Purpose – This paper aims to investigate how consumers react to corporate managers publicly espousing an ideological belief regarding a social issue. In particular, this paper investigates anger derived by consumers as a mediator explaining why consumer attitudes change. Design/methodology/approach – An experiment was used to present respondents with a scenario about managers espousing specific ideological beliefs. All independent and dependent variables were measured. Variable relationships were analyzed utilizing general linear models to understand direct effects and bootstrapping to understand mediation. Findings – When made public, managers’ stances can make multiple, possibly competing, ideologies salient to consumers. Consumer reaction to a stance is most positive when held ideological beliefs are competing and consumers anchor on one ideology in agreement with the manager’s stance, leading to less anger and enhanced brand attitudes. When competing beliefs exist, consumers minimize the importance of dissonant beliefs. Further, preexisting brand attitudes provide a halo effect which helps to determine the amount of anger derived and any potential shift in brand attitude. Practical implications – This paper offers insights into when a reparative brand strategy may need to be structured after a manager’s ideological stance is made public. Not all of a company’s targeted demographic will take offense, and any reparative communications may need to focus on the consumer relationship with the brand rather than an outright apology. Originality/value – This paper adds to the literature investigating the intersection of ideology and marketing. This paper shows that there is an opportunity for managers to strategically shape marketing messages to capitalize on situations where consumers hold multiple, possibly competing ideological beliefs. Thus, this paper highlights that understanding consumers’ brand attitude shifts requires a more encompassing view of ideologies, as opposed to viewing them in isolation.
Purpose – This paper aims to investigate the effects of minorities’ who experienced discrimination on perceptions of offensiveness tied to brand imagery that stereotypically depicts other minorities classified as out-group members. Design/methodology/approach – Study 1 utilizes factor analysis to develop dependent variables, and a path analysis to model relationships between the focal independent variable (IV) and dependent variable (DVs). Study 2 uses an experimental approach analyzing data with ANOVA and bootstrapping methodologies. Findings – Minorities who report experiencing more discrimination perceive more offensiveness tied to branding containing overt stereotypical depictions of out-groups. This effect is mediated through a perceived sympathy for the out-group. However, while some minorities perceive these branded logos as relatively more offensive, minorities, as a group, do not perceive these stereotyped logos as overly offensive. Research limitations/implications – Minorities not depicted in or alluded to in stereotypical imagery associated with a brand may be a valuable consumptive bloc that can be recruited to oppose such uses of stereotypes. This research highlights that any sympathy that these minorities report holding for depicted minority groups may be important to future targeted communications. Brand managers may need to aggressively defend the brand against negative attributions derived from non-depicted minorities’ felt sympathy. Depicted minorities fighting to remove stereotypical imagery in brands may be able to leverage non-depicted minorities’ expressed sympathy to form coalitions. Depicted minorities’ communications, however, may need to increase issue relevance to non-depicted minorities. Originality/value – This research explores how non-affected groups perceive stereotypes infused in branding. It demonstrates that, depending on past experiences, these individuals may defend against a perceived social threat targeted at a societal out-group.
This article contributes to the literature on cross-cultural leadership by describing the development and validation of the Leadership Effectiveness in Africa and the Diaspora (LEAD) Scale. The LEAD Scale is a culturally sensitive measure of leadership effectiveness in the understudied settings of Africa and the African diaspora. A combination of methods and four studies using samples from Africa and the African diaspora based in Canada, the USA, and the Caribbean were used to develop the measure. Using the grounded theory approach and the Delphi technique ( n = 192), followed by a set of increasingly rigorous tests including exploratory factor analysis ( n = 441), confirmatory factor analysis ( n = 116), and a test of measure invariance ( n =1384), we developed and validated a culturally sensitive measure of effective leadership. Our results demonstrate that spirituality, tradition and community-centredness are important and culturally specific components of leadership in Africa and the African diaspora. This paper provides a validated measure of leadership and offers recommendations regarding the use of the measure by managers and researchers working in Africa or with African diaspora.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.