Search results

This paper aims to examine how and why consumers respond to chief executive officer (CEO) activism on social media. The authors developed a conceptual model that proposes impression management as a mechanism for consumer response to CEO activism.

In Study 1a, the authors examined 83,259 tweets from 90 CEOs and compared consumer responses between controversial and noncontroversial tweets. In Study 1b, the authors replicated the analysis, using a machine-learning topic modeling approach. In Studies 2 and 3, the authors used experimental designs to test the theoretical mechanism.

On average, consumers tend to respond more to CEO posts dealing with noncontroversial issues. Consumers’ relative reluctance to like and share controversial posts is motivated by fear of rejection. However, CEO fame reverses this effect. Consumers are more likely to engage in controversial activist threads by popular CEOs. This effect holds for consumers high (vs low) in public self-consciousness. CEO fame serves as a “shield” behind which consumers protect their online image.

The study focused on Twitter (aka “X”) in the USA. Future research may replicate the study in other social media platforms and countries. The authors introduce “shielding” – liking and sharing content authored by a recognizable source – as a tactic for impression management on social media.

Famous CEOs should speak up about controversial issues on social media because their voice helps consumers engage more in such conversations.

This paper offers a theoretical framework to understand consumer reactions to CEO activism.

This research aims to examine how religiosity influences consumers’ responses to rational versus emotional ad appeals.

Four experiments were conducted that examined how religiosity affected consumers’ responses (attitude toward the product, purchase intentions and brand trust) to rational versus emotional ad appeals, and how perceived fit between the ad appeal type and consumers’ information processing style mediated the effects.

The results show that consumers low in religiosity respond more favorably to rational (vs emotional) appeals because of these types of appeals being more congruent with their rational information processing style. In addition, there is no difference in consumer responses toward rational and emotional appeals for individuals high in religiosity.

In this research, the authors only used surveys and measured behavioral intentions rather than actual behaviors. Thus, future research should measure actual behaviors in the field to enhance the external validity of the observed effects. In addition, this research samples one primary culture that is more representative of Judeo-Christian religious beliefs. Therefore, future research should sample from other cultures and religious groups.

The results suggest that marketers should use rational rather than emotional appeals in their marketing communications to low religiosity consumers (identifiable through such means as demographic data for geographic regions or self-identified classifications on social media). Marketers can also prime low religiosity in their messages (e.g. using words such as “evolution”) and, when doing so, should couple that prime with a rational (vs emotional) appeal.

This research is novel in that it is the first, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, to examine how religiosity influences consumers’ responses to rational versus emotional ad appeals.

Given the growing prevalence of gun control policies in service settings, this study aims to investigate how the adoption of a gun control policy by a service business influences consumers’ evaluations of the service business.

Three experiments were conducted to examine how the adoption of a gun control policy by a service business influences consumers’ brand favorability of that service business and how value congruence (i.e. the alignment between a consumer’s own personal values and perceptions of the brand’s values) is the underlying mechanism.

This study documents several major findings. First, the authors find that the adoption of a gun control policy by a service business increases consumers’ brand favorability. Second, the authors highlight a boundary condition to this effect, such that a gun control policy actually decreases consumers’ brand favorability for people high (vs low) in support for gun rights. Third, the authors show that value congruence is the psychological process underlying these effects. Fourth, the authors generalize the focal effects to a real-world brand and demonstrate that the adoption of a gun control policy increases brand favorability for consumers low (vs high) in patronage behavior of the brand. Finally, the authors find that a pioneer brand strategy in the adoption of a gun control policy significantly increases brand favorability, whereas a follower brand strategy in the adoption of such a policy is less effective.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this research is the first to provide critical insight to service businesses as to how their position regarding guns influences consumers’ evaluations of the service business.