Authenticity and belief congruence: evaluating consumer responses to confrontational and nonconfrontational brand activism

Purpose This paper aims to investigate how confrontational (i.e. provocative or challenging messages) and nonconfrontational (i.e. inclusive, low-provocation messages) brand activism message framing influence perceived authenticity, brand attitudes, belief congruence and purchase intentions, focusing on addressing physical disability as a sociopolitical issue. Design/methodology/approach The study is conducted online with 917 German participants. They are randomly assigned to confrontational or nonconfrontational brand activism framing using fictitious press releases. Data are analyzed through confirmatory factor analysis and structural equation modeling to evaluate and compare the effects of the two message framings. Findings Authenticity positively affects brand attitude and purchase intention in both nonconfrontational and confrontational scenarios. Belief congruence only influences brand attitude in the nonconfrontational framing. The confrontational framing decreases perceptions of authenticity and belief congruence but increases purchase intention compared to the nonconfrontational approach. Research limitations/implications By jointly modeling authenticity and belief congruence, this study helps to demarcate the boundaries of message framing in brand activism and expands brand activism research beyond frequently researched hot-button issues. It enriches prior work by demonstrating that the specific framing of a brand-activist message can have a decisive impact on brand outcomes. Practical implications Organizations should prioritize authenticity in brand activism to enhance brand attitudes, strategically use nonconfrontational framing for attitude improvement, and consider confrontational messaging when aiming to boost purchase intentions, especially for less polarizing sociopolitical issues. Originality/value This study addresses two key gaps in brand activism literature by quantitatively comparing confrontational and nonconfrontational framing and by focusing on physical disability, an underexplored sociopolitical issue.