ intention to support companies’ CSA efforts. We conducted an online survey (N = 507) to investigate individual characteristics as the antecedents of their support for companies’ CSA. The results of structural equation modeling indicated that self-enhancement, collective efficacy, and subjective norm positively predict individuals’ intentions to support CSA. Self-enhancement and collective efficacy also predict favorable attitudes toward CSA-supportive behaviors, with attitudes also predicting their intention to support CSA. The results of this study offer theoretical implications to better understand how individual characteristics form individuals’ CSA support, as well as insights for practitioners to develop more effective CSA campaigns and messages.
Keywords: corporate social advocacy, self-enhancement, collective efficacy, subjective norm
Executive Summary
Companies have increasingly taken a public stance on controversial political-social issues, which scholars define as corporate social advocacy (CSA). However, little scholarly attention has been devoted to understanding individual characteristics that predict their intention to support companies’ CSA efforts. This study employed an online survey (N = 507) to investigate individual characteristics as motivating factors of their support for CSA. The results of structural equation modeling indicated that self-enhancement, collective efficacy, and subjective norm positively predict individuals’ intentions to support CSA. Self-enhancement and collective efficacy also predict favorable attitudes toward CSA-supportive behaviors, with attitude also predicting their intention to support CSA.
Study results offer theoretical implications to better understand how individual characteristics form individuals’ CSA support, as well as insights for practitioners to develop more effective CSA campaigns and messages. By employing self-enhancement theory, collective efficacy, and subjective norm, this study offers new theoretical explanations of individuals’ intention to support CSA. First, the results of this study indicate that individuals’ self-enhancement guides their intention to support CSA. Results also indicate that individuals who have high self-enhancement values are more likely to support CSA. In addition, this study applies collective efficacy to predict individuals’ CSA support. Furthermore, the mediating role of attitude offers a unique contribution to the CSA literature by identifying “attitude toward CSA initiatives” as an underlying mechanism that helps to explain the effect of collective efficacy on supporting CSA initiatives. Finally, in addition to self-enhancement and collective efficacy, we tested the relationship between subjective norm and support for CSA. This study offers a new contribution to the existing body of the literature by introducing subjective norm as a positive predictor of CSA support intention.
This study offers important practical implications for companies that can assist with increasing support from key stakeholders for their CSA efforts. Companies can tailor their messaging and actions with stakeholders who support CSA (knowing that there are other stakeholders who are alienated by their CSA efforts). For example, they can create messaging that highlights the importance of that individual’s actions related to a social-political issue and the impact of their support. If individuals are motivated by self-enhancement, companies may consider that they care about the issue and that supporting CSA makes them feel good. The collective efficacy aspect underscores the importance of an individual feeling like their efforts are being supported among a larger group of people with a common goal. Similarly, the subjective norm factor reinforces social support for the efforts. Companies should also stress how individuals and companies could collectively inspire change. When these factors work in combination, companies have an opportunity to create a sense of community where both the company and individuals embrace a responsibility to create change and work together to do so. This way, individuals not only feel fulfilled by their own efforts, but they also recognize the expectation for them to contribute to societal solutions while feeling part of a collective group working toward the same goal. Since individuals often look to brands to be leaders in CSA efforts, companies can appeal to supporters to work alongside them to support these efforts—whether through signing a petition, using platforms to raise awareness and/or share facts about the issue, or even peaceful protests. This could not only result in better awareness and support from individuals–it could also result in stronger organization-public relationships as a whole.
Examining Individual Characteristics to Predict Public Support for Corporate Social Advocacy: The Role of Self-Enhancement, Collective Efficacy, and Subjective Norm
Companies have become increasingly vocal about their stance on controversial political or social issues—termed corporate social advocacy (CSA; Dodd & Supa, 2014; Rim et al., 2020). These stances have been intentionally public, with recent examples including companies taking stances on issues such as gun control, gay marriage, and healthcare reform, among others (Dodd & Supa, 2014; Gaither et al., 2018). Although the public’s responses toward companies engaging in CSA have been mixed (Weber et al., 2023), recent scholarship has found that there are sometimes organizational benefits from engaging with CSA, including garnering favorable attitudes from the public (Kim et al., 2020; Parcha & Kingsley Westerman, 2020), higher purchase intentions among consumers (Abitbol et al., 2018; Hong & Li, 2020), and individuals indicating intentions to speak positively about the company engaging in CSA activities (Li et al., 2022).
Given the increasing attention to CSA in both scholarship and practice, researchers have investigated what motivates individuals’ positive attitudinal and behavioral responses toward CSA. Research has identified various predictors of individuals’ positive behavioral intentions, such as the perceived motives of CSA (Kim et al., 2020), the perceived fit between a company and the cause of CSA (Hong & Li, 2020), issue awareness (Heffron & Dodd, 2021), and individuas’ pre-existing corporate attitude (Xu et al., 2024). However, most extant literature has focused on organizational factors (i.e., individuals’ perceptions of companies and their CSA) without giving proper consideration to the individual characteristics that predict individuals’ attitudinal and behavioral responses to CSA. While this is underexplored in CSA research, scholars have examined motivational factors that drive behavioral intentions related to corporate social responsibility (CSR), which refers to corporations’ socially beneficial practices that are intended to contribute to societal good. While CSR and CSA are tangentially related, there are notable differences in that CSR is not controversial in nature whereas CSA is inherently controversial (Rim et al., 2020) and risks alienating some stakeholders (Browning et al., 2020). Therefore, while CSR is often focused on the bottom line, CSA is intended to extend beyond that (Wettstein & Baur, 2016). Despite their differences, CSA scholarship is still developing, and theoretical arguments from CSR communication are often tested in CSA research. In the context of CSR communication, researchers have found that individuals are motivated to support CSR when they believe supporting it would enable them to have a more positive self-image, which in turn enhances their positive self-esteem. In addition to the self-serving motives, research has shown that individuals are more likely to support CSR when they believe their contribution will create change and when their social groups want them to support CSR (Kim et al., 2019).
Given the findings from extant literature that have examined these individual characteristics in a CSR communication context, this research fills a gap in CSA literature by investigating individual characteristics as the antecedents of individuals’ intentions to support the idea of companies taking a stance on social-political issues (i.e., CSA). Specifically, using the self-enhancement, collective efficacy, and subjective norm as a theoretical guide, this study aims to investigate individuals’ psychological characteristics as the determinants of their behavioral intention to support CSA. While extant CSA literature has most commonly taken a situational or context-based approach to examining the public’s response to company stance-taking, this study takes the approach of examining these variables in a broader, more general context in an effort to capture individuals’ attitudes and support for CSA holistically, given the continued differential responses to company-stance taking altogether (Weber et al., 2023) that has led to widespread disagreement of what role corporations should (or should not) play in social-political issues, as well as an increased level of polarization in our society as a whole (Taylor, 2024). Given the continued challenges businesses face about whether or not to engage in CSA at all, this study aims to offer insights that can help companies decide whether to engage in CSA in general rather than focusing on a specific CSA issue or example that offers guidance that may be limited to that specific situation, context, or issue. Furthermore, this study’s approach may serve as a foundation upon which more context-specific insights can be built by offering insights about why individuals support the idea of companies taking stances at all (or not) rather than simply measuring antecedents and outcomes of one company’s stance-taking effort. The results of this study offer theoretical implications to better understand how individual characteristics inform individuals’ CSA support, as well as insights for practitioners to develop more effective CSA messages and strategies.
Literature Review
Corporate Social Advocacy and Public Support
Companies have increasingly engaged in stance-taking regarding controversial social-political issues in response to calls from stakeholders for companies to take action. For example, Ben & Jerry’s has been a vocal advocate on a number of issues, such as immigration, climate change, and voting rights. The company has demonstrated its commitment to being an advocate for change through various actions, even by naming ice cream flavors after social justice efforts. Colin Kaepernick’s Change the Whirled TM flavor was created to support efforts to dismantle systemic racism. A few years earlier, Nike’s controversial 30th Anniversary campaign featuring Kaepernick generated polarized responses across the nation. Today, dozens of companies have since engaged in advocacy efforts to create change.
