Intention to Participate in Social Activism Activities in Response to Corporate Social Advocacy: A Third-Person Effect Perspective

ABSTRACT

Drawing on the theory of third-person effect (TPE) and the discrepancy motives model, the current study examined corporate social advocacy’s (CSA’s) influence on the public’s intention to participate in social activism activities in terms of boycott and discursive activities through consumers’ perceptions of CSA’s influence on in-groups and out-groups. Study 1 conducted a 3 (preexisting attitude: pro vs. neutral vs. anti) × 2 (CSA position: pro vs. anti) × 2 (corporate credibility: high vs. low credibility) between-subjects experiment. Participants reported higher third-person perceptions (TPP) when they held an attitude that countered the CSA message than when they were neutral or supportive of the CSA’s position. Study 2 utilized an online survey. The results reinforced Study 1 in suggesting attitude discrepancy as a significant predictor of TPPs. Study 2 also suggested that perceived negative and positive CSA influences predicted boycott intention and intention to participate in discursive activities, respectively. The results of the two studies enabled theoretical discussions of TPE research in a context when message recipients have divergent opinions of a media message and illuminated CSA’s role in mobilizing social activism relating to controversial issues.

Acknowledgement

This research is supported by the College of Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences, North Carolina A&T State University.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes

¹ The completion time cutoff is based on Qualtrics’ national research panel’s conventional practice. Malhotra (2008) suggested participants who filled out the questionnaire unnecessarily quickly were prone to primacy effects when answering questions using unipolar rating scales. However, it should be noted that this time cutoff is arbitrary. The analysis with the complete dataset with all participants included showed both H4 and H5 was partially supported (both negative TPP and perceived negative CSA influence significantly mediated the influence of preexisting attitude on boycott intention), while all the other results were the same as reported with the current cleaned dataset.

² A total of four mediation analyses were conducted on this dataset. If we conduct Bonferroni correction to control familywise error rates, results would be slightly different. When Bonferroni correction was implemented with α = .0125 and confidence intervals were calculated based on the z value of 2.5, mediated effect for perceived negative influence on in-groups are: low credibility: b = −.18, SE =.04, CI [−.28, −.08]; medium credibility: b = −.14, SE =.03, CI [−.22, −.07]; high credibility: b = −.10, SE =.05, CI [−.23, .03]. For negative CSA influence on out-groups: mediation effects are: low credibility: b = −.16, SE =.05, CI [−.29, −.04]; medium credibility (b = −.20, SE =.04, CI [−.30, −.10]; high credibility: b = −.23, SE =.06, CI [−.38, −.10]).

³ When Bonferroni correction was implemented with α = .0125 and confidence intervals were calculated based on the z value of 2.5, mediation effect for perceived positive CSA influence on intention to participate in discursive activities are: for perceived positive influence on in-groups: low credibility b = .05, SE =.02, CI [.00, .10]; medium credibility: b = .08, SE =.03, CI [.01, .16], high credibility: b = .11, SE =.05, CI [−.02, .24]; for perceived positive influence on out-groups: low credibility b = .07. SE =.02, CI [.02, .12]; medium credibility: b = . 09, SE =.03, CI [.02, .17], high credibility: b = .10, SE =.04, CI [<.001, .20].

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Xueying Zhang

Xueying Zhang (Ph.D., University of Alabama) is an assistant professor in the Department of Journalism and Mass Communication at North Carolina A&T State University. She conducted research on strategic communication, examining persuasive messaging, crisis communication, public opinions on controversial social issues, and strategic communication on social media. Her research has been published in premier peer-reviewed journals, including Mass Communication & Society, Public Relations Review and Health Communication