Let's Not Talk About That: Investigating Corporate Political Advocacy and Word of Mouth Among Liberals and Conservatives

ABSTRACT As political polarization becomes ever more pronounced, brands have been utilizing corporate political advocacy to capture target markets and enhance customer loyalty. Yet studies on how corporate political advocacy affects consumer responses have been limited. Our research focuses on how corporate political advocacy influences positive and negative word of mouth through the lens of social identification theory. Using a multi‐study design, we find that while political word of mouth is driven based on the alignment of political identities between consumers and brands, consumers' intentions to deliver word of mouth differ based on their tie strength with the intended target audience (i.e., strong, weak, or absent social ties), their own political identities, and their perceptions of a company's stance on issues. Our results provide both theoretical and practical contributions by improving our understanding of corporate political advocacy's effects on both consumers' positive and negative word of mouth intentions and how marketers can improve the effects of corporate political advocacy.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Consumer Behaviour
Published
2025-12-23
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1002/cb.70082
Primary Topic
Corporate Social Responsibility Reporting
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Let's Not Talk About That: Investigating Corporate Political Advocacy and Word of Mouth Among Liberals and Conservatives

Woojong Sim, Mark J. Arnold, William C. McDowell, Jeff Muldoon
Journal of Consumer Behaviour
Corporate Social Responsibility Reporting
article

Let's Not Talk About That: Investigating Corporate Political Advocacy and Word of Mouth Among Liberals and Conservatives

Woojong Sim, Mark J. Arnold, William C. McDowell, Jeff Muldoon
article en

Abstract

ABSTRACT As political polarization becomes ever more pronounced, brands have been utilizing corporate political advocacy to capture target markets and enhance customer loyalty. Yet studies on how corporate political advocacy affects consumer responses have been limited. Our research focuses on how corporate political advocacy influences positive and negative word of mouth through the lens of social identification theory. Using a multi‐study design, we find that while political word of mouth is driven based on the alignment of political identities between consumers and brands, consumers' intentions to deliver word of mouth differ based on their tie strength with the intended target audience (i.e., strong, weak, or absent social ties), their own political identities, and their perceptions of a company's stance on issues. Our results provide both theoretical and practical contributions by improving our understanding of corporate political advocacy's effects on both consumers' positive and negative word of mouth intentions and how marketers can improve the effects of corporate political advocacy.

Journal of Consumer BehaviourVol. 25(2)
Southeastern Louisiana University (US), Florida Gulf Coast University (US), Saint Louis University (US), Emporia State University (US)
Peace, Justice and strong institutions
Openalex Percentile: Top 26%
Corporate Social Responsibility Reporting
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Let's Not Talk About That: Investigating Corporate Political Advocacy and Word of Mouth Among Liberals and Conservatives — Woojong Sim, Mark J. Arnold, et al. · Journal of Consumer Behaviour (2025) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS