Examining Issue Polarization and Advocacy Congruity as Antecedents of Corporate Political Advocacy

Corporations worldwide are increasingly engaging in corporate political advocacy to foster awareness and action on various issues. However, there is a need for a deeper understanding of how consumers evaluate a company’s advocacy stance and respond to it. This study proposes and tests a theoretical model that examines issue polarization and advocacy congruity as antecedents influencing consumers’ behavioral responses, particularly through supportive activities on social media and buycotting. Additionally, the study explores public-serving motives as a mediating factor to explain the mechanisms driving consumers’ reactions to corporate political advocacy. The findings from a 2 (issue polarization: high vs. low) × 3 (advocacy congruity: low vs. moderate vs. high) between-subjects experiment with 728 nationally representative participants reveal that when companies advocate for highly polarized issues, such as reproductive rights, consumers’ perception of public-serving motives in the company’s advocacy stance significantly predicts their supportive behaviors. This effect is particularly pronounced when the company’s business aligns closely with the advocated issue. While there was no significant difference between high and moderate advocacy congruity, the results suggest that high advocacy congruity enables consumers to resolve the uncertainty associated with high-polarization issues more effectively than low congruity. These findings underscore the importance of selecting sociopolitical issues relevant to a company’s business operations.