Extant literature to date has primarily focused on examining theoretical distinctions between CSA and related constructs (Browning et al., 2020; Dodd, 2018) or examining antecedents of CSA (Overton et al., 2020; Park & Jiang, 2020) or outcomes, such as purchase intention (Dodd & Supa, 2014; 2015); attitudes, and positive or negative word-of-mouth intention (Abitbol & VanDyke, 2023). However, CSA scholarship has called for more theoretical developments (Dodd & Supa, 2014; Waymer & Logan, 2021), and while scholarly attention to CSA is increasing, the amount of published research that advances theory in this body of literature is limited. Furthermore, as CSA is inherently intended to extend beyond a bottom-line focus, theoretical applications can extend further to better understand what motivates individuals to actually engage in supportive behaviors regarding companies that are taking these steps, acting, and speaking up.
Self-Enhancement
Though the efforts to expand and examine theoretical distinctions between CSA and related constructs have encouraged new research into a host of new areas, literature related to self-enhancement and prosocial activities has been primarily examined in the context of CSR communication (Torelli et al., 2012; Yoon et al., 2020). Self-enhancement, which promotes values of dominance over both people and resources and positively viewing oneself, is a frequent topic of study when it comes to understanding why some individuals react more positively to CSR efforts (Sedikides & Gregg, 2008; Torelli et al., 2012; Wang & Juslin, 2011). Previous research has shown that individuals are more likely to associate themselves with companies practicing CSR to enhance their self-value to maintain a positive image of themselves (Bauman & Skitka, 2012). Ramasamy et al. (2020) argues that individuals with higher self-enhancement qualities tend to view CSR efforts as benefiting themselves, meaning they are more likely to view the efforts more positively. Similarly, Park et al. (2019) showed how CSR attitudes are significantly impacted by self-enhancement values, specifically in the context of luxury goods.
Along with a more generalized approval for CSR activities, self-enhancement is a mechanism that can also influence how stakeholders view prosocial behaviors, both in what businesses are doing and what they are being asked to do (Odunjo et al., 2023). Prosocial behaviors have implications for organizations, internally and externally, and prosocial behavior, which is defined as any voluntary action that benefits others, may seem initially like a reason for individuals who are motivated by self-enhancement to not view CSR activities positively (Brief & Motowidlo, 1986; Caprara et al., 2012). While initially counterintuitive, prosocial behaviors are seen as positive behaviors by those who are motivated by self-enhancement as a way to maintain a positive self-view (Brown et al., 1988). Through a series of studies, Jin et al. (2020) found that the influence of self-enhancement can outweigh more typical factors for determining one’s reception of prosocial behavior in CSR activities, like group membership. As it continues to be apparent that self-enhancement is influential in determining how people view prosocial behaviors in CSR activities, scholars have begun calling for more research (Jin et al., 2020; Park et al., 2019). While the connection between self-enhancement, prosocial behavior, and CSR is well-documented, literature in this area is generally limited from CSA scholarship. This lack of research provides an opportunity for this work to add to the CSA literature and to examine new areas for self-enhancement theory and prosocial interaction in this context.
Collective Efficacy
Collective efficacy is considered to be an extension of self-efficacy. While self-efficacy centers on the perception of an individual’s own ability, collective efficacy centers on the perception of an individual toward the group’s ability (Parker, 1994). Collective efficacy has been defined as the belief that people share in the ability of the group to achieve desired outcomes as a result of a collective action (Bandura, 2000). Strong collective efficacy is an indicator of active participation. How people perceive the efficacy of a community is influencing activism and the possibility of participation in the digital world (Bandura, 2002; Kavanaugh et al., 2003).
Results from extant literature suggest that collective efficacy increases an individual’s intention to participate in environmentally-friendly initiatives (Jugert et al., 2016), which is in line with previous research that suggests that pro-environmental behavior is strongly predicated by collective efficacy (Chen, 2015; Homburg & Stolberg, 2006). A recent study that examined the link between collective efficacy and engaging in advocacy on Facebook found that a higher perception of collective efficacy leads to a higher possibility of participating in a collective action related to a social cause (You & Hon, 2019). Ding (2022) found that consumers’ perceived collective efficacy was positively associated with their food waste reduction intention at a restaurant when the restaurant does not implement CSR or other efforts to reduce food waste.
You and Hon (2019) also found that when people see the advocated social cause as important, they are more likely to participate in the collective action. Johnson-Young and Magee’s (2019) study showed that individuals’ responses to CSR vary depending on their level of collective efficacy. Using Dove’s Real Beauty campaign as experimental stimuli, Johnson-Young and Magee (2019) found that those who have higher collective efficacy displayed more favorable brand attitudes when they viewed campaign messages highlighting individuals’ efficacy to prevent the problems caused by exposure to unrealistic body images compared to when they were exposed to campaign messages focusing on the problems and dangers rather than prevention.
Thus, it can be argued that the higher a person’s confidence in the ability of a group to make a change, the more likely they are to participate in the action (Bandura, 2000). In the context of CSA, when individuals with higher collective efficacy views a company advocating for a social cause, they may be more likely to participate in supporting the company’s effort. It can also be argued that collective efficacy influences people’s views and attitudes toward companies’ CSA initiatives. Individuals who have high collective efficacy are more likely to appreciate companies standing for a social cause, which in turn leads those individuals to engage in supporting companies’ advocated social causes. Based on the theoretical arguments posed in extant literature, this study hypothesizes the following:
H1: Individuals’ (a) self-enhancement and (b) collective efficacy will be positively associated with their attitude toward CSA support.
H2: Individuals’ (a) self-enhancement and (b) collective efficacy will be positively associated with their intention to support CSA.
H3: Attitude toward CSA support will be positively associated with intention to support CSA.
Subjective Norm
Fishbein and Ajzen (1977; 1981) posited in his theory of reasoned action (TRA) that an individual’s perceived social support for a behavior leads that person to adopt that behavior. With other antecedents of individuals’ behavioral intentions, including attitude toward the behavior and perceived behavioral control over the behavior, Ajzen noted that the variable subjective norm positively predict individuals’ behavioral intentions in the theory of planned behavior (TPB; Ajzen, 1991). That is, the TRA and TPB posit that individuals are more likely to adopt a behavior when their social group, such as family and friends, support them adopting the behavior.
Since Fishbein and Ajzen (1977) postulated subjective norm, researchers have examined the relationship between subjective norm and various behavioral intentions. Research has shown that individuals are more likely to engage in a behavior when their important others or social groups approve of the behavior. For example, subjective norm is positively associated with a smoker’s intention to quit smoking (Dohnke et al., 2011). The positive relationship between subjective norm and behavioral intention is manifested in the context of socially beneficial behaviors. For example, researchers found that subjective norm positively predicts individuals’ intention to purchase environmentally-friendly products (Wu & Chen, 2014), blood donation intention (France et al., 2014), and recycling intention (Mannetti et al., 2004).
The subjective norm variable has been tested as a construct of the TPB model in various public relations contexts. Scholars have found the subjective norm variable to be a consistently positive predictor of outcomes in strategic communication and CSR communication research, such as attitudes toward a behavior (Chang, 1998), predicting purchase intention (Diddi & Niehm, 2017; Hyllegard et al., 2012; Ma et al., 2012; Summers et al., 2006), increasing brand equity (Woo & Jin, 2016), or engaging in responsible environmental behaviors (Hustvedt & Dickson, 2009). Relevant to this study, extant literature has tested the subjective norm variable as a predictor of behavioral intentions regarding CSA such as positive and negative word-of-mouth intention (Overton et al., 2020), purchase intention (Dodd & Supa, 2014; 2015; Overton et al., 2020). However, CSA literature to date has not examined the subjective norm variable as a predictor of additional outcomes. Based on arguments from extant literature and the TPB, this study hypothesizes the following:
H4: Subjective norm will be positively associated with individuals’ intention to support CSA.
Mediating Role of Attitude Toward CSA Support
Researchers have investigated individuals’ attitudes as mediators between behaviors and their antecedents. Researchers have argued that the antecedents of individuals’ behavioral intentions affect their attitudes toward an organization or a behavior and, in turn, guide them to perform the behavior (Homer, 1990). For instance, individuals’ attitudes toward messages such as advertisements mediate the relationship between individual differences and behavioral intentions such as purchase intentions (Kaushal & Kumar, 2016; Lee et al., 2013). Researchers have also examined how individuals’ attitudes toward a behavior rather than messages or message sources mediate the relationship between a behavior and its predictors. For instance, Olsen (2003) found that individuals’ attitudes toward eating seafood mediated the impact of age on their seafood consumption. Olsen’s study also showed that age was positively associated with seafood consumption, and this relationship was mediated by individuals’ favorable attitudes toward eating seafood.
However, in public relations and advertising research, most studies have focused on individuals’ attitudes toward corporations rather than attitudes toward a given behavior. A few studies have argued that individuals’ attitudes toward such behaviors have mediating effects on their behavioral intentions (Kim et al., 2013). For example, Hu et al. (2018) tested the mediation effect of attitudes toward a pro-environmental behavior (i.e., bringing self-generated litter down the mountain) on the relationship between individuals’ environmental practice knowledge and their behavioral intentions. The researchers found that individuals’ environment-related knowledge has an indirect effect on their pro-environmental behaviors through their attitude toward such behaviors. However, little research has been conducted to examine the mediating role of attitudes toward a behavior in the context of CSA. Given the lack of studies investigating the mediating role of attitude toward support for CSA, this study investigated the following research questions:
RQ1: Does an individual’s attitude toward support for CSA mediate the relationship between self-enhancement and the intention to support CSA?
RQ2: Does an individual’s attitude toward support for CSA mediate the relationship between collective efficacy and the intention to support CSA?
Method
Participants and Procedures
To examine the hypotheses and research questions, an online survey was conducted through Qualtrics. Participants (N = 507) were U.S. residents recruited through a Qualtrics panel management service. Among the participants, 260 (51.3%) were male, 245 (51.3%) were female, and 2 preferred not to answer (0.4%). The average age of the participants was 45.62 years (SD = 16.61). Among participants, 378 (74.6%) identified as White, 71 (14%) identified as African-American, 25 (4.9%) identified as Hispanic or Latino, 22 (4.3%) identified as Asian, and 11 (2.2%) identified as Other. With regard to education, 35 (6.9%) indicated they completed some high school, 129 (25.4%) were high school graduates, 96 (18.9%) completed some college but did not earn a degree, 116 (22.9%) had a two-year college degree, 105 (20.7%) had a four-year college degree, and 26 (5.1%) had a graduate or professional degree.
Before launching the full study, a pretest (N = 100) was conducted using Amazon’s Mechanical Turk to test survey flow and item wording. Pretest participants were not included in the final sample. A university institutional review board approved all procedures and protocols prior to data collection. After indicating implied consent, participants answered questionnaire items that measured subjective norm, collective efficacy, self-enhancement, attitudes, and support for CSA.
Measures
Self-Enhancement
Self-enhancement was measured by using three items on a 7-point Likert-type scale (Yap et al., 2013; Yoo & Gretzel, 2008). The three items included, “I feel good when I can tell others about companies that take a stance on social issues I care about,” “By my association with companies that take a stance on social issues, I can show others that I am a responsible consumer,” and “Sharing information about a company that takes a stance on social issues is a way I can express joy about being a conscious consumer” (M = 5.22, SD = 1.4, Cronbach’s α = .93).
Collective Efficacy
Participants were asked to indicate their perceived collective efficacy, measured by adapting measures from prior works (Kavanaugh et al., 2005; You & Han, 2019). Six items on a 7-point Likert-type scale were used. Questions like “The best way to deal with society’s problems is for communities to come together,” “When a group of people work together to solve a problem, the results will spread out and benefit others,” and “Communities can create solutions to problems together,” were included (M = 5.86, SD = 1.06, Cronbach’s α = .94).
Subjective Norm
Subjective norm was measured by three items on a 7-point Likert-type scale (Ajzen, 2013; Fishbein & Ajzen, 2010). The three items included, “Many people who are important to me have talked positively in support of companies that take a stance on social issues in the past year,” “It is expected of me that I talk positively in support of companies that take a stance on social issues,” and “Most people whose opinions I value would approve of me talking positively in support of companies that take a stance on social issues” (M = 4.82, SD = 1.39, Cronbach’s α = .86).
Attitudes Toward Support for CSA
Individuals attitude toward CSA support was assessed by using three items on a 7-point semantic differential scale (Sparks & Shepherd, 1992). The three items included “extremely bad-extremely good” “extremely unpleasant-extremely pleasant,” and “extremely worthless-extremely valuable” (M = 5.71, SD = 1.28, Cronbach’s α = .93).
Support for CSA
Participants’ intention to support CSA was measured by three items on a 7-point Likert-type scale adapted from previous research (Kim, 2014; Li et al., 2020). The three items included, “I would like to support companies that take a stance on social issues,” “I would talk positively about companies that take a stance on social issues,” and “I would recommend companies that take a stance on social issues” (M = 5.41, SD = 1.29, Cronbach’s α = .94).
Results
We employed a structural equation modeling (SEM) approach to test the hypotheses. Maximum likelihood estimation was used.
Confirmatory Factor Analysis
Prior to testing the hypotheses, we checked multicollinearity between exogenous variable using the variation inflation factor (VIF) tests. The results of variation inflation factor tests showed that all exogenous variable’s VIF values were smaller than 10, the cutoff values to identify multicollinearity suggested by Belsley, Kuh, and Welsch (1980). Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed to ensure each construct had acceptable scale reliability. All measurement items showed a satisfactory factor loading, above .73, χ2 (125) = 437.7, p < .001, comparative fit index (CFI) = .97, the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = 0.07, and standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) = .03. Table 1 shows the full results of the CFA.
Hypothesis Test
The proposed model fits the data well based on the cutoff values suggested by Hu and Bentler (1998), χ2 (126) = 443.32, χ2/df. = 3.52, p < .001, CFI = .97, RMSEA = 0.07, and SRMR = .03. The results of SEM showed that individuals’ collective efficacy (β = .22, p < .001) and self-enhancement (β = .62, p < .001) were positively associated with their attitude toward CSA support. H1a and H1b were supported. Individuals’ collective efficacy (β = .06, p < .05) and self-enhancement (β = .62, p < .001) were also positively associated with their intentions to support CSA, offering support for H2a and H2b. Individuals’ favorable attitude toward CSA support was positively associated with their intention to support CSA (β = .14, p < .001), offering support for H3. Subjective norm positively predicted individuals’ support for CSA (β = .19, p < .05). H4 was supported.
Mediation Test
To test the mediating role of attitude, we employed Hayes and Preacher’s (2008) bootstrapping approach. Bootstrapping enables researchers to test direct and indirect effects by resampling with replacement. Mediation is considered to be significant when the bootstrapped confidence intervals do not include zero. We tested mediation effects of attitude using bootstrap with 10,000 replicates and 95% confidence level of the confidence interval. The path coefficients of indirect and direct effects were standardized.
The results of mediation tests indicated that individuals’ attitude toward CSA support mediated the relationship between self-enhancement and intention to support CSA, β = .08, SEboot = .04, p < .05, 95% confidence interval (CI) = (0.01, 0.15). After adding attitude toward CSA as a mediator, the association between self-enhancement and CSA support remained significant, β = .62, SEboot = .17, p < .001, 95% CI = (0.27, 0.91). Attitude toward CSA support also mediated the relationship between collective efficacy and intention to support CSA, β = .03, SEboot = .01, p < .05, 95% CI = (0.01, 0.06). When attitude was included in the model, the direct relationship between collective efficacy and CSA support intention became nonsignificant, β = .06, SEboot = .06, p = .24, 95% CI = (-0.04, 0.07). The results indicated that individuals would be more likely to support CSA when their positive attitude toward CSA support was increased by their self-enhancement value and perceived collective efficacy, which answered the research questions. Figure 2 presents the full results of mediation analyses.
Discussion
This study contributes to a growing body of literature examining CSA by investigating factors that motivate individuals to support companies’ CSA efforts. The findings of this study elucidate the internal and external factors that play a role in determining individuals’ support for CSA. Of primary importance, this study offers key theoretical advancements in our understanding of the variables that predict determinants of individuals’ attitudes toward and support for companies practicing CSA.
Results from H1-H3 indicate that both internal factors, collective efficacy and self-enhancement, positively predict attitudes and behavioral intentions toward CSA, but also that attitudes toward CSA support are positively associated with behavioral intentions. These findings support arguments from previous studies, particularly regarding collective efficacy and its relationship to behavioral intentions (Chen, 2015; Homburg & Stolberg, 2006) and attitudes (You & Hon, 2019). The support for H3 and H4 further reinforces arguments from extant literature, specifically those that have applied arguments from the theory of planned behavior (TPB) in a CSA context (Dodd & Supa, 2015; Overton et al., 2020). Previous literature has found attitudes to be the strongest predictor of behavioral intentions. While the results of this study showed that attitude toward CSA support was positively associated with intention to support companies practicing CSA, self-enhancement appeared to have strong direct and indirect effects on behavioral intentions. Self-enhancement, notably, is the strongest predictor of both attitudes and behavioral intentions among all predictor variables, which reinforces arguments from Jin et al. (2020). This indicates that what motivates people to support companies’ CSA efforts the most is their need for feeling good about themselves. While all three factors contribute, this emerges as the strongest predictor over pressure from peer groups or the ability to feel like a group’s efforts can actually enact change. Collective efficacy was a stronger predictor of attitude than behavioral intentions, although both were significant. Furthermore, this study neither predicted nor found a path from subjective norm to attitude. Rather, subjective norm directly predicted behavioral intentions (support for CSA). This can be explained by the theoretical tenets of the TPB, which argues that its intention is to predict behavior, not attitudes (Ajzen, 2005).
Theoretical Implications
This study offers theoretical implications for CSA scholarship. By employing self-enhancement theory, collective efficacy, and subjective norm, this study offers new theoretical explanations of individuals’ intention to support CSA. First, the results of this study indicate that individuals’ self-enhancement guides their intention to support CSA. Although previous studies have focused on organizational factors such as organizational reputations and perceived motives behind CSA, we examined how individuals’ self-motivation leads to their behavioral intentions. Consistent with previous studies’ findings, the results of this study indicate that individuals who have high self-enhancement values are more likely to engage in corporations’ prosocial behaviors. In other words, individuals who value self-enhancement would be more likely to support CSA to maintain positive self-esteem. In addition, this study applies collective efficacy to predict individuals’ CSA support. Although most previous studies focused on the role of collective efficacy in the context of employees’ CSR engagement and pro-environmental initiatives, we extended the relationship between collective efficacy and individuals’ support for organizational behaviors to broader stakeholders and CSA.
Furthermore, the mediating role of attitude offers a unique contribution to the CSA literature by identifying “individuals’ attitude toward the behaviors of supporting companies’ CSA initiatives” as an underlying mechanism that helps to explain the effect of collective efficacy on supporting CSA initiatives. Finally, in addition to self-enhancement and collective efficacy, we tested the relationship between subjective norm and support for CSA. In the context of CSA, previous research has demonstrated the link between subjective norm and positive behavioral intention, such as purchase intention and word of mouth (Dodd & Supa, 2014; 2015; Overton et al., 2020). However, this study offers a new contribution to the existing body of the literature by introducing subjective norm as a positive predictor of CSA support intention.
Practical Implications
This study offers important practical implications for companies who wish to increase their stakeholders’ approval of and support for their CSA efforts. Researchers have noted that companies must understand and consider individual differences to minimize potential risks when practicing CSA (Song & Choi, 2023). However, little work has been done to understand how individuals view CSA itself without other contextual factors (Ertekin & Dilek, 2022) since many previous studies focused on a specific CSA issue or campaign. Thus, this study was intended to test these individual level psychological factors with the absence of contextual factors, such as specific CSA issues or campaigns.
Given the polarized nature of CSA, companies are required to understand how their CSA will be viewed by various stakeholders. While most previous studies used demographics (e.g., individuals’ political affiliation or orientation) to identify who will support or disapprove a specific CSA, this study tested more psychological factors to elucidate the role of individual characteristics in stakeholders’ responses to CSA. While this study was concerned with individual level characteristics rather than focusing on specific stakeholder groups, these individual characteristics could help companies better predict how various stakeholders would react to their CSA. For example, if a company’s customers hold strong collectivism values, highlighting collective efficacy or subjective norm in CSA messages may motivate the stakeholder group to engage in CSA. It is also possible that individuals with high subjective norm or collective efficacy may be motivated to support companies’ CSA regardless of stakeholder groups they belong to. Thus, it is important to understand the positive role of self-enhancement, subjective norm, and collective efficacy when companies communicate about their CSA with various stakeholders. The results of this study suggest that the psychological factors tested in this study in general motivate individuals to positively react to CSA.
Based on the important role of self-enhancement, collective efficacy, and subjective norm in motivating individuals to support company’s CSA efforts, companies can increase their stakeholders’ CSA support by creating messages that highlight the importance of that individual’s actions related to a social-political issue and the impact of their support on the society and themselves. The positive relationship between self-enhancement and CSA support indicates that individuals may be motivated to support companies engaging in CSA to hold positive self-images. Thus, when companies communicate about their CSA efforts with their stakeholders, companies may consider to present people who share the same stance on a controversial socio-political issue as more positive and favorable to make those people feel positive about themselves. For example, African American-owned businesses who advocate for racial justice and support Black Lives Matter movement may receive greater support from their stakeholders when they present consumers who purchase from African American-owned businesses as a more socially conscious and responsible consumer.
The collective efficacy aspect underscores the importance of an individual feeling like their efforts are being supported among a larger group of people with a common goal. Similarly, the subjective norm factor reinforces social support for the efforts. Companies should also stress how individuals and companies could collectively inspire change. Since the nature of CSA is inherently political and controversial, it is possible that individuals may be reluctant to support a company’s CSA when they believe that their view is unpopular, or the company’s CSA is not supported by others well. Thus, the positive relationship between subjective norm and individuals’ CSA support may indicate that individuals would feel more confident and comfortable to support companies engaging in CSA when they are aware that other people also support CSA and believe that supporting CSA would be viewed favorably by others. To ensure that target stakeholders are aware of other people’s CSA support and feel supported, companies can highlight the existing public support for their CSA efforts. For example, depicting survey data that show public support for stricter gun control or the number of people who signed a gun control petition could lead individuals to feel confident about their stance, and thus to engage in CSA support more.
When these factors work in combination, companies have an opportunity to create a sense of community where both the company and individuals embrace a responsibility to create change and work together to do so. This way, individuals not only feel fulfilled by their own efforts, they recognize the expectation for them to contribute to societal solutions while feeling part of a collective group working toward the same goal. Related research has examined the idea of collective action as a social norm (Ostrom, 2000; Xiao & Overton, 2022) and recognizes it as an outcome of a process that integrates socio-psychological factors. This argument, when applied in the context of this study’s findings, allows companies to better understand both internal and external factors that contribute toward individuals’ behavioral intentions. Since individuals often look to brands to be leaders in CSA efforts, companies can appeal to supporters to work alongside them to support these efforts—whether through signing a petition, using platforms to raise awareness and/or share facts about the issue, or even peaceful protests. This could not only result in better awareness and word-of-mouth support from individuals–it could also result in stronger organization-public relationships as a whole.
Limitation and Future Directions
Although the results of this study offer important theoretical and practical contributions CSA scholarship, this study has limitations that should be noted. First, we investigated individuals’ motives to support CSA as well as their intention to support CSA without referencing an existing corporation or a specific social-political issue. While the purpose of this study was to examine factors that predict individuals’ intentions to support the concept of CSA in general, this intentional methodological decision certainly poses limitations. For example, study findings may not be applicable in every context, as individuals’ attitudes and behavioral intentions may vary across controversial issues on which companies take a public stand. An individual’s perceived social support may depend on the specific CSA issues and their significant social groups. For example, individuals who hold conservative political view may not think that their friends or family would want them to support companies advocating for gun control. However, these individuals may feel differently about a different issue. Future studies should examine the predictors of individuals’ support for CSA across different organizations and political issues. Lastly, this study may overlook other significant factors of predicting individuals’ CSA support. Although it was not within the scope of this study to examine individuals’ attitude toward a particular company or issue, individuals’ preexisting attitude or perceptions of an organization as well as an issue may affect their intention to support the organization’s CSA. Future studies should consider other potential factors in determining individuals’ intention to support CSA.
Despite the noted limitations, this study offers theoretical and practical guidance for companies to better understand what factors predict individuals’ intentions to support CSA. Given that CSA is inherently controversial and positions companies to risk alienating certain individuals who do not agree with companies taking stances, this study offers insight as to why individuals are (or are not) likely to support companies engaging in stance-taking and the various internal and external factors that contribute to individuals’ attitudes and behavioral intentions.
Joon Kyoung Kim, Ph.D., University of Rhode Island
Holly Overton, Ph.D., The Pennsylvania State University
Jackson Carter, Ph.D., Ouachita Baptist University
Khalid Alharbi, Ph.D., Al Imam Mohammad Ibn Saud Islamic University (IMSIU